Once Saved....always Saved - Results of Questionnaire.

[BreadOfLife]

BOL:

Ok the subject of belief and disbelief: My second redo commentary of this verse of yours you pose for OSNAS

(Rom 11:20-23) That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. (ESV)

You most probably have homed-in on what you think means a loss of salvation in the phrases ‘severity toward those who have fallen,’ and most probably the phrase ‘continue in his kindness.’ (Verse 22).
Please let me enlighten you again. It has nothing to do with falling from salvation.

If you bothered to look at the context and it is obvious you have not, you will note the theme is about two sets of people’s beliefs and disbeliefs in God that brings salvation or not; the ethnic Israelites and the non-ethnic Israelites and other people.

Paul was discussing the loss of salvation for his people and now is admitting this fact to people that are not Israelites. He further expounds on why. It is because of their unbelief as a group of people. He says that God has the same standard for the ‘new’ people of God. He is speaking of most people in each group. Not that every individual in each group rejected/ will reject God! We know that is not true.

He was using the symbol of the natural olive tree and the natural branch and wild branch being grafted back into the tree due to belief or disbelief.

BL: Disbelief as applied to the majority in the group and you will not gain salvation and be cut-off the tree.

Belief as applied to the majority in the group and you will gain salvation and be grafted in/ back in the tree.

Note that Paul is not addressing individuals from either group of people that were credited with belief, faith and thus salvation. This is important to realize.

So, you cannot also deduce that a person or a collective people can believe one time and disbelieve later. It never says this.

Applicable to both groups of people then and today, is the fact that both had knowledge, had enlightenment although not many with sustaining faith. Therefore, these individuals within either group rejected or will reject God. They were/will be ‘cut off’ from the natural vine and therefore NEVER had/have salvation.

Now individuals from both groups all had/ have knowledge, enlightenment and committed sustaining faith, they believed/ will believe God and/or the gospel. They did not just have a belief that extended as far as some mental exercise or secular knowledge or enlightenment. They committed themselves to God as God dictated. They have/had salvation because of their firm faith. They made the leap of faith that sustains (verse 20) to eternal salvation.

BL: disbelief means lacking faith that does not produce regeneration of the heart or rebirth and thus no salvation. They never had salvation to lose.

Belief means having sustaining faith that does produce regeneration of the heart or rebirth and thus salvation. Their belief was sustained through faith with firm hope of salvation.

You cannot lose salvation if you really believe which is not the type of belief that is just a non-committal belief without real faith to be reborn.

I believe this is where you are getting hung up. Your definition of belief means at any degree. You consider the word belief to any degree, as always credited toward salvation only. The common belief in fact has always been towards a mental exercise only, that lacks faith, merits no acceptance of the gift of God and salvation, as I have just explained above.

Belief is not just to any degree. It means a total commitment to the life with God and Jesus that brings a firm faith and rebirth.

Are you reborn BOL?

APAK

That's a pretty verbose response for somebody who isn't reading the text.
Paul is talking to the ROMANS - the gentiles in Rome.
Romans 11:22
“See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to YOU, provided YOU remain in his kindness; otherwise YOU to will be cut off.”

The "YOU" he is talking about are the Christians in Rome.
What happens to a Christian who is "cut off" by God?? He is LOST.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Like I said BOL, true history is hidden from Catholics. It is rewritten and perverted and revised to protect the system from what would be total revolution if it became known. I would suggest, if you dare, and if they stock them, a local library. One not run by the local parish or the school or university you attended. Or better still, try online. There are numerous well written and well known history books with great detail and many genuine references from real historians that have documented the history of not just your church, but of those people who were relentlessly and systematically pursued, deprived of property, separated from family, just for owning a hand-written copy of a portion of scripture in their own language. They were the lucky ones. The ones that got caught, were murdered, but not until they were tortured and spent years in dungeons and castle strongholds with nothing but vermin for company. Read some history. Educate yourself. Here's some suggestions, and the proof you demanded. Start with a PDF "The Jesuits in History" by Hector MacPherson. "50 Years in the Church of Rome" by Chinoquey. "The Secret History of the Jesuits" by Edmund Paris. "History of the Christian Church" by Philip Schaff. "The History of Romanism" by John Dowling. "History of the Reformation" by deAubigne "History of Protestantism" by J A Wylie or "The History of the Waldenses" by Wylie. That should be enough to keep yu going for a while. All free...all available on the internet, I think.

Noooo, you're not going to get away with making these irresponsible and dishonest claims by ordering me to read some books.
YOU made the claims on this forum so YOU need to be held accountable.

YOU stated that people were arrested by the Catholic Church for simply "reading" the Bible.
PROVE it.

YOU made the claim that people were put to death by the Catholic Church for simply "debating" about religious matters.
PROVE it

YOU claimed that non-Catholics are referred to as "heretics" - and that the halt of this practice is something "new".
PROVE it.

Finally - YOU claimed that Scripture tells people to "come out" of the Catholic Church.
PROVE it.

Don't simply order me to read a stack of books.
If YOU are gong to make these asinine claims - the onus is on YOU to explain your way out of it.

 

[APAK]

That's a pretty verbose response for somebody who isn't reading the text.
Paul is talking to the ROMANS - the gentiles in Rome.
Romans 11:22
“See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to YOU, provided YOU remain in his kindness; otherwise YOU to will be cut off.”

The "YOU" he is talking about are the Christians in Rome.
What happens to a Christian who is "cut off" by God?? He is LOST.

BOL: I am verbose you say. Too many words for you to comprehend, aye. I am not reading the text you say. Quite an ignorant and hypocritical statement coming from a person of few words that says something like you previously did, salt that is bad means a loss of salvation.

I wrote a commentary of your verse or did you not realize it. That's right you might have to look up the word 'commentary,' I guess. No time I guess or not inclined to read other comments except those of your own. A man of few words right?

Man you are so blind, of course I said Paul was talking about non-ethical Israelites and others as you called 'gentiles.' Do you have a hard time understanding what folks write when it is not written exactly as you write or think? Simple minded are we?

Yes, YOU underlined, does means a collection of people, not one individual as I stated and I guess, you meant. And then you say in your next line of your response Paul is speaking to one individual, a Christian. You do not make any sense at all. Did you know what you wrote?

I believe you have be intellectually challenged. Paul is precise on his audience and you cannot even get that right.​

You completely ignored what 'belief' and 'unbelief' mean in regards to salvation for a collection of people.

You just keep parroting and grunting out the same meaningless rubbish without engaging in any meaningful debate. I don't whether you are doing more harm to others or yourself.


APAK

 

[APAK]

APAK ~ I highly doubt you will have success in sharing an understanding with BOL.

Scripture teaches, a beginning of enlightment and then if the individual elects to accept the Lords gift of Salvation...they do so By ACCEPTING the Lord....and thereafter they become Forgiven and blessed with the Gift of Salvation and the RE-BIRTH of their spirit.

From the perspective of Catholics I have spoken to; What was taught to them is;
The parents decide and make the ACCEPTANCE of the Lord FOR their BABY.

The Baby grows, being taught it is saved and born again.

The Child / Adults commits acts, Scripture calls a SIN. It is a constant fear they may LOSE their salvation. So they repeatedly attend Mass and Confession....and repeatedly;
Announce they have Sinned; and ACCEPT Jesus and ASK for forgiveness.

Scripture teaches for INDIVIDUALS to;
1) Become enlightened;
2) Be SURE of their elections to Accept the Lord, BEFORE they confess to Accept Him
3) Confess their Sin to the Lord and ACCEPT Jesus ONCE and Become Saved and Born Again ONCE, and thereafter the Lord is Forever with them and they with the Lord.

Scripture also teaches, to DO that a Second time, is to SHAME Jesus. Heb:6:6

Catholics teach the Parent decides FOR the Child.
Catholics teach christened babies are SAVED and BORN AGAIN.
Catholics teach one must repeatedly ACCEPT Jesus.
Catholics teach the Lord must repeatedly FORGIVE their sins.

IMO, that is a carefully crafted teaching designed to promote the Lord is not trustworthy, and they had rather put their trust in the word of "their infallible lord god holy father", the Pope.

God Bless,
Taken

Taken...I reckoned as much, I still replied back to him with little hope of any real debate and consideration for the other person trying to have a conversation with him. Yes it is very frustrating, indeed.

Bless you,

APAK

 

[mjrhealth]

Yes it is very frustrating, indeed.

When you talk to a wall and you dont expect any answer, its not so frustrating and it shouldnt be, its not your job to change him.

 

[BreadOfLife]

BOL: I am verbose you say. Too many words for you to comprehend, aye. I am not reading the text you say. Quite an ignorant and hypocritical statement coming from a person of few words that says something like you previously did, salt that is bad means a loss of salvation.

I wrote a commentary of your verse or did you not realize it. That's right you might have to look up the word 'commentary,' I guess. No time I guess or not inclined to read other comments except those of your own. A man of few words right?

Man you are so blind, of course I said Paul was talking about non-ethical Israelites and others as you called 'gentiles.' Do you have a hard time understanding what folks write when it is not written exactly as you write or think? Simple minded are we?

Yes, YOU underlined, does means a collection of people, not one individual as I stated and I guess, you meant. And then you say in your next line of your response Paul is speaking to one individual, a Christian. You do not make any sense at all. Did you know what you wrote?

I believe you have be intellectually challenged. Paul is precise on his audience and you cannot even get that right.​

You completely ignored what 'belief' and 'unbelief' mean in regards to salvation for a collection of people.

You just keep parroting and grunting out the same meaningless rubbish without engaging in any meaningful debate. I don't whether you are doing more harm to others or yourself.
APAK

Where did I ever say tat Paul was addressing ONE Christian??
I said: "The "YOU" he is talking about are the Christians in Rome."

At the very least - try to be honest.

As for the rest of your diatribe - the reason I said it was "verbose" is because you kept repeating your error.
Christians who are "cut off" by God are people who have LOST their salvation - and you haven't been able to show otherwise . . .

 

[APAK]

Where did I ever say tat Paul was addressing ONE Christian??
I said: "The "YOU" he is talking about are the Christians in Rome."

At the very least - try to be honest.

As for the rest of your diatribe - the reason I said it was "verbose" is because you kept repeating your error.
Christians who are "cut off" by God are people who have LOST their salvation - and you haven't been able to show otherwise . . .

BOL:

I was honest with you...here's you previous reply...letter by letter..

"That's a pretty verbose response for somebody who isn't reading the text.
Paul is talking to the ROMANS - the gentiles in Rome.
Romans 11:22
“See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to YOU, provided YOU remain in his kindness; otherwise YOU to will be cut off.”

The "YOU" he is talking about are the Christians in Rome.
What happens to a Christian who is "cut off" by God?? He is LOST. "

DO YOU SEE YOUR LAST LINE..".to A Christian.:.enough said..you figure it out

APAK out

 

[BreadOfLife]

BOL:

I was honest with you...here's you previous reply...letter by letter..

"That's a pretty verbose response for somebody who isn't reading the text.
Paul is talking to the ROMANS - the gentiles in Rome.
Romans 11:22
“See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to YOU, provided YOU remain in his kindness; otherwise YOU to will be cut off.”

The "YOU" he is talking about are the Christians in Rome.
What happens to a Christian who is "cut off" by God?? He is LOST. "

DO YOU SEE YOUR LAST LINE..".to A Christian.:.enough said..you figure it out

APAK out

It's difficult for me to believe that you can be this dense.

I said that Paul was referring to Roman ChristianS.
I then asked YOU, "What happens to a Christian that is cut off by God?"

I never stated that Paul was only talking to ONE person.
Pay attention to the conversation.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I don't argue the point for fun - even though sometimes it's a real hoot.

As I've said many times - I am here to expose lies and myths about the Catholic Church - which are FAR more prevalent than lies and myths about ANY other group. There are a LOT of people who come to these forums seeking the truth and it would be a shame to simply allow these moronic attacks to go unexposed.

When I was younger and much more uneducated about my faith - I watched as my siblings were seduced out of the Church one by one - by the SAME lies and fairy tales that I am now equipped to answer. I hate to see that happen - even to total strangers.

The pope is not my daddy

 

[Dcopymope]

The pope is not my daddy

HA!!! Sure as hell ain't my daddy either.

 

[brakelite]

Noooo, you're not going to get away with making these irresponsible and dishonest claims by ordering me to read some books.
YOU made the claims on this forum so YOU need to be held accountable.

YOU stated that people were arrested by the Catholic Church for simply "reading" the Bible.
PROVE it.

YOU made the claim that people were put to death by the Catholic Church for simply "debating" about religious matters.
PROVE it

YOU claimed that non-Catholics are referred to as "heretics" - and that the halt of this practice is something "new".
PROVE it.

Finally - YOU claimed that Scripture tells people to "come out" of the Catholic Church.
PROVE it.

Don't simply order me to read a stack of books.
If YOU are gong to make these asinine claims - the onus is on YOU to explain your way out of it.

Why not educate yourself? I didn't invent my knowledge, it came from reading history. I am just suggesting you do the same. Goodness, I don't expect you to accept anything I say verbatim, even if I'm discussing theology, I would expect anyone to double check with a reliable source, aka the Bible, that what I say is true. Same with history. What better proof can I suggest than reliable history books? What do you expect me to produce here that will convince you more than what a qualified historian and scholar of history can show you? You want proof? Go to the source.

 

[brakelite]

YOU stated that people were arrested by the Catholic Church for simply "reading" the Bible.
PROVE it.

Actually, if you did as I suggested you would understand the context of what I am talking about. The only scriptures available during the dark ages was what was chained to the pulpit in Catholic churches, or in universities run and operated by Catholic clergy. These all were in Latin. No common person could read them. Thus if someone was found with a Bible, it was invariably written in a language of the reader, the common tongue, whether it be German, Itala, English, whatever. And as well, because they were so expensive and so rare, they were not the entire Bible, but merely portions of scriptures. These BOL people were indeed persecuted for possessing. And those who wrote them, those who translated them, were also persecuted. Even their dead and buried bones exhumed from the grave, burned, and thrown aside as of a bucket of garbage.

YOU made the claim that people were put to death by the Catholic Church for simply "debating" about religious matters.
PROVE it

Again, read history. But it was a fact that if you were a Christian in a Catholic country but was not in submission to papal decrees and doctrines, then you were extremely careful about exhibiting your faith openly. Same for a Catholic in early Protestant England. Like I said, both were in danger of being burnt if discovered. Debating would most assuredly have uncovered their true colours.

YOU claimed that non-Catholics are referred to as "heretics" - and that the halt of this practice is something "new".
PROVE it.

19th century new enough for you? Or how about pre Vatican 2? I am sure I could find some evidence of Rome calling one such as I a heretic if I dug deep enough. Why, I think if I ventured onto a Catholic operated forum and spoke openly of my beliefs the charge of heresy would be very quick in coming.

Finally - YOU claimed that Scripture tells people to "come out" of the Catholic Church.
PROVE it.

Sure. The Way

 

[Helen]

When you talk to a wall and you dont expect any answer, its not so frustrating and it shouldnt be, its not your job to change him.

"With God all things are possible." Not one is ever passed help.
Love will always win the day.

As for BOL...just because we don't believe the same things the very same way, does not mean that God has struck anyone out. :)

We may not understand ...but God does.
I believe God has him in His hand. His heart is after God. God sees what man cannot see. 'There, but for the grace of God....'

....H

 

[BreadOfLife]

The pope is not my daddy

When did I say that he was your "daddy"??
Pay attention and stick to the conversation, Rollo.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why not educate yourself? I didn't invent my knowledge, it came from reading history. I am just suggesting you do the same. Goodness, I don't expect you to accept anything I say verbatim, even if I'm discussing theology, I would expect anyone to double check with a reliable source, aka the Bible, that what I say is true. Same with history. What better proof can I suggest than reliable history books? What do you expect me to produce here that will convince you more than what a qualified historian and scholar of history can show you? You want proof? Go to the source.

Then SHOW me - from history - the evidence for the following claims YOU made:

-YOU stated that people were arrested by the Catholic Church for simply "reading" the Bible.
PROVE it.

-YOU made the claim that people were put to death by the Catholic Church for simply "debating" about religious matters.
PROVE it

-YOU claimed that non-Catholics are referred to as "heretics" - and that the halt of this practice is something "new".
PROVE it.

-Finally - YOU claimed that Scripture tells people to "come out" of the Catholic Church.
PROVE it.

If you can't back up your so-called "historical" statements - then your claims are as empty and impotent as your anti-catholicism . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Actually, if you did as I suggested you would understand the context of what I am talking about. The only scriptures available during the dark ages was what was chained to the pulpit in Catholic churches, or in universities run and operated by Catholic clergy. These all were in Latin. No common person could read them. Thus if someone was found with a Bible, it was invariably written in a language of the reader, the common tongue, whether it be German, Itala, English, whatever. And as well, because they were so expensive and so rare, they were not the entire Bible, but merely portions of scriptures. These BOL people were indeed persecuted for possessing. And those who wrote them, those who translated them, were also persecuted. Even their dead and buried bones exhumed from the grave, burned, and thrown aside as of a bucket of garbage.

And this claim is garbage.

Let's start with the fact that Bibles were chained to pulpits because they were HANDWRITTEN and very rare and expensive to come by. This wasn't an attempt to keep the Word "out" of the hands of the people. Over 85% of the "people" in those ages were ILLITERATE anyway and would hardly have any use for a Bible. One Third of the world today is functionally illiterate.

NOBODY was ever punished for "reading" the Bible. They were punished for perverting the Bible by writing spurious translations and teaching heresy.

Again, read history. But it was a fact that if you were a Christian in a Catholic country but was not in submission to papal decrees and doctrines, then you were extremely careful about exhibiting your faith openly. Same for a Catholic in early Protestant England. Like I said, both were in danger of being burnt if discovered. Debating would most assuredly have uncovered their true colours.

Simply DEBATING Catholic teaching never garnered anybody a punishment, let alone a death sentence.
You will have to show me PROOF of this moronic claim.

19th century new enough for you? Or how about pre Vatican 2? I am sure I could find some evidence of Rome calling one such as I a heretic if I dug deep enough. Why, I think if I ventured onto a Catholic operated forum and spoke openly of my beliefs the charge of heresy would be very quick in coming.

WRONG.
Your lack of homework keeps digging you into a deeper hole.

the definition of a "heretic" is a CATHOLIC who espouses heresy - NOT a Protestant who espouses heresy.
I short - you have to be a Catholic to be considered a heretic by the Catholic Church.

Your Protestant Fathers were all CATHOLICS, and were therefore, considered to he heretics.
Do your homework . . .

Sure. The Way

No, Brakelite - you don't get to pass the buck.

I asked YOU to show me where the BIBLE says to come out of the Catholic Church.
If YOU can't show me that - then, you're just another angry little anti-Catholic with ZERO evidence . . .

 

[Taken]

... another angry little anti-Catholic . .

In observance of the swinging door....

More sentiments from another angry little anti-Protestant...

God Bless,
Taken

 

[mjrhealth]

"With God all things are possible." Not one is ever passed help.
Love will always win the day.

As for BOL...just because we don't believe the same things the very same way, does not mean that God has struck anyone out. :)

We may not understand ...but God does.
I believe God has him in His hand. His heart is after God. God sees what man cannot see. 'There, but for the grace of God....'

....H

So did Saul, im waiting...

 

[Taken]

"With God all things are possible." Not one is ever passed help.
Love will always win the day.

Agree.

As for BOL...just because we don't believe the same things the very same way, does not mean that God has struck anyone out. :)

With BOL;
People Disagree with some of the Catholic's practices of his denomination.

No one accused him of not loving the Lord.
No one said they did not love Catholics.

He brought up the "anti" and "love"; implying what "anti" implies concerning being Against Love, implies not loving Catholics: and takes disagreement with Catholic practices, to mean not loving Catholics, because of their practices; which is pretty clear; and which is false.

Catholics seem to imply; ALL Catholics believe the exact same things. They don't, just as ALL people who are called Protestants do not believe the exact same things.

I once asked a young man if he was a Christian. He said to me no; he was a Catholic. I asked what then is a Catholic.
He said to me; he couldn't explain except that he was born a Catholic, and then born again when he was a baby, and so, he was one of Gods people.
I asked him if he sinned; he said yes, all the time. I asked him if it was okay for him to do wrong all the time; he said yes, because all he had to do was go to the confessional booth and the Priest would forgive him for sinning.

If this is not Catholic teaching; there are those professing to BE Catholics and believing this is the way of a Catholic.

And will add, routinely, TV programs, Movies, that attempt to portray a Christian aspect, seem to always use the ornate backdrop of A Catholic Church, hand gestures, doing wrong and getting a secret forgiveness for their wrongs against other men, from a Priest.

Always curious to me....what about the one who was wronged? Where is their forgiveness being asked for or given or restitution in this equation?

We may not understand ...but God does.

I believe the Lord is quite clear.
We are with Him, or we are Against Him.
Matt 12:30
He that is not with me is AGAINST me;


And "once" "the INDIVIDUAL has accomplished electing" to BE WITH the Lord; the Lord Keeps that man forever WITH Him.

1 Thes 1:4
Knowing; brethren beloved YOUR ELECTION of God.

John 14:16
And I pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter (ie Holy Spirit), that he may abide with you FOR EVER.

Heb 10:14
For by ONE OFFERING he has perfected FOREVER, them that ARE SANCTIFIED.

Seems to be unclear when an INDIVIDUAL, calling himself a Catholic, Elects to be WITH the Lord.

Further seems Catholics teach, ONCE a man IS Forgiven, Saved, Sanctified, Born Again....
It is the man, WHO has to KEEP his own soul saved, and if the man doesn't; the man loses his salvation.

Sort of renders the Power of the Holy Spirit within the man, MOOT. Which of course is false.

I believe God has him in His hand. His heart is after God. God sees what man cannot see. 'There, but for the grace of God....'

I believe when an INDIVIDUAL submits TO, and is RECEIVED into the Lords Hand, the man has submitted to the Lord, for the Lord to be his Master and Keeper Forever.

And some people use the Lords name to teach the complete opposite, which that did not hold favor with Jesus Himself.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Stranger]

How is it that so many believe mans work is greater and more powerful than God's? To those who believe a Christian can lose their salvation, that is what you are saying.

The Christian can do something that will cost his salvation from God forever? But God cannot keep a Christian forever? If God can lose you here, what makes you think He can't lose you there?

Stranger