Jump to content
IGNORED

Once saved always saved?


BlueMinou

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  88
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   89
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  07/24/2016
  • Status:  Offline

I'd like to have a discussion without anyone being judgemental or accusing one another in anger, if that is alright with people here. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  88
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   89
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  07/24/2016
  • Status:  Offline

19 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

You can be a Roman Catholic or a Christian you cannot be both.  Roman Catholicism is outside true, biblical Christianity.  It has no part in Christ. It is a tool of Satan and has led many, many people to Hell. It is anathema. 

The blood of Jesus is what perfects us, per Heb. 10.   It is the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross that purifies us and makes us holy.  Baptism cannot do what the blood of Jesus has already done.

 

I haven't even begun to discuss what the bible or catholicism has to say about the blood of Jesus--or The Eastern Orthodox Church says as well.

You do know that The Eastern Orthodox Church is also catholic, don't you?

 

Do you accuse the Nicene Creed of being in error? "One baptism for the forgiveness of sins." 

Let's see what you have to say. What is in error about the Nicene Creed, or do you accept it as a statement of the christian faith?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
13 minutes ago, BlueMinou said:

I haven't even begun to discuss what the bible or catholicism has to say about the blood of Jesus--or The Eastern Orthodox Church says as well.

You do know that The Eastern Orthodox Church is also catholic, don't you?

 

Do you accuse the Nicene Creed of being in error? "One baptism for the forgiveness of sins." 

Let's see what you have to say. What is in error about the Nicene Creed, or do you accept it as a statement of the christian faith?

 

It is meaningless to me.  The Bible is the final arbiter in all matters of Christian faith and practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  88
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   89
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  07/24/2016
  • Status:  Offline

8 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

It is meaningless to me.  The Bible is the final arbiter in all matters of Christian faith and practice.

You should care about the Nicene Creed---and the Apostles Creed too. 

What about the decades in the Early Church when there was no written New Testament as we have it today. How do you know which books would be inspired and which wouldn't be when there was no written New Testament at first?

Where in the Bible does it say the written New Testament is the final arbiter in all matters of faith and practice?

Edited by BlueMinou
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  88
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   89
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  07/24/2016
  • Status:  Offline

15 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

It is meaningless to me.  The Bible is the final arbiter in all matters of Christian faith and practice.

It is absolutely absurd to dismiss the Nicene Creed as meaningless. Are you going to dismiss the Apostle's Creed as meaningless as well? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
13 minutes ago, BlueMinou said:

You should care about the Nicene Creed---and the Apostles Creed too. 

What about the decades in the Early Church when there was no written New Testament as we have it today. How do you know which books would be inspired and which wouldn't be when there was no written New Testament at first?

Where in the Bible does it say the written New Testament is the final arbiter in all matters of faith and practice?

They knew which books were inspired.  The RCC did not sit in judgment and decide that.   You underestimate what early Christians knew and didn't know.   Peter tells us that Paul's letters are Scripture. Paul quoted from Luke and called it Scripture, and we know that Luke drew from Matthew and Mark.   There is a lot of historical data that indicates that early Christians already knew which books were inspired and which were not.

The Bible does not command us to derive our doctrine from men.  The Bible appeals to itself as the book we should study and meditate upon.  It holds nothing higher than itself.   The Bible says that God honors His word above his own Name.  The Bible is the only source of doctrine for true Christians.  

Roman Catholics appeal to men, creeds, councils, priests, traditions and their pope.   But followers of Jesus  appeal to Scripture alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
10 minutes ago, BlueMinou said:

It is absolutely absurd to dismiss the Nicene Creed as meaningless. Are you going to dismiss the Apostle's Creed as meaningless as well? 

It is meaningless to me in terms of where I get my doctrine from.   I get my doctrine from the Bible.  The creeds are inferior to Scripture.  They are what they are, but the Bible is superior.  

If the locus of your faith is found in the creeds, and that is what you trust in, that's your problem.  I can't do anything about it.  But I am a follower of Jesus and He alone is the locus of my faith. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  88
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   89
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  07/24/2016
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

They knew which books were inspired.  The RCC did not sit in judgment and decide that.   You underestimate what early Christians knew and didn't know.   Peter tells us that Paul's letters are Scripture. Paul quoted from Luke and called it Scripture, and we know that Luke drew from Matthew and Mark.   There is a lot of historical data that indicates that early Christians already knew which books were inspired and which were not.

The Bible does not command us to derive our doctrine from men.  The Bible appeals to itself as the book we should study and meditate upon.  It holds nothing higher than itself.   The Bible says that God honors His word above his own Name.  The Bible is the only source of doctrine for true Christians.  

Roman Catholics appeal to men, creeds, councils, priests, traditions and their pope.   But followers of Jesus  appeal to Scripture alone.

You said "They knew which books were inspired." Who are "They"? 

You said "The RCC did not sit in judgement and decide that." So according to you, how was the canon of the New Testament decided? By whom if you don't think the Orthodox, catholic church did(Which includes the Eastern Orthodox Church as well). 

You said "Peter tells us that Paul's letters are Scriptural. Paul quoted from Luke and called it Scripture." So, show us where in the Bible is tells us that. 

How do you know Luke drew from Matthew and Mark. Where in the Bible did you learn of that---or perhaps you learned that from a tradition handed down to us that teaches that. 

What is this so-called historical data you refer to that says the early christians knew which books were inspired and which weren't? Who were these so-called christians and what specific time are you referring to?

You said The Bible does not command us to derive our doctrine from men and The Bible is the only source of doctrine for true Christians, but Paul said " So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15). 

You said  "followers of Jesus  appeal to Scripture alone" but Paul, as above, said differently. Paul also said " the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." Nowhere does the Bible teach to appeal to the New Testament alone. In fact, the New Testament as we have it didn't exist at the time of Paul and was not considered scripture. Scripture was referred to as the Old Testament writings at the time of Paul. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  134
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  8,142
  • Content Per Day:  2.37
  • Reputation:   6,612
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  11/02/2014
  • Status:  Offline

14 hours ago, BlueMinou said:

Catholics affirm what the Bible literally says, that we are saved by faith.

Had this been true, there would have been no Reformation. Kindly check out the teachings of the RCC.  The Sacraments (or should we say some sacraments) are NECESSARY for salvation. Indeed membership in the church of Rome is necessary for salvation.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

VI. The Necessity of Baptism

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 

John 3:5 is the reference at #59. But is that the correct interpretation? The "water" in John 3:5 is a metaphor for the Word of God (Eph 5:26), and in fact relates specifically to the Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16).  Here is how the Gospel becomes the "water" which the Holy Spirit uses to bring about the New Birth (1 Peter 1:23-25). Thus sinners are born again by the water and the Spirit:

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

So Peter, the alleged first Pope of Rome, is telling us that it is not the water of baptism but the water of the Word of God which brings about the New Birth.  It is not easy to give up our cherished beliefs, but if you want the truth, then you must abandon the falsehood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  17
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   10
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/12/2016
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/16/1961

My problem with once saved, always saved is that it puts forth a teaching that once someone accepts Christ, they can live their life as a child killer, rapist, drunkard, etc etc and never have to worry because they'll still go to heaven since they were 'saved' when they were young. I fully believe that someone can willingly walk away from God after salvation has occurred and that if they die before repenting they will spend eternity in hell by their own choice. God will never be the one to turn his back on us, but He certainly gave us the free will to turn our backs on Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...