Secure Eternal Salvation

[Ronald Nolette]

Nope - that's not what I said.

Whereas ALL Christians are incorporated into Christ through Baptism - Protestant Christians are self-separated from the Church and in need of return.
ALL Christians are related to the Church, which is the Body of Christ.

So, I do not misunderstand, non Catholics to you are separated from the body, ergo not part of the body of Christ?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I responded to all of those.
Got any other ones?

Look again, you didn't

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I didn't say Gnostics believed in eternal security. I said Simon Magus mixed the Gnostics' belief about the afterlife with the biblical concept of salvation and created the eternal security doctrine.

Well Scripture clearly teaches eternal security, as is written, but as is translated- many have used teh translations to promote one can lose their salvation.

But I would like to see this promotion of simon magus. He is only mentioned once in Scripture and roundly rebuked by Peter. I would like to see the work you draw this hypothesis from.

The gnostic belief on the after life is noto even remotely implicit about eternal security.

 

[robert derrick]

Speaking of history, the assimilation of Christianity in Pagan Political & Papal Rome is as follows: One of the first actions of the Church once it obtained imperial sanction was was to begin the prosecutions of other Christians who did not conform to state approved theology.

Good summary.

Question: were those prosecutions based upon the Nicene Creed, or upon new Roman state theology.

The first recorded title of 'Pope' was in the first years of Constantine's reign and adoption of Christianity as the state religion.

That was the last Pontifex Maximus of the old Roman state religion, who then transformed it into a state authorized version of Christianity. It was done of political necessity, not of faithful conversion.

And so, the old core of the Roman religion in the Sacred Fire of the Virgin Vesta and Mother of earth, was rebranded as the Sacred Womb of Mary and Mother of God.

I.e. the 'Sacred' traditions of old Rome were added to Christianity under Christian names and twisted Scriptural teaching.

The Pope was and is still referred to by his original title of Pontifex Maximus, such as the 'Pontiff'.

The Catholics that just stick with the Christianity of Jesus Christ in Scripture, and drop the old Roman traditions of the Vesta, they would be doing just fine.

We notice in these threads, how the stout 'Roman' Catholics are much more fervent about Mother 'Mary' than about Lord Jesus.

 

[Cassandra]

and all of the statues of the gods and goddesses were changed to represent saints.

 

[BreadOfLife]

We all can't be in doctrinal unity at the same time because we are all at different stages of growth. Ephesians 4:13

Read your Bible!

Christian Doctrine doesn't "change" just because we are all at different stages in our walk.
That's nonsense.

Maybe the god YOU'VE invented is wishy-washy.
The God of the Bible isn't.

 

[BreadOfLife]

“We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone.”

― Martin Luther

He understood that Paul and James were not in contradiction about justification.

Faith yes - not "belief".
Faith = Belief + Works/Obedience (James 2:14-24, Gal 5:6, 1 Cor. 13:1-13).

And the Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that Paul and James weren't contradicting each other.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

James is speaking to double-minded Christians, who want to believe in Jesus in the heart, while yet disobeying Jesus with the body.

The idea of believers playing no role in, having no part in, not being responsible for our salvation is the effort of hypocrites to separate the responsibility of their souls from the sins of their bodies: they want to believe a lie that faith and obedience are separate from one another.

They would believe in the heart, while yet disobeying in the body.

We draw nigh to God. We purify our hearts and so purify ourselves, even as He is pure.

We are to resist temptation in the spirit and in the body.

We pull down every stronghold of lust and thought of disobedience in our minds.

We are given power to become the sons of God, and so to learn obedience to Him as Jesus did, even when the flesh is weak, and the mind doesn't feel like it.

They do not overcome the infirmity of the flesh by the help of God's grace, but rather overthrow judgement against sin by help of an 'unconditional grace' that is not of God, but of the world.

OSAS is the realm of them that only obey when convenient, and so pat themselves on the back as doing good. But then when lust calls, their bodies are given to sin, while pretending their hearts are still pure by 'faith', which is not the faith of Jesus, but is the dead faith of the children of disobedience upon whom is the wrath of God.

Your problem is clear-cut case of a novice Bible student trying to interpret things that are WAY BEYOND your purview.

Any 1st year Greek student knows that the SAME root word (pis'-tis) is used for BOTH Faith AND Belief. The difference is in the CONTEXT in which the word is being used – not the word itself.

That’s why the “Belief” spoken of in James 2:19 is NOT the same as the “Faith” spoken of in James 2:24. In Rom. 4:5 the “Belief” spoken of IS Faith, which includes obedience.

The fact tht YOU don’t understand this is at the heart of your confusion.

 

[robert derrick]

Your problem is clear-cut case of a novice Bible student trying to interpret things that are WAY BEYOND your purview.

Any 1st year Greek student knows that the SAME root word (pis'-tis) is used for BOTH Faith AND Belief. The difference is in the CONTEXT in which the word is being used – not the word itself.

That’s why the “Belief” spoken of in James 2:19 is NOT the same as the “Faith” spoken of in James 2:24. In Rom. 4:5 the “Belief” spoken of IS Faith, which includes obedience.

The fact tht YOU don’t understand this is at the heart of your confusion.

Since you have no clue what I said, you try to say it another way.

Also, I don't care one whit about your Greek excellence.

After all, it has you bound up in false sacred traditions of old Roman Vesta, whom you wrongly call Mary.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Faith yes - not "belief".
Faith = Belief + Works/Obedience (James 2:14-24, Gal 5:6, 1 Cor. 13:1-13).

But I showed you the fallacy of this teaching from the Greek in Romans 4:5.
Why are you still pushing it?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

And the Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that Paul and James weren't contradicting each other.

The Catholic church's problem is it doesn't believe Paul when he said a man is justified (made righteous) by faith apart from works (Romans 4:6).
They do not believe that a man is justified by doing nothing but believing, the way Abraham, our example of justification, was justified.

This very point is why there are Catholics and why there are Protesters against the Catholics. Catholicism is a works justification religion. That's why it was rejected. Catholics believe you are MADE righteous by your works. Paul said Abraham did NOTHING to be made righteous before God. This is the very truth that escapes the Catholic church. An entire denomination of people. They can't see it. Even though it's right there in black and white in the Bible. Abraham did NOTHING to be made righteous in God's sight except believe the promise of God.

You're all angry and up in our faces for not believing what your religion says when you're the one that can not see that Abraham was made righteous by doing NOTHING but believing God's promise.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Christian Doctrine doesn't "change" just because we are all at different stages in our walk.
That's nonsense.

Maybe the god YOU'VE invented is wishy-washy.
The God of the Bible isn't.

Are you purposely being a.... Nevermind, lol.

This is what you do when you're on the ropes.
Learning doctrine is not changing doctrine. What a pathetic weak argument.
You gotta do better than this, pal.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

As to (Heb. 6:4-6) I already exegeted that passage WAY back in post #460. The fact that YOU rejected my explanation doesn't mean that I "owe" you an explanation.
It simply illiustrates YOUR dishonesty again . . .

Uh, you said you'd exegete Hebrews 6:4-6 AFTER you made post #460. So, it's obvious you did not consider post 460 to be an exegesis of Hebrews 6:4. Which it hardly is. That's pathetic.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Since you have no clue what I said, you try to say it another way.

Also, I don't care one whit about your Greek excellence.

After all, it has you bound up in false sacred traditions of old Roman Vesta, whom you wrongly call Mary.

TRASLATION:
"I can't refute what you said - so I'll just throw blind punches instead."

That's what I thought . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

But I showed you the fallacy of this teaching from the Greek in Romans 4:5.
Why are you still pushing it?

Because I refuted that idiotic and linguistically bankrupt position back in post #728 - so I suggest you go back and read it . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Catholic church's problem is it doesn't believe Paul when he said a man is justified (made righteous) by faith apart from works (Romans 4:6).
They do not believe that a man is justified by doing nothing but believing, the way Abraham, our example of justification, was justified.

This very point is why there are Catholics and why there are Protesters against the Catholics. Catholicism is a works justification religion. That's why it was rejected. Catholics believe you are MADE righteous by your works. Paul said Abraham did NOTHING to be made righteous before God. This is the very truth that escapes the Catholic church. An entire denomination of people. They can't see it. Even though it's right there in black and white in the Bible. Abraham did NOTHING to be made righteous in God's sight except believe the promise of God.

You're all angry and up in our faces for not believing what your religion says when you're the one that can not see that Abraham was made righteous by doing NOTHING but believing God's promise.

Paul is talking about works of the LAW, in context,
He is NOT talking about the works which God has prepared for Christians in advance to do (Eph. 2:10). THOSE works are an essential element of faith (James 2:14-24, Gal. 5:6) - not a "byproduct" of it.

You've ALREADY been shown that "Faith" is NOT simply "Believing" (James 2:19).
It requires love, obedience and works.

This is why I have warned you repeatedly that your cherry-picking of Scripture out of context will ALWAYS get you into trouble . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Are you purposely being a.... Nevermind, lol.

This is what you do when you're on the ropes.
Learning doctrine is not changing doctrine. What a pathetic weak argument.
You gotta do better than this, pal.

Hey - YOU'RE the one who made the following idiotic statement - NOT me . . .
"We all can't be in doctrinal unity at the same time because we are all at different stages of growth."

That is a Scripturally-bankrupt claim.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Uh, you said you'd exegete Hebrews 6:4-6 AFTER you made post #460. So, it's obvious you did not consider post 460 to be an exegesis of Hebrews 6:4. Which it hardly is. That's pathetic.

Post #460 an explanation of the CONTEXT of the book of Hebrews.
YOU plucked a verse out of context in order to make a point.

For a cherry-picker like you - context if NOT your friend . . .

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Hey - YOU'RE the one who made the following idiotic statement - NOT me . . .
"We all can't be in doctrinal unity at the same time because we are all at different stages of growth."

That is a Scripturally-bankrupt claim.

Surely, you're smart enough to know the only way we can all be in unity of doctrine is to be at the same stage of knowledge and growth.
Besides, I showed you the scriptures that show the true actual Apostolic church (which you think your church is) was not in unity of doctrine. But somehow your church is. Ooookay......

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Post #460 an explanation of the CONTEXT of the book of Hebrews.
YOU plucked a verse out of context in order to make a point.

For a cherry-picker like you - context if NOT your friend . . .

Your supposed exegesis, or whatever that was, doesn't even address the repentance—the change of mind about Christ—that a fallen person can't come back to. How is it that going back to the old covenant sacrifices makes it so it's impossible for a person to come back to a change of mind about Christ? The passage tells us (God doesn't allow it). You've ignored that and created an odd, misplaced doctrine that redefines 'repentance', and doesn't even have anything to do with the passage.