The Doctrines of Grace

[BreadOfLife]

We went from the Reformed faith (doctrines of grace) to catholicism.

Who’s “we”?

The Church’s original doctrines were discarded and/or perverted some 1500 years later during the Protestant rebellion

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Then, instead of little hit-and-run remarks like that - prove me wrong . . .

@PinSeeker has been doing a great job of that already.

I can refute all you are saying, but what good would that do?

You already hi-jacked the thread with your catholic banter.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Who’s “we”?

The Church’s original doctrines were discarded and/or perverted some 1500 years later during the Protestant rebellion

I was talking about this thread.

 

[KUWN]

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from US."

The Traditions are the teachings of the Apostles.

 

[Christian Soldier]

@ElectedbyHim

From what I see in the scriptures, a born-again (regenerate) Christian can return to spiritual death through sin. False doctrine (heresy) can lead regenerate Christians into deception, sin, and a fall from grace.

We see this most notably in the regenerate Galatians who fell from grace.

[Gal 3:2-3 NASB95] 2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

[Gal 5:4 NASB95] 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.​

When it comes to TULIP, the latter four points are directly dependent upon Total Depravity, which is unbiblical. No one is fundamentally incapable of faith, so regeneration is not equivalent to election, though it is a prerequisite.

1. Abraham was able to believe and obey God without regeneration.

[Gen 26:5 NASB95] 5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws."
​

2. Obedience was never made too difficult for Israel.

[Deu 30:9-11 NASB95] 9 "Then the LORD your God will prosper you abundantly in all the work of your hand, in the offspring of your body and in the offspring of your cattle and in the produce of your ground, for the LORD will again rejoice over you for good, just as He rejoiced over your fathers; 10 if you obey the LORD your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and soul. 11 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.​

3. God commanded Israel to repent and make for themselves a new heart and new spirit, without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

[Eze 18:31 NASB95] 31 "Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel?​

So as you can see, Total Depravity is false, and according to Galatians 3 & 5, a regenerate believer can fall from grace, meaning that election is NOT unconditional. That renders the rest of TULIP completely useless.

All of that is your own private view, and it exposes your ignorance of the truth. The main problem with your private interpretation of the scriptures you quoted is, you apply what the scriptures say about the elect to the reprobate.

Those in Gal 5:4 are not Gods elect, they were never in Christ to begin with. They fell away because they were never part of Gods people. They were types of Judas Iscariot's, just as everyone who doesn't believe in election and predestination is.

Please give us the chapter and verse, which confirms that Abraham was not regenerated when he believed ????? see you can't because you're pushing heresy and liars have no foundation to support their lies on.

Again, obedience is always made impossible for the "TOTALLY DEPRAVED", why do you ignore the fact that God personally killed around 50,000 Israelites in the desert for their disobedience. Obedience was impossible for them because they were totally depraved so God killed them. So you argument is born out of ignorance.
Also why did God kill around 2 billion men, women, children and unborn babies with a world wide flood ???????? see you silly lie that God never made obedience too hard is a lie from the pits of hell.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ah, well I'm simply showing the massive holes in the Catholic ~ and Baptist and a host of other denominations ~ idea that eternal life, if given by God, can be somehow lost. Jesus very clearly says in John 10 that it cannot. The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29); God does not take away any gift that He has given, even sustaining those gifts in the person by the power of His Holy Spirit. God is able ~ and does ~ keep us from stumbling (Jude 24).

Correct – He doesn’t take away our gift..
But, He allows us to accept it - or reject it.

LOL! So you think Jesus is speaking to the Catholic Church there... Oh, my. He's speaking to His disciples...

Ummmmm, the same disciples who were the first leaders of the Church.

Nope, 325 A.D., at the Council of Nicea called by Constantine. 'Catholic (from Greek: καθολικός, lit. 'universal') was first used to describe the church in the early 2nd century. The first known use of the phrase "the catholic church" (Greek: καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία, katholikḕ ekklēsía) occurred in the letter written about 110 AD from Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, which read: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church." Only later, in the Catechetical Lectures ~ 350 A.D.) of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, the name "Catholic Church" was used to distinguish it from other groups that also called themselves "the church," and yes, the "Catholic" notion was further stressed by Theodosius in 380 in the edict De fide Catolica. So, Catholicism really originated well after the year 300 A.D., and as I have said, the chief purpose of the Reformation was to return Christianity to the one catholic, Apostolic Church begun just after Christ's ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Again, the Catholic Church added to Scripture much in the same manner as Adam Smith and the Mormons did almost a thousand years later.

First of all – The Council of Nicaea did NOT decide the Canon of Scripture.
It dealt largely with the Arian heresy.

Secondly, you are WRONG G about the history of the use of the term “Catholic Church”.
As I told you before – “Catholic Church” was being used as a TITLE, not just a description by the 2nd century. Even if you reject the term as a title in Ignatius Letter – you cannot deny the use of it as a toitle in the Martyrdom of Polycarp some 50 years later.

Excerpt from The Martyrdom of Polycarp:
When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ass, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath.

As we have already examined, the words, καθ ολης (katah-holos) is GREEK for “according to the whole” and “universal”.

The phrase in The Martyrdom of Polycarp - which, by the way, is ALSO written in GREEK - would be horribly redundant, if not comical. It would go something like this:
"... and the whole whole throughout Church throughout the world ..."

It is blindingly clear that this document is using the term Catholic Church as a TITLE and not a mere description or the wording would make no sense whatsoever.

LOL! "Protestantism" didn't exist until Martin Luther in 1517, and Martin Luther's Bible was the same one agreed upon and finalized in 325 A.D.

The Canon of Scripture was not “finalized” at Nicaea in 325.
Don’t know where you got that but you’re dead wrong.

There were MANY lists (canons) floating around at the time but NOTHING that was “agreed upon”. It was the Authority of the Catholic Church at the Synod of Rome in 382 that decided the Canon. Your Protestant Fathers jettisoned the 7 Deuterocanonical Books from the OT in the 16th century.

Question:
Do you know why?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Continued . . .

That's... debatable. <smile>

I thought we were . . .

Ah, so now you're calling me a liar...

If the shoe fits . . .

Why else would you claim that I couldm't present ANY Biblical evidence? You can disagree with my evidence – but to say that I didn’t provide any is dishonest.

And I have given you verse after verse ~ even many of the ones you have wrongly used to prove eternal insecurity ~ to prove that this gift and promise of eternal security is rock solid, to put it mildly. And let's not make this out to be a difference solely between Catholics and Protestants; many protestant denominations hold to eternal insecurity, too, and are just as wrong as Catholics on that.

Okay – so you disagree.

You cannot say, however, that I didn’t or couldn't provide Biblical evidence.

No, I didn't say that at all. This has been a very wide-ranging conversation ~ and at least a bit disjointed ~ and there are things you haven't backed up at all. In that instance, in one short sentence, you made a statement refuting what I had said there ~ namely that "Faith is a gift of God by His Spirit (Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 12:9)... His promises are contingent on nothing but Himself... His own perfect will... and have their 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ Jesus... He will keep every single one of His promises" ~ and then there was no backup, absolutely nothing. So to that, I responded in the negative, and said you couldn't back up that statement with Scripture. If you think you can, then bring it, BOL. Maybe now you'll say, "Oh, but I have, I have!" Well...

In post #358, YOU said:
“If you think otherwise, then back it up with something ~ something ~ from God's Word. You can't.”

I gave you over a DOZEN verses to refute the falsehood of “Eternal Security”.

You're really going to compare ~ and put on equal ground, essentially ~ human frailty and unfaithfulness to God's perfect holiness and perfect faithfulness? Really? Surely not.

I’m not comparing man’s faithfulness to God’s There is NO comparison.

God is infinitely faithful. We are NOT.

Well there you go. Yes, so that refutes and thus renders your little marriage-and-love comparison between human beings null and void, right?

Nope.
See above . . .

It is the case, despite our sin and unfaithfulness.

Unfortunately, it’s NOT the case.

If we were perfectly sinless, we would NOT walk away. However, because we still struggle wth sin, we are capable of walking away from Him. That’s what sin is . . .

As I said, one can think he or she believed for a time in Christ but later "go out," as John says, but were never really of the people of God (1 John 2:19. Again, John says there, "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."

He is specifically talking about people who had NO faith. Those who are caught up in the hype - posers. These are the seeds that fell on the eocky path . . ..

This is NOT an all-encompassing category. He’s not talking about people truly believed and who lost their faith. The ones Jesus refers to as “branches that do not remain in me.”

"Yet you yourself can"... No, you are included in that 'nobody.'

How can you “snatch” yourself??
You can't - but you can turn away,

Nobody means nobody, including you.

No – there’s a reason why “yourself” isn’t included in John 10:28 or Rom. 8:31-39.

Good, agreed, except works are not "an essential element of faith"... Works are the natural result of the faith we've been given. What James is saying is that if you have no works, then what faith you may have is a dead faith, which is in self and really worthless, rather than a living faith, which is given by and in God and can never, as a gift of God and kept in us in the power of God, be lost.

No – Jesus, (Matt. 25:31-46), James (James 2:14-25) and Paul (1 Cor. 13:1-13, Gal 5:6) are ALL saying that works/charity are an essential element of faith.

Humanly speaking, that's true. But God is not a human being... <smile>

Bur we ARE . . .

LOL! I copied and pasted from the Bible itself. Ah, here it comes... "Oh! Oh! What version?!!!" Goodness gracious.

Chapter and Verse, please . . .

This is a contradiction in and of itself. We are free from condemnation ~ by God ~ for sin, but sin does have consequences and yes, effects now, effected by God. People who believe otherwise are called antinomians.

Hoe is this a “contradiction” if YOU just said the same thing?

And I have agreed, but though we can, woodenly speaking, if we have been born again of the Spirit and are in Christ, we will not. Not cannot, but will not.

Grace and peace to you.

Sory, but again, the Bible disagrees with you . . .
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)

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Traditions are the teachings of the Apostles.

And the teachings of the Apostles aare the teachings of the Church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

@PinSeeker has been doing a great job of that already.

Hardly . . .

I can refute all you are saying, but what good would that do?

You already hi-jacked the thread with your catholic banter.

"Hijacked"??
My firstpoat on this thread was to clear u an anti-Catholic faksehood.

I don't "hijack" threafs. I simply respond and correct when I see lies bing posted . . .

 

[KUWN]

And the teachings of the Apostles aare the teachings of the Church.

Kind of, the teachings of the Apostles are recorded in the Scriptures, not in the Church. The Churches are given gifted teachers to teach the flock. But there is no difference between the teaching of the Apostles and the teaching of the Church. If there is a difference, the teachings of the Apostles rule, because the teachers are commanded to teach the Word.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Kind of, the teachings of the Apostles are recorded in the Scriptures, not in the Church. The Churches are given gifted teachers to teach the flock.

Correction: The Bible came out of the Church – NOT the other way atound.
There was a Church for 300 years before the the Canon of Scrioture was declared.

But there is no difference between the teaching of the Apostles and the teaching of the Church.

And I never said there was . . .

If there is a difference, the teachings of the Apostles rule, because the teachers are commanded to teach the Word.

Church teaching didn’t end with the original Apostles. If that were the case – there would be no Canon of Scripture. They passed on their Authority to others (Bishops) who decided which Books belonged in the Bible.

2 Tim. 2:2
"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also".

 

[KUWN]

Correction: The Bible came out of the Church – NOT the other way atound.
There was a Church for 300 years before the the Canon of Scrioture was declared.

Kind of, the teachings of the Apostles are recorded in the Scriptures, not in the Church. The Churches are given gifted teachers to teach the flock.

Correction: The Bible came out of the Church – NOT the other way atound.

Incorrect. The Bible are the words of the Apostles. The Church was formed because the Bible instructed the early Christians to meet regularly. By the end of the first century, the Core documents of the NT were approved by the Apostles. Take for an example, the epistle of James was already considered canonical in the mid of the first century. Many of the 27 NT books were already part of the canon by the end of the first century and the early second century. You seem to be talking about the officially written sources of the Churches.

 

[PinSeeker]

its more of was they ever truly saved ? our salvation is more secured than what most would like to admit

Well, as to the first sentence, this is basically what I've been saying... because John is very clear on it in 1 John 2:19 of the "many antichrists" (unbelievers) who "had come" and had been among them, saying, "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." So, you're right, if they "fall away" permanently, it is because they were never born again of the Spirit.

Now, it is possible that at some point they could come back into the fold, and in that case, the question might arise, "Had they been born again of the Spirit when they previously fell away?" That question would really be impossible to answer and has to remain unanswered; they might truly have been born again but strayed for a time. But the answer to that is irrelevant anyway, if they are back in the fold.

As for the second sentence, for those who are "in Christ" (because, of course, they have been born again of the Spirit), "there is therefore no more condemnation" (from God) for them, as "the law of the Spirit of life has set them free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death." and nothing "in all creation" ~ including themselves, because they love their Father God rather than their former father the devil and want to please God rather than the devil ~ "will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." This is Romans 8 and Paul speaking. So, if we are in Christ, our salvation is absolutely secure, because, as Peter says, 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."

Grace and peace to you, Ezra.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Hardly . . .

"Hijacked"??
My firstpoat on this thread was to clear u an anti-Catholic faksehood.

I don't "hijack" threafs. I simply respond and correct when I see lies bing posted . . .

What lies?

 

[PinSeeker]

Correct

I know. <smile> But thanks! <smile>

He doesn’t take away our gift..

Good...

But, He allows us to accept it - or reject it.

O...kayyyy, but, we won't reject it if we are in Christ, because at that point we have been born again of the Spirit, and we will do no other; we don't even consider rejecting it, because... well, to put it in the words of Isaiah (35), our eyes have been opened, our ears unstopped, we are no longer lame and are thus able to leap like a deer, and our formerly mute tongue sings for joy.

Ummmmm, the same disciples who were the first leaders of the Church.

LOL! Yes, but not your Catholic Church...

The Council of Nicaea did NOT decide the Canon of Scripture.

Yes it did... <smile>

It dealt largely with the Arian heresy...

Largely, yes, but the Canon was agreed upon there.

Secondly, you are WRONG G about the history of the use of the term “Catholic Church”.

Well, to you, sure, but that's only because you've bought into... well... There's just a lot of misinformation out there, of all kinds...

As I told you before...

Yes, you've told me a lot of things... <smile> And not all bad... <smile>

“Catholic Church” was being used as a TITLE, not just a description by the 2nd century.

Revisionist history to fit the Catholic narrative. It was; various groups were calling themselves the catholic church, projecting themselves as part of the universal Church of Jesus Christ.

Even if you reject the term as a title in Ignatius Letter –

I do, because it wasn't used that way at all.

you cannot deny the use of it as a title in the Martyrdom of Polycarp some 50 years later.

I didn't. <smile> I can't deny what Watchtower did in the early 1830s, either. It is what it is; denial is not just a river in Egypt (Stuart Smalley [Al Franken], Saturday Night Live)...

As we have already examined...

LOL!

Your Protestant Fathers jettisoned the 7 Deuterocanonical Books from the OT in the 16th century. Question: Do you know why?

Hmmm, 'jettisoned'... Not correct, but I'll allow that. In answer to your question, yes, of course; none of the deuterocanonical books and the Apocrypha were in the original Hebrew canon. The books of the Apocrypha do have historical value, and contain some really good things ~ they give us insight into the cultural, political, and ideological background in the years before Jesus’ birth, which can aid our understanding of the New Testament; Martin Luther himself attested to the value of the deuterocanonical books and the Apocrypha ~ but these books should not be recognized as canonical. Protestants have not received these writings as inspired by God for at least two reasons. First, the New Testament writers did not recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture; while the New Testament quotes the Old Testament as Scripture roughly three hundred times, the New Testament books never quote the Apocrypha as Scripture. Therefore, Protestants stand with the New Testament writers in affirming that only those books that were in the original Hebrew canon have canonical authority. Second, throughout the history of the Christian church, and especially since the Reformation, there has been a consistent testimony that the deuterocanonical books are not inspired by God and therefore should be distinguished from the rest of the canon of Scripture. And, it was not until the Council of Trent decreed in April 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church’s canon of the Old Testament should contain the Apocrypha (with the exception of the Prayer of Manasseh and 1 and 2 Esdras).

I thought we were . . .

You've... thought a lot of things... <smile>

If the shoe fits . . . Why else would you claim that I couldm't present ANY Biblical evidence? You can disagree with my evidence – but to say that I didn’t provide any is dishonest.

I didn't woodenly claim that you "couldn't present any Biblical evidence," BreadOfLife. I can't believe I'm clarifying this for a second time... Oh wait... I can believe, it, actually... <smile>.

• You had made the statement, "His promises are contingent on our faith,"
• To that, I said, "Faith is a gift of God by His Spirit (Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 12:9). His promises are contingent on nothing but Himself ~ His own perfect will ~ and have their 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ Jesus; He will keep every single one of His promises. Scripture is very clear on this over and over and over again throughout. Our faith ~ again, assurance of eternal life and conviction of sin ~ is a gift from God through which we are saved... and maintained in us by the Holy Spirit, which I backed up with several Bible passages in my previous post" (Post#337) "If you think otherwise, then back it up with something ~ something ~ from God's Word. You can't.

So what I said was you couldn't back up that one claim you made with something from God's Word. Strange that we've gone back and forth on this three times now and still nothing from you. Oh wait... not so strange... <smile>

Continued...

 

[PinSeeker]

...from above:

I gave you over a DOZEN verses to refute the falsehood of “Eternal Security”.

You did, and they were... bad. <smile> Really speaking of something else entirely, the context was very different. So again... you can't, not with any validity anyway. <smile> And I explained why, using Scripture to do so...

I’m not comparing man’s faithfulness to God’s There is NO comparison. God is infinitely faithful. We are NOT.

Well, that's good that you say that, but you did... And, how can you say God is infinitely faithful but also say those in Christ do not have eternal security? If that's not a contradiction, there's no such thing... <smile>

If we were perfectly sinless, we would NOT walk away.

LOL! Though we know we are not sinless ~ yet, anyway, because one great day we will (not might) be ~ if we have been born again of the Spirit and are in Christ, "(i)f we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1-9). And we will, because the Spirit will prompt us to do so, both initially when we are born again and on an ongoing basis, which is what Paul says to the Roman Christians in Romans 2, that God, in His kindness, leads us to repentance, and to the Corinthian Christians, saying the Holy Spirit causes a Godly grief in us that produces a repentance that leads to salvation.

...because we still struggle with sin, we are capable of walking away from Him...

Yes, but we will not. Our greatest desire will be to "run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith" (Hebrews 12:1-2). And this will be because God's giving us faith, which is "the assurance" (of and by God) "of things hoped for, the conviction" (from the Holy Spirit, Who convicts) "of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

That’s what sin is . . .

Sin is anything ~ anything ~ that falls short of God's glory. One sin, is "walking away from Him," yes, but Jonah tried that... well, running and hiding, actually, and... <smile> This is really the story of the Bible... God's people, starting with Adam, constantly "walking away," and Him bringing them back to Himself.

He is specifically talking about people who had NO faith. Those who are caught up in the hype - posers. These are the seeds that fell on the eocky path . . ..

Right! That's the point; but they did appear to be of/in the faith. But yes, they did not have God-given faith, and they "went out." Yes; thank you for making my point... or, reiterating it, anyway... <smile> Actually not my point, really, but John's... <smile>

He’s not talking about people truly believed and who lost their faith.

Just as I have said; they appeared to have faith, because they were with the people of faith, but they went out, proving that they never had faith. You seem to be agreeing with me now. Goodness gracious.

there’s a reason why “yourself” isn’t included in John 10:28 or Rom. 8:31-39.

No one means no one, BreadOfLife. And Paul, in Romans 8 says "(nothing) in all of creation." "...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." You and I, BreadOfLife, are both in creation, right? <smile>

No – Jesus, (Matt. 25:31-46), James (James 2:14-25) and Paul (1 Cor. 13:1-13, Gal 5:6) are ALL saying that works/charity are an essential element of faith

As I said, if by "essential element of faith" you mean that works are the outward evidence of true God-given faith, then we are in agreement on that. We receive this faith, it is worked in us by the Spirit, and in this way are God's workmanship, and we then live out this newness of life with the Spirit at work in us in the form of good works, then we agree.

Chapter and Verse, please . . .

Wow. See your own post #373... the very last thing in that post. As I said, I literally copied and pasted Paul's exact words in Ephesians 2:1-3 and Romans 9:15-18, the latter of which Paul is quoting directly from Moses, who's quoting God Himself in Exodus 33:19. And you said it "had been perverted." To which I say, "Get behind me Satan."

How is this a “contradiction” if YOU just said the same thing?

You had said, "We are absolutely free from the consequences of sin. We’re NOT free from the temporal effects of sin." Consequences of sin and temporal effects of sin are the same things, BreadOfLife, in that even in this life, God can exact consequences on us for sin in the form of discipline, which He does for those He loves. In that way, to say we are free from the consequences of sin and at the same time not free from the temporal effects of sin are contradictory ideas. Now, if you are talking about the eternal effects of sin for the unrepentant for sin in the temporal, then of course I agree. I hope we just missed each other a bit on this...

Sorry, but again, the Bible disagrees with you . . .

No, yet again, you only think so because you either can't or won't ~ maybe both ~ distinguish between the senses of taking away the sins of the world and dying to redeem from sin only God's elect.

Grace and peace to you, BOL.

 

[Ezra]

Well, as to the first sentence, this is basically what I've been saying... because John is very clear on it in 1 John 2:19 of the "many antichrists" (unbelievers) who "had come" and had been among them, saying, "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." So, you're right, if they "fall away" permanently, it is because they were never born again of the Spirit.

Now, it is possible that at some point they could come back into the fold, and in that case, the question might arise, "Had they been born again of the Spirit when they previously fell away?" That question would really be impossible to answer and has to remain unanswered; they might truly have been born again but strayed for a time. But the answer to that is irrelevant anyway, if they are back in the fold.

As for the second sentence, for those who are "in Christ" (because, of course, they have been born again of the Spirit), "there is therefore no more condemnation" (from God) for them, as "the law of the Spirit of life has set them free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death." and nothing "in all creation" ~ including themselves, because they love their Father God rather than their former father the devil and want to please God rather than the devil ~ "will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." This is Romans 8 and Paul speaking. So, if we are in Christ, our salvation is absolutely secure, because, as Peter says, 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."

Grace and peace to you, Ezra.

pretty much covers it

 

[BreadOfLife]

O...kayyyy, but, we won't reject it if we are in Christ, because at that point we have been born again of the Spirit, and we will do no other; we don't even consider rejecting it, because... well, to put it in the words of Isaiah (35), our eyes have been opened, our ears unstopped, we are no longer lame and are thus able to leap like a deer, and our formerly mute tongue sings for joy.

As I have repeatedly show you – that’s NOT what the Bible says in context.

(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)

You cannot get past Epignosis (Rom. 11:22, Heb. 10:26-27)

LOL! Yes, but not your Catholic Church...

The Catholic Church goes all the way back to the Apostles, according to eminent Protestant Historians like J.N.D. Kelly and Kenneth Samples.

Yes it did... <smile>

WRONG.
The Canon of Scripture wasn’t decided until the Synod of Rome in 382.

Not only can you NOT show me a Council document to support your claim – you can’t even give me a scholarly document that makes it.

Largely, yes, but the Canon was agreed upon there.

No, it wasn’t.

If you don’t believe me – here is what Google AI says on the matter:
“The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD did not establish the Christian Bible's canon of scripture. There is no record of any discussion of the canon at the council.“

Well, to you, sure, but that's only because you've bought into... well... There's just a lot of misinformation out there, of all kinds...

Yes, there certainly is . . .

Revisionist history to fit the Catholic narrative. It was; various groups were calling themselves the catholic church, projecting themselves as part of the universal Church of Jesus Christ.

I do, because it wasn't used that way at all.

Sure, it was.

Gee, I guess making claims without evidence IS easy . . .

I didn't. <smile> I can't deny what Watchtower did in the early 1830s, either. It is what it is; denial is not just a river in Egypt (Stuart Smalley [Al Franken], Saturday Night Live)...

Down to using stale Al Franken quotes?
And, speaking of denial . . .

All you do is deny my ample evidence – but you never seem to be able to challenge or refute it. I broke down the language of the Martyrdom of Polycarp showing how ridiculous it is to insist that it is being used as a mere “description” here.

Yes, denial – the last refuge of the terminally incorrect . . .

Hmmm, 'jettisoned'... Not correct, but I'll allow that. In answer to your question, yes, of course; none of the deuterocanonical books and the Apocrypha were in the original Hebrew canon. The books of the Apocrypha First, the New Testament writers did not recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture; while the New Testament quotes the Old Testament as Scripture roughly three hundred times, the New Testament books never quote the Apocrypha as Scripture. Therefore, Protestants stand with deuterocanonical books are not inspired by God and therefore should be distinguished from the rest of the canon of Scripture. And, it was not until the Council of Trent decreed in April 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church’s canon of the Old Testament should contain the Apocrypha (with the exception of the Prayer of Manasseh and 1 and 2 Esdras).

WOW.
That’s quite a diatribe. Too bad it’s almost entirely erroneous . . .

As I already informed you – the 7 Deuterocanonical Books were removed by the Rabbinical school, led by Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-137 at Jabneh in the 2md century. This was after the death and Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus - and after the destruction of the Temple. The mantle of Authority was no longer with the Jews, as Jesus transferred Authority to His Church (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23). The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

And, as I also informed you – Rabbi Akiva was the SAME guy who proclaimed a man named, Simon Bar Kokhba was the “real” Messiah during the 2nd Jewish Revolt (circa 132 AD).

Finally – the OT wasn’t decided upon at Trent. The entire Canon of Scripture was officially closed – in part, due to the deleting of Books by Protestants.

This means that a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who proclaimed a FALSE “Christ” (Kokhba) was responsible for editing the Canon in a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Israel.

As to your false claim that the Deuterocanonicals aren’t referenced in the NT – there are almost 150 references to those Books in the NT.
For example:

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

I didn't woodenly claim that you "couldn't present any Biblical evidence," BreadOfLife. I can't believe I'm clarifying this for a second time... Oh wait... I can believe, it, actually... <smile>.

So what I said was you couldn't back up that one claim you made with something from God's Word. Strange that we've gone back and forth on this three times now and still nothing from you. Oh wait... not so strange... <smile>

Continued...

And that’s my point. I DID give you several verses that show our cooperation as a contingency to God’s grace.

Heb. 3:14-19
For we have become partakers of Christ, IF WE HOLD FAST the beginning of our assurance firm until the end, while it is said,

2 Tim. 2:11-13
It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; IF WE ENDURE, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

Heb. 10:36
For you have need of endurance, so that AFTER you have done the will of God, you MAY receive the promise.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Incorrect. The Bible are the words of the Apostles. The Church was formed because the Bible instructed the early Christians to meet regularly. By the end of the first century, the Core documents of the NT were approved by the Apostles. Take for an example, the epistle of James was already considered canonical in the mid of the first century. Many of the 27 NT books were already part of the canon by the end of the first century and the early second century. You seem to be talking about the officially written sources of the Churches.

WRONG.

There was NO Canon of Scripture (Bible) until it was compiled and declared by the 300 year-old Church.

It was the Church, led by the Holy Spirit who decided which Books belonged in the Canon – and which Books did NOT.

Prior to this – there were MANY individual canons (lists) – but NONE that was agreed upon by the whole Church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What lies?

Go back and check the thread yourself . . .