There is only one true church

[Brakelite]

Let me suggest that you guys are largely disputing semantics. Today the "Catholic Church" is distinguished from Protestant churches, and is rooted in the Papacy. In the first century, no Protestants (as opposed to some outliers who were deemed heretical) existed, and the Church was not rooted in the Papacy but, rather, in the apostles and their followers directly, and in Paul's disciples, with no obeisance to Peter or -- when he died in the mid-60s -- to Linus or to Clement or to whoever took up the bishopric in Rome (or in Antioch, or wherever else Peter may have traveled and installed a bishop).

What @Augustin56 calls "dynastic" in the office of the Pope, I don't see until much later. What @Brakelite calls "granted to her by the dragon," I don't see at all.

See here...https://www.christianityboard.com/threads/where-does-the-pope-get-his-authority.60258/page-51#post-1816563

 

[Brakelite]

There were Christian churches throughout Asia, etc., and North Africa. They were ALL Catholic Churches, however. There was NO OTHER Church.

Using personal interpretation of Scripture to make it mean what you want it to mean to bash Christ's Church is a really bad idea. First of all, it goes against Scripture. 2 Peter 1:20 says "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of Scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation"

The office of Pope was established by Jesus Christ in Matt. 16:18-19. Every first century Jew knew that the king always had a second-in-command, who ran the kingdom in the king's absence (away at war, visiting another kingdom, etc.) or when he was incapacitated (sick, injured, etc.). This second-in-command would rule in the king's place, and the king, upon his return, would uphold whatever the second-in-command had ruled. (See an example of this office in Isaiah 22:22.) This position of second-in-command was dynastic. If he died, then another was appointed in his place. In other words, it was an on-going position. (Like the Pope.) The symbol of the office of the second-in-command was a large (2-3 ft.) key or sometimes two keys, which he carried over his shoulder to let people know his authority. When Jesus gave Peter the "keys to the kingdom" He was establishing such a second-in-command position, because Jesus (Our King!), was going to ascend to heaven and He needed someone to run the Church here on earth until He returned.

One more thing to keep in mind... When Saul (St. Paul by his Hebrew name) was going around persecuting the Church, Jesus knocked him off his horse and asked him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" Note that Jesus didn't say, "...why do you persecute My Church?" which he was actually doing, but "...why do you persecute Me?" Jesus identifies as one with His Church! If you persecute Christ's Church, you persecute Christ! Christ's Church is the Catholic Church! There was NO OTHER Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity! Try learning a little history. You don't even have to look at Catholic authors. You can try, for example, the well-known Protestant Early Church historian, J.N.D. Kelly. Kelly admits that the Church was first and the only.

A catholic church would be a church that has voluntarily submitted to papal authority yes? You would be hard pressed to prove that the Celtic church, even beyond the time Augustine visited Britain, was at any time submitted to papal authority. That came later. Much later. And it wasn't voluntary. Arranged marriages, war and bloodshed, forced takeover of property, and threats were the Catholic methods of discipling the Celtic people and converting them to, well... Catholicism. Not Christianity. They were already that. Read d'Aubigne's History of the Reformation for more insight. Even beyond the 10th century, b the Celtic church in Wales was resisting the imposition of papal authority and doctrine. For example, the Celtic church for over 1000 years continued to honour the Bible sabbath, despite protestations from papal emissaries and monks and the pressures from Anglo Saxon pagan armies.

 

[Brakelite]

The better approach, in my opinion, is to focus on the inerrancy of the message of a given passage, rather than of the extraneous details with which the passage is adorned.

In other words, the writers were inspired, who then wrote the messages in their own words, according to their own language, custom, educational standard, and culture. God did not dictate Scripture. The writers of the bible were God's pen-men, not His pen.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Did the Holy Spirit write both Matt. 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Mark 6:8-9 and Matt. 10:10?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Mark 2:26 and 1 Samuel 21:1-6?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Matt. 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Matt. 8:28 and Luke 8:27?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Mark 9:1-2 and Luke 9:28?

Did the Holy Spirit write both 1 Samuel 31:4 and 2 Samuel 21:12?

Did the Holy Spirit write both 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 and 1 Samuel 16:10-11?

Did the Holy Spirit write both 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Matt. 1:6 and Luke 3:31?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Matt. 28:9 and John 20:17?

Yup.

Why do YOU have a problem with that??

 

[BreadOfLife]

No. It shouldn't be included as proof text because it doesn't support the position that you and I both share. Don't you bother to read what I post?

WRONG.
Paul explicitly equivocates Oral Tradition with Scripture (2 Thess. 2:15). He doesn’t simply “allude” to it.

Rejecting this fact doesn’t nullify it . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Goodness gracious. :)

Yes, Romans 9 ~ really 9-11 ~ is about God's purpose of election. And one very specific point Paul makes about God's purpose of election is that it does not depend on man's willing or anything he/she may or may not do. He says, "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy, " and regarding His mercy, Paul quotes Moses, who quotes God Himself as saying, "He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills." God does this of His own free will and accord, BreadOfLife, not conditional on anything man (or woman, of course) wills or does. 'Free will' and 'unconditional election' are really disparate concepts. Of course God does not make mistakes, but free will has nothing to do with whether God's election is unconditional. Calvin's "point" of unconditional election is his refutation of Arminius's mistaken point that God elects based on forseen belief, that it only depends on God's will. It has absolutely nothing to do with man's (or woman's) will at all, much less any freedom of will or lack thereof of man (or woman). And it absolutely refuted the mistaken idea that man's will or acting a.) determines God's will regarding... again... His ~ His ~ purpose of election of any one individual unto His salvation, or b.) merits His mercy/grace.

Again, God's election must be unconditional, because no man (or woman) can meet the one condition He does set, which is to be absolutely righteous/perfect/sinless as He is.

That’s only if you believe in the falsehood that we are all either predestined for Heaven or Hell.

As I stated before – God doesn’t frag anybody kicking and screaming into Heven – nor does He send anybody kicking and screaming into Hell. We either cooperate with His grace or we reject it (Rom. 11:22, Heb.10:26-27, 2 Pet. 3:17, 1 John 2:24, Rev. 3:5).

That's 1 Timothy 2:4. Yes, agreed; Paul and Peter in those two passages are writing about the very same principle. However, if we are to understand this in the way you are proposing or propagating, then we inevitably fall into universalism ~ that all will be saved ~ which is surely antithetical to Scripture.

I’m absolutely NOT proposing universalism.

I am stating very clearly that unless we cooperate with God’s grace, we cannot be saved.

When two people are on opposite sides of a fence with regard to understanding something, the only possibilities are that one is right and the other is wrong or that both are wrong, for sure, but in the case of Calvin's versus Arminius's understanding of soteriology, there is no other alternative, so only the former ~ that one is right and the other wrong ~ is the only case possible.

That is just a verbose way of saying, “I’m right because I SAY I’m right!”

They were BOTH wrong because they BOTH veered from Catholic teaching,
Calvin was just “more” wrong because his beliefs were more aberrant.

Right; in saying "Ah, so God is unable to overcome man's failure," BOL, I was responding in a rhetorical manner to ~ stating an absurd inference, as it were, from ~ your previous statement that "It's man who fails God." (bolding and "yelling" omitted... :)) For those whom He elects ~ according to His purpose of election, His will ~ God always, completely, unfailingly overcomes man's inevitable failure. This does not in any way conflict with or negate or at all trample upon man's will. As I've said many, many times, for man, it's a matter of the heart, which drives the will.

It's not about God overcoming or not overcoming.
It’s whether MAN overcomes by cooperating with with God’s grace or does not.
Rev. 3:5
He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.

God cannot blot out a name that was never there in the first place. He is talking about converted believers and how they can LOSE their salvation u their OWN undoing.

Sure, but His election... sorry, I'm going to bold and capitalize this,

Ummmm – I’m not the one who has a problem with formatting choices . . .

because you keep overlooking this... His election DOES NOT DEPEND ON OUR ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THIS GRACE OF SALVATION OR BEING BORN AGAIN OF THE SPIRIT. I underline "does not depend," here, BreadOfLife, because in that phrase, it implies an idea directly the opposite the notion that we don't freely choose or accept, but only that His election is not dependent upon our choosing or accepting.

It absolutely does.

The fact that God already knows who will be saved and who is condemned has nothing t do with Calvin’s false teaching that God wills and brings about the damnation of souls – even though Unconditional Election demands this.

Because He is NOT bound by the constraints of time - God sees ALL of eternity at the same time, like a finished painting. He knows who is saved and who is damned – but He didn’t coerce their destination.

Agreed, It's given.

And, as any gift – grace can be rejected . . .

These two sentences contradict each other, BreadOfLife. In His grace, because of the mercy He has on us as His elect, God gives us... clothes us in... credits us with... declares to us ~ thus imputing to us ~ the righteousness of Christ. Goodness gracious.

That’s wat I get for not proofreading . . .

I meant to say that righteousness is not something that is merely imputed on us.

It means that although we are credited with righteousness – we are also MADE innocent and guiltless by God.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yeah so now you're jumping to the concept of perseverance... It's actually not so strange, because as I've said... and I'm going to quote J.I. Packer (as of July of 2020, just short of his 94th birthday, deceased; a great British pastor and theologian) here, because it cannot be stated any clearer or better than this:

"...the very act of setting out Calvinistic soteriology in the form of five distinct points (a number due, as we saw, merely to the fact that there were five Arminian points for the Synod of Dort to answer) tends to obscure the organic character of Calvinistic thought on this subject. For the five points, though separately stated, are really inseparable. They hang together; you cannot reject one without rejecting them all, at least in the sense in which the Synod meant them. For to Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners. God—the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son and Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people, the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father’s will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of Father and Son by renewing. Saves—does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies. Sinners—men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God’s will or better their spiritual lot. God saves sinners—and the force of this confession may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man’s own, or by soft pedaling the sinner’s inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Saviour. This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the “five points” are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms to deny: namely, that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever; amen."

God gives us the ability to persevere in faith. What He doesn’t do is “force” us to persevere.

He gives us the grace to believe
He gives us the grace to love and serve our neighbor.
God gives – He doesn’t coerce . . .

They understand Scripture ~ regarding soteriology ~ very, very similar to the way Arminius did... and, as I have said, very, very similar to Pelagius (354–418) centuries before... who, in that day, held to a soteriology directly opposite ~ in the same way as Arminius to Calvin ~ to Augustine of Hippo, As Solomon says in Ecclesiastes, there's nothing new under the sun...

Then, you can say that Arminius’s beliefs were closer to what the Catholic Church has always taught than Calvin's. The Church preceded all of these men.

What YOU are claiming is tantamount to saying. “Copernicus was inspired by NASA in his conclusions about space.”
It’ the other way around . . .

Don't make something of God into something of man, BreadOfLife. Regarding God's gift of salvation... well, what Paul and Peter say is very appropriate here:

"If God is for us, who can be against us? ... Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? ... No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him Who loved us ... neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Paul, Romans 8:31-39)​

​

"He (God) Who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Paul, Philippians 1:6).​

​

"(God) has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." (Peter, 1 Peter 1:3-5).​

Sure – nobody can snatch us away from God.
However - the Bible says that we can lose our security by our OWN doing:

(Matt. 7:19-23, Matt. 10:22, Matt. 24:13, Matt. 25:31–46, John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:22, 1 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 9:27, 1 Cor. 10:12, 1 Tim. 4:1, 1 Tim. 4:16, 2 Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6, Heb. 3:12-14, Heb. 6:4-6, Heb. 10:26-27, 2 Pet. 2:20-21, 2 Pet. 3:17, 1 John 2:24, 1 John 5:13, Rev. 3:5, Rev. 22:19)

Hmmm. Now, if I were to do this, BreadOfLife, would this not be a statement regarding my own faithfulness... or, well, actually, my lack thereof? <smile> But God is absolutely, perfectly faithful... <smile> ...and overcomes our lack thereof, keeping us in Christ, and thereby... well, see directly above.

And nobody is questioning God’s faithfulness.

Rom. 8:12-14
For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but IF by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.”

1 Cor. 15:2
By this gospel you are saved, IF you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

Rev. 2:10
Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown

 

[BreadOfLife]

I wouldn't call the written law on tables of stone a mere symbol of God's Law and power. I would suggest strongly it is a written definition of it. A transcript even of God's character.
Making it merely a symbol however helps to explain the ease with which your church changed it, and boasts of it to this day.

Either way, it is NOT the Law. Sone is just what the Law was written on.

Jesus is the fulfilment of the Law (Matt. 5:17).

One might ask, "on who's authority do you believe any man can change God's commandments"?

Nobody “changed” God’s Commandment. Jesus FULFILLED it (Col. 2:16-17).
And He gave His Church supreme earthly Authority to speak on His behalf . . .

Matt 16:19, Matt. 18: 18
WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

Mmmm. Like the church employing armies to teach its version of the gospel and extend the church's power? The secular governments assisting the Church?

And you know, that there have been some bad leaders – but their misguided decisions were not matters of doctrine. If we are going to attack the Church for things that some if its leaders did – are we also going to do the same with your SDA sect??

Adventist Women's Ministries | Statement on Child Sexual Abuse
Healing the wounds of childhood sexual abuse - Adventist Record
Seventh-day Adventist Church Retaliates against Abuse Victim and her family.
Sex Abuse Cases: New Allegations | Adventist Today
Moncton woman sues Seventh-day Adventist Church over alleged sex abuse ...
Child sexual abuse - Adventist Record
Seventh-Day Adventist Child Molestation Lawsuit | SDA Sex Abuse Lawyer

 

[BreadOfLife]

The only authority the papacy received and may legitimately lay claim to was that granted to her by the dragon...
“And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. ”
Revelation 13:2 KJV

Nah – it was from Jesus Christ . . .

Matt 16:19, Matt. 18: 18
WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent ME, so I send YOU.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

 

[RedFan]

WRONG.
Paul explicitly equivocates Oral Tradition with Scripture (2 Thess. 2:15). He doesn’t simply “allude” to it.

Rejecting this fact doesn’t nullify it . . .

How does admonishing the Thessalonians to hold fast to what they have been "taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" equate oral tradition with Scripture? It equates oral teachings from Paul and his team (we weren't present, so we can only guess what those words were) as worthy of being followed the same as First Thessalonians -- a writing which he NEVER calls "Scripture." That's all 2 Thess. 2:15 says! Nothing more!

 

[RedFan]

Yup.

Why do YOU have a problem with that??

"Inspired" does not mean "dictated." "Inspired" guarantees theological truth, not factual inerrancy of minute details. Sooner or later you might figure this out. Maybe you won't, I don't know.

 

[Brakelite]

Nobody “changed” God’s Commandment.

I'm confused BoL. What are you using to justify Sunday observance? The Scripture, or tradition? Please explain to everyone what you mean by saying "Jesus fulfilled it".

“But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. ”
Matthew 15:13

The council of Trent was convened to find a solution to the broken dam before the lake of Catholicism, and the leaking of thousands of members to Protestantism. It was convened to find a refutation of the protestant claim of sola scriptura.
Finally, after a long and intensive mental strain, the Archbishop of Reggio came into the council with substantially the following argument to the party who held for Scripture alone: "The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestants' claim, that they stand upon the written word only, is not true. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false.

PROOF: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the Scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of 'Scripture alone as the standard,' fails; and the doctrine of 'Scripture and tradition' as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges."

The council of Trent applauded the bishop, and found justification for Sunday keeping through Protestant inconsistency in observing scripture. The bishop knew there was nothing in scripture to justify canning the Sabbath and exalting another day.

From Cardinal Gibbons’ book, The Question Box, p.179, “If the Bible is the only guide for the Christian, then the Seventh-day Adventist is right in observing Saturday with the Jew. Is it not strange that those who make the Bible their only teacher should inconsistently follow in this matter the tradition of the Catholic Church?”


One more statement taken from the book, The Faith of Millions, p. 473. “But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn’t it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistency but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the custom even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text from the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair.”

 

[Brakelite]

Nah – it was from Jesus Christ . . .

Matt 16:19, Matt. 18: 18
WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent ME, so I send YOU.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

Not according to Revelation 13. The beast, the composite beast that comprises remnants of Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman culture and philosophy and thus a synthesis of those pagan systems...
that existed as a union of church and state for precisely 1260 prophetic years (42 months) from 538AD to 1798AD (See also Daniel 7:25;12:7)...

that from it's inception in the 6th century persecuted other believers and therefore expressed as fruit the spirit of the dragon (see also Daniel 7:25)...

that blasphemes God by taking upon itself the prerogatives that belong only to God such as forgiveness of sin and changing God's laws (Daniel 7:8,20)...

Had one of its heads appear as if dead, but was healed (The capture of the Pope by the French in 1798, dissolving the papacy as a union of church and state, and beginning the healing process in 1928 which continues to this day, until in the near future "all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him" (submitting to his authority). This newly established power will be given it by the second beast of Revelation 13, protestant America.
“11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; (USA) Oand he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. ”
Revelation 13:11-12 KJV

The Pope could not exercise the authority he wanted in the 6th century, because the Goths ruled Rome, and required that the bishops seek their approval before installing a new pontiff. This grated on the church, who sought assistance from the emperor in getting rid of those pesky Barbarians, which Justinian was happy to oblige, and sent his general Belisarius to do the deed. After dealing with Rome's pesky barbarian neighbours to the south, the Vandals, the Goths became the next horn to be uprooted. (See Daniel 7 again) the Heruli were the third.

I know BoL, you will claim such things cannot apply to the papacy because they apply to Antiochus, or some individual in the future. But what you cannot deny is that all the criteria, everyone single one without exception, were fulfilled to the letter by Catholic Rome. None else could ever hope to meet every characteristic of the Revelation 13 entity... not in the past, nor in the future, except the papal system.
Rome's authority came from the dragon. Satan. The fruit of that authority is written in the blood of the martyrs across the pages of history for over 1000 years.

 

[BreadOfLife]

"Inspired" does not mean "dictated." "Inspired" guarantees theological truth, not factual inerrancy of minute details. Sooner or later you might figure this out. Maybe you won't, I don't know.

2 Tim. 3:16–17
ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Either ALL Scripture is God-breathed (Theopneustos) or it is NOT - YOUR lack of faith, notwithstanding . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

How does admonishing the Thessalonians to hold fast to what they have been "taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" equate oral tradition with Scripture? It equates oral teachings from Paul and his team (we weren't present, so we can only guess what those words were)

HUH??

Do you even have the smallest grasp of what “Oral Tradition” is?? It doesn’t depend on whether YOU were there or not.
As we see in the Bible - Oral Tradition has been utilized by God’s people from the OT:

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

as worthy of being followed the same as First Thessalonians -- a writing which he NEVER calls "Scripture." That's all 2 Thess. 2:15 says! Nothing more!

Soooo, because you refuse you accept the Scriptural mandate of Oral Tradition – you are now DELYING Scripture itself?? Are you implying that ANY of Paul’s Letters are NOT Scripture??

By whose Authority do YOU make that claim?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'm confused BoL.

You certainly are . . .

What are you using to justify Sunday observance? The Scripture, or tradition? Please explain to everyone what you mean by saying "Jesus fulfilled it".

“But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. ”
Matthew 15:13

I have already shown you where Paul explains this in his Epistle to the Colossians:

Col. M2:16-17
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

We see the same language used in Hebrews when speaking of “shadows” - the things that were fulfilled in Christ.

Heb, 10:1
For the law, having but a shadow (Gr.—skian) of the good things to come, and not the exact image (Gr.—eikona) of the objects, is never able by the sacrifices which they offer continually, year after year the same, to perfect those who draw near.

The shadow presupposes a fulfillment.
The fulfillment supersedes the shadow.

The council of Trent was convened to find a solution to the broken dam before the lake of Catholicism, and the leaking of thousands of members to Protestantism. It was convened to find a refutation of the protestant claim of sola scriptura.
Finally, after a long and intensive mental strain, the Archbishop of Reggio came into the council with substantially the following argument to the party who held for Scripture alone: "The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestants' claim, that they stand upon the written word only, is not true. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false.

PROOF: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the Scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of 'Scripture alone as the standard,' fails; and the doctrine of 'Scripture and tradition' as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges."

The council of Trent applauded the bishop, and found justification for Sunday keeping through Protestant inconsistency in observing scripture. The bishop knew there was nothing in scripture to justify canning the Sabbath and exalting another day.

From Cardinal Gibbons’ book, The Question Box, p.179, “If the Bible is the only guide for the Christian, then the Seventh-day Adventist is right in observing Saturday with the Jew. Is it not strange that those who make the Bible their only teacher should inconsistently follow in this matter the tradition of the Catholic Church?”

One more statement taken from the book, The Faith of Millions, p. 473. “But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn’t it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistency but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the custom even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text from the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair.”

And you are once again arguing from the man-made Protestant invention of Sola Scriptura, which is a Scripturally-untenable position.

This is what I LOVE about anti-Catholics – it’s your hypocrisy.
You drone on and condemn those “Catholic Traditions” - while clinging to the CATHOLIC Canon of Scripture.

Sunday observance, thew fulfillment of the Sabbath, is BOTH am Oran - AND a written Tradition (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2).

 

[PinSeeker]

That’s only if you believe in the falsehood that we are all either predestined for Heaven or Hell.

You don't believe that, as Paul says in Ephesians 1, God "chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him"...? You don't believe that "in love (God) predestined us for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved"...? I mean, that's straight Scripture, but, well, okay...

Now, there is no "predestining to hell" spoken of anywhere in Scripture. He predestines some for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ (see directly above), but not others. Those "others" He gives up to themselves... "(gives) them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator... (gives) them up to dishonorable passions" (Romans 1:24-26).

I am stating very clearly that unless we cooperate with God’s grace, we cannot be saved.

Yes, and that would seem to be a very clear refutation of what Jesus Himself says regarding who can be saved, which is, "With man this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible."

Now, in the sense that our willing "cooperation" comes about because we are saved ~ because we are born again of the Spirit and thus "His (God's) "workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:4-10), then I agree with what you say.

They were BOTH wrong because they BOTH veered from Catholic teaching,

<eye roll>

Calvin was just “more” wrong because his beliefs were more aberrant.

LOL!

It's not about God overcoming or not overcoming...

It is. And if God overcomes, then man, who is born again of and empowered by the Spirit, will.

God cannot blot out a name that was never there in the first place.

Absolutely agree. But didn't God write that book...? :)

He is talking about converted believers and how they can LOSE their salvation u their OWN undoing.

Converted believers ~ because their conversion is God's work in them ~ cannot lose their salvation. "The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29).


PinSeeker: His election DOES NOT DEPEND ON OUR ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THIS GRACE OF SALVATION OR BEING BORN AGAIN OF THE SPIRIT

It absolutely does.

It does not, BreadOfLife. These are not my words, but Paul's (and thus God's, as all Scripture is God-breathed): "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Romans 9:16). Certainly, you can deny that all you want, but I would not advise it. <smile>

The fact that God already knows who will be saved and who is condemned ...

So God "looks forward in time and sees" who will choose Him and who will not, and saves them based on that foreknowledge. That's very, very Arminian... and right along the lines of what Pelagius said centuries before... and very opposite what Augustine ~ who Catholics revere ~ and of course Paul (see above) taught.

has nothing to do with Calvin’s false teaching that God wills and brings about the damnation of souls – even though Unconditional Election demands this.

That God "has mercy on whomever He wills, and hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:18) cannot be denied. And that God "chose (some) in Him before the foundation of the world, that (they) should be holy and blameless before Him," that "He predestined (some) for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will" (Ephesians 1:4-5) cannot be denied. These are Paul's words, not Calvin's. Well, they can be denied, but only with absolutely no credibility. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

I meant to say that righteousness is not something that is merely imputed on us.

LOL! Well, this imputation of Christ's righteousness to us is no mere thing, for sure... <smile>

It means that although we are credited with righteousness – we are also MADE innocent and guiltless by God.

'Imputed' is a synonym of 'credited', BreadOfLife. <smile> To impute something to someone is to ascribe that something to someone by virtue of the quality in another. So, Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us.

In addition here, I don't think any further argument should be made of this... and you might even say I'm splitting hairs here, but there have been multiple times in this conversation where you've said something, and I have clarified, and you then said, "Oh yes, that's what I meant to say," and hopefully this is one of them... <smile> ...but rather than "made" innocent and/or guiltless ~ because we are not innocent or guiltless ~ we are declared innocent and/or guiltless ~ placed in Christ and declared righteous in Him... by God, of course. In Christ, we are justified. And this is a once-and-for-all event, when we are called (or immediately prior to being called, if you prefer) inwardly by God through the working of His Spirit. Thus, we are converted to Christ, born again of the Spirit. But in being declared righteous in Christ, even while we are sinners, we are justified by God; this our justification. And you know what will follow, inevitably; as Paul says in Romans 8, since we are justified, we will be glorified. From that point on, nothing ~ nothing ~ can or will ever separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. And this is our eternal security, which leads to the next point:

God gives us the ability to persevere in faith.

He gives us His Spirit, who enables us to persevere, else we would not. So yes, but this is the power of God that is at work within us. As Paul says in Philippians 2:12-13, "...it is God Who works in us, both to..." ~ or so that we ~ "...will and to..." ~ so that we ~ "...work for His good pleasure" and Peter in 1 Peter 1:5, "by God’s power (we) are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." The word perseverance can be somewhat confusing to some because it of the misunderstanding that "God has started something, and now it is our turn: we must persevere." The biblical teaching, however, is that God has done something; God is doing something; and God will do something. The God who starts is the God who finishes. And that's what Paul says in Philippians 1:6... “He Who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”

Jesus reminds us in John 10 of the confidence and comfort we have in being united to Him in salvation. John writes that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that He knows His sheep, and they know and follow Him (John 10:1–16). Jesus provides a striking and clear statement on our security in salvation. Jesus says, “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand” (John 10:28). Would you imagine Jesus to have said here, "no one will snatch them out of My hand... although they might snatch themselves by a failure to persevere"...? Surely not. Again, we persevere because we have the Spirit, Who, unfailingly, enables us to persevere.

And, Paul, at the end of Romans 8, says, "in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him Who loved us... neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:37-39). Would you imagine Paul be saying here, "nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord . . . except for our own weakness”...? Again, surely not.

What He doesn’t do is “force” us to persevere.

Of course not. No one suggests such a thing.

However - the Bible says that we can lose our security by our OWN doing...

We cannot. Not even we ourselves can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. So you would postulate that we can snatch ourselves out of Jesus's hand? Disagree; see above. If anyone "loses his or her security," he or she was never really "secured" by God. This is what John is saying in 1 John 2:18-19, that "many antichrists have come... They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."

The question at any time regarding any one person is who (or Who) his or her father is... who or Who he or she is of. Because that is whose (or Whose) will he or she will do. Remember what Jesus says to the Jews who had believed Him in John 8:31, “If you abide in My word, you are truly My disciples." So, unmistakably, we abide in His word ~ of our own will, of course ~ because we are His disciples, not the other way around.

And in John 15:16, Jesus says to His disciples, "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you."

So ~ back to John 8 ~ Jesus turns to those Jews who had not believed Him and said, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of My own accord, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires" (John 8:42-44).

As for us, we want to ~ it is our will to ~ serve God and do His will ~ because He is our Father, because we have been born again of the Spirit. and, again from Philippians 2:13, "it is God who works in (us), both to (so that we) will and to (so that we) work for His good pleasure." This, BreadOfLife, is the fruit of the Spirit ~ Galatians 5:22-23 ~ which we Christians bear because the Spirit bears it in us and through us, which is exactly how God, through the prophet Ezekiel, said it would be: "I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules" (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Grace and peace to you.

 

[RedFan]

2 Tim. 3:16–17
ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Either ALL Scripture is God-breathed (Theopneustos) or it is NOT - YOUR lack of faith, notwithstanding . . .

Surely you agree with me that 2 Tim. 3:16-17's reference to "Scripture" was a reference to ONLY the OT.

 

[RedFan]

HUH??

Do you even have the smallest grasp of what “Oral Tradition” is?? It doesn’t depend on whether YOU were there or not.
As we see in the Bible - Oral Tradition has been utilized by God’s people from the OT:

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Soooo, because you refuse you accept the Scriptural mandate of Oral Tradition – you are now DELYING Scripture itself?? Are you implying that ANY of Paul’s Letters are NOT Scripture??

By whose Authority o YOU make that claim?

I TOTALLY accept oral tradition! How many times do I need to say it? The ONLY thing you and I disagree on here is whether 2 Thess. 2:15 is or is not evidence of that fact. It's NOT!!!! READ THE VERSE, WOULD YOU PLEASE?