Page 5 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: Evangelical view of catholicism
6 years ago  ::  Aug 16, 2008 - 5:59PM #41
miami-ted
Posts: 981
Hello WE,

You wrote:  Well Ted, Jesus started a church for a reason.

Here is probably a basic misunderstanding.  Jesus didn't 'start' a church.  What Jesus said was that on this rock he would build a body of people who would believe in him.  The word translated as 'church' is ekklessia.

Jesus said in Matthew 17:18  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my ekklesia (church), and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Ekklesia - church, congregation, assembly.

So let's use assembly/congregation.

Matthew 16:18  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly/congregation, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

So what Jesus was literally telling Peter is that from the very words that Jesus spoke and the sacrifice of his life for the remission of sin, and of course Peter's confession that he was the Christ the Son of the living God, there would be built a body of people who would believe in him and that body of people will be the 'church'.

The body of people who believe in Jesus has never been assigned the task of guarding the deposit of faith.  As a matter of fact the Scriptures never refer to 'faith' as a deposit.  Rather the Scriptures refer to 'faith' as that quality that believers must have and establish through themselves.  Once we confess Jesus as Lord, then we are given the 'deposit' of the Holy Spirit to live within us to continue God's teaching and to give us understanding of God's word and God's ways.  Jesus, in fact, says that faith is something that we must have of ourselves and that even so much as would be comparable to the size of a mustard seed would be rewarded, but 'faith' is the part of the equation that we bring of ourselves.

Again, I insist that there is no such mention of any mission of the 'assembly/congregation' to guard the deposit of faith and again I will say that while the words of your pope sound high and mighty and full of pomp and circumstance that particular part does not even contain a seed of truth.

Then he goes on to say:  "...and by making the truth of the Gospel shine forth and lead all people to seek and receive Christ's love which surpasses all knowledge."

Now this is truth and if you have done any studying of false religions you will know that this is exactly how they operate.  They take a kernel of truth and then add more to it hoping that being associated with the small kernel of truth will make all of it appear to be true.  This is exactly what Jesus condemned the Pharisees and teachers of the law in his day for.  They would take the truth of God's word and then add several conditions and traditions to it and then make all of it part of God's commands to men.

My friend, just read the Scriptures.  The 'church' is not here to guarantee any 'deposit of faith'.   There is no apostolic accession because the 'church' is not such a thing as a hierarchy, but rather just the believers all in one accord with Christ.  Yes, some of the 'church' are called to be pastors and teachers, but those pastors and teachers can be anyone so long as they are true members of Jesus' 'church' and have such a gift as the Holy Spirit has given for them to teach and pastor a flock.  Timothy was such a man.  Paul was such a man.  Peter, Barnabus and Phillip were just such men.  Members of Jesus' church who were given the gift of the Holy Spirit to teach and pastor.  As a matter of fact, if we read the book of the Acts of the Apostles chapter 8 we find:  On that day a great persecution broke out against the 'ekklesia' (members of this body of believers) and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.  Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him.  But Saul began to destroy the 'ekklesia' (the body of believers).  Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.

Now pay close attention here!!!
Those who had been scattered (who had been scattered?  Why it was believer sother than the first apostles) preached the word.

My friend, anyone who has been given the deposit of the Holy Spirit and has believed and confessed Jesus as Lord can preach and start a local body of believers, (ekklesia/church).  Phillip went down into a city of Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there.  When the crowds heard Phillip and saw the miraculous signs he did, they all paid close attention to what he said.  With shrieks, evel spirits came out of many, and many paralytics and cripples were healed.  So there was great joy in that city.

Now here is where we might reason that this was the beginning of the ekklesia/church in this city in Samaria.  Peter didn't start it.  Peter didn't preach to them.  Peter was no where around.  So Peter did not start, found or otherwise have anything to do with being the founder of the 'church' in this city of Samaria.

God bless, my friend.
Remember this one thing.  If what is preached is not specifically said in the Scriptures, then it deserves to be checked out.  You may find, just as the followers of the Pharisees and teachers of the law in Jesus day did, that a lot of the pomp and circumstance and tradition and explanations are not in keeping with the Scriptures.
In Christ, Ted.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 17, 2008 - 10:07AM #42
walkingeagles
Posts: 790
Please read this Ted. You still have not mentioned why you think 38,000 plus different interpretation are OK and all are the truth.

Scripture
I. Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"

Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us "through our Gospel." What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God's Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn't recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can't discern between God's word (the commandment "don't eat") and a prophet's erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment "don't eat"). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 17, 2008 - 10:16AM #43
walkingeagles
Posts: 790
Ted, You need to read it all.


II. "All Scripture is Inspired"- 2 Tim. 3:16-17

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 17, 2008 - 12:33PM #44
walkingeagles
Posts: 790
Ted, You need to read it all.


II. "All Scripture is Inspired"- 2 Tim. 3:16-17

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 17, 2008 - 2:32PM #45
walkingeagles
Posts: 790
[QUOTE=Anesis;677597]Walkingeagles, I am not going to debate what is biblically sound in the Catholic faith. I simply quoted what my friend said. The OP wanted an evangelical view of Catholics and I provided it from my perspective.[/QUOTE]

You are right. Ted made some comments that I could not ignore. I am sorry that this has disrupted your thread.
I get a little rammy when I see things that are not what the Gospels are abt.

Sorry

Paul
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 17, 2008 - 2:55PM #46
miami-ted
Posts: 981
Hello WE,

You wrote:  Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Well, we may not believe that, but Jesus did.

"Have you not read this Scripture..."
"Then they believed the Scripture..."
"To the public reading of Scripture..."
"Not know the Scriptures or the power of God..."
"To them what was said in the Scriptures..."
"And examined the Scriptures everyday to see..."

My friend, besides the glory of the creation, we have no other witness that tells us the truth about God than the Scriptures.  Now you are free to hold a man or organization as the definitive interpreter of Scripture, but I choose to rely on the Holy Spirit.  One of the greatest evils of the Jews was that they turned to the Rabbis and teachers of the law to interpret and define the Scriptures and I think Jesus was quite clear to them that they, through their interpretation of traditions and rules made by them, saying, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!  You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces.  You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying.  Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!  You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."
When we put a man or organization in charge of how to interpret Scripture and they come away with traditions and rules that are not in the Scriptures, then they win converts and turn them into more a son of hell than they themselves.  But notice that Jesus called them both 'sons of hell'.
Sola Scriptura.  Is the only verified, bonafide truth about God.  All other claims are merely the rantings and imaginations of men.  Now it's clear that you and I can't agree on this and that's OK with me.

You wrote:  Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word.

Actually it is 2 Timothy 3:15 which tells us that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are able to make us wise unto salvation.  Salvation is what Jesus'  followers seek and that comes through the wisdom of the Scriptures 'only'!!  All other traditions and rules of men are mere rantings and imaginings of those who place themselves above the authority of Scripture.

You wrote:  This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

Now you are jumping ship in the middle of the storm.  No one, at least not I, has ever claimed that the Scriptures are the New Testament, but once the New Testament was completed God also closed it for all eternity and it became an addendum to the Scriptures.  Yes, the OT Scriptures tell us all about our need for a Savior and point us towards Jesus and then the NT completes Gods revelation about what we are to do now that Jesus has come.  This is why, my friend, the NT was completed in only a of 30-40 years or so, except for the revelation which is only the telling of how the end will come about and what we can expect in those days.  The revelation gives very little information regarding how one is to be saved.  Does it seem odd to you that God took 1500 years to complete the OT and yet once Jesus came only 40 years or so to complete the remainder of his work?

Anyway, as I wrote you before we must all go with what we believe to be the truth.  I have never said that we need or I agree that we need 38,000 different interpretations.  As a matter of fact, if you will reread what I wrote, I said that all denominations have some incorrect interpretations which is why we have 38,000(Your number not mine) interpretations.  I've never known there to be 38.000 'christian' denominations.  There are probably 38,000 different faiths in all gods.  Maybe you would be so kind as to send me the list of the 38,000 different interpretations of the Scriptures.

God bless.
In Christ, Ted.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 17, 2008 - 9:32PM #47
walkingeagles
Posts: 790
Ted;
The word alone is not in Scripture in this regard. It is your own imagination putting it there.
You want the Bible to suit your beliefs instead of the other way around.

Check up on the internet abt 38,000 Christian sects. i am actually low in number.

There was no Nt writings available in 40 AD.
The church did not put the Bible together until nearly 400.
Then who could read to follow Scripture the way you suggest. People needed the Church to orally give them the Faith.

Want Early Christian beliefs....check out the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, he was a student of St . John.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 18, 2008 - 1:11AM #48
miami-ted
Posts: 981
hello again WE,

Listen if we are to discuss this it would be better to move to our own thread or better yet do it through email.  So this will be my last response regarding this issue on this thread.

You are in error my friend.  You wrote:   There was no Nt writings available in 40 AD. 
Not about this fact, but rather about why you picked 40 A.D. as your reference point.  No one has yet, as far as I can tell said that there were any written NT Scriptures in 40 A.D.  If, however, you are responding to my previous post I said that many of the NT Scriptures had been completed within 30-40 years.   Now it only naturally follows that that 30-40 year span only began after the proclaimer of the gospel left us to be with the Father.  It wouldn't be very well accepted if Matthew or Luke or any of the other NT authors which wrote about nothing but Jesus and his being the promised Christ in 15 A.D.  He hadn't even begun his ministry yet so how could they have written about his ministry?  However, most biblical scholars agree that many of the NT writings were complete by 70 A.D. which is why none of them talk about the destruction of Jerusalem in 72 A.D.  This would be 40 years after Jesus ascended.

You wrote:   The church did not put the Bible together until nearly 400.

While it is true that the book we call the bible that we hold in our hand today was not canonized until a few hundred years after Jesus' ascension, the writings which were canonized had been in circulation for many years before that among the fellowships.  In fact, they had begun circulating in that 30-40 year time span after Jesus' ascension.  The entire reason for the canonization was to stop exactly what is being done by the RCC.  There were heresies and many doubtful manuscripts that were beginning to be circulated among the fellowships and some very wise people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit decided that the only way to put a stop to it was to canonize the Scriptures and decide early on what writings that had been circulating among the fellowships were to be accepted as the truth about Jesus and his teachings and what weren't.  So no, it is not true that the Scriptures were not around before 400 A.D. but that they were around and the insinuation of bogus writings needed to be stopped and so about 400 A.D. wise men sat down and went through all the writings using several criteria that needed to be met in order for them to be considered God's truth and in the end what they came up with was canonized and the back binder of the book was put on closing it to future heresies.

God bless my friend.
In Christ, Ted.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 20, 2008 - 11:12PM #49
RicGator
Posts: 5
[QUOTE=walkingeagles;674518]Some Catholic Biblical beliefs.

II. We are not Guaranteed Salvation; We Hope For Salvation

Heb. 7:27, 9:12,26;10:10; 1 Pet 3:18 - Jesus died once and redeemed us all, but we participate in the application of His redemption by the way in which we live.

Heb. 9:12 - Christ's sacrifice secured our redemption, but redemption is not the same thing as salvation. We participate in and hope for salvation. Our hope in salvation is a guarantee if we are faithful to Christ to the end. But if we lose hope and fail to persevere, we can lose our salvation. Thus, by our own choosing (not by God's doing), salvation is not a certainty. While many Protestant churches believe in the theology of "once saved, always saved," such a novel theory is not found in Scripture and has never been taught by the Church.

Rom. 5:2 - we rejoice in the "hope" (not the presumptuous certainty) of sharing the glory of God. If salvation is absolutely assured after accepting Jesus as Savior, why would Paul hope?

Rom. 5:5 - this "hope" does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit. Our hope is assured if we persevere to the end.

Rom. 8:24 - this "hope" of salvation that Paul writes about is unnecessary if salvation is guaranteed. If salvation is assured, then why hope?

Rom. 10:1 - Paul prays that the Jews "may be saved." Why pray if it's guaranteed? Further, why pray unless you can mediate?

Rom. 12:12 - rejoice in your "hope" (not your certainty), be patient in tribulation, and be constant in prayer.

2 Cor. 3:12 - since we have a "hope" (not a certainty), we are very bold. We can be bold when we are in God�s grace and our persevering in obedient faith.

Gal. 5:5 - for through the Spirit by faith we wait for the "hope" (not the certainty) of righteousness.

Eph. 1:18 - that you may know what is the "hope" to which He has called you, what are the riches of His glorious inheritance.

Eph. 4:4 - there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one "hope" (not the one certainty) that belongs to your call.

Eph. 6:10-17 � Paul instructs the Ephesians to take the whole armor of God, the breastplate of righteousness, and the helmet of salvation, in order �to stand,� lest they fall. Paul does not give any assurance that the spiritual battle is already won.

Phil. 3:11 - Paul shares Christ's sufferings so that "if possible" he may attain resurrection. Paul does not view his own resurrection as a certainty.

Phil. 1:20 - as it is my eager expectation and "hope" (not certainty) that I shall not be at all ashamed before Christ.

Col. 1:5 - Paul refers to the "hope" (not guarantee) that Christ laid up for us in heaven.

Col. 1:23 - provided that you continue in the faith, not shifting from the "hope" of the gospel which you heard.

Col. 1:27 - to them God chose to make known His mystery, which is Christ in you, the "hope" (not the certainty) of His glory.

1 Thess. 1:3 - remembering before our God your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of "hope" in Jesus Christ.

1 Thess. 2:19 - for what is our "hope" or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?

1 Thess. 5:8 - we must put on the helmet of "hope" (not of certainty) of salvation.

2 Thess. 2:16 - the Lord Jesus and God our Father who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good "hope" through grace.

1 Tim. 1:1 - Paul describes Christ Jesus as our "hope" (not our guarantee). We can reject Him and He will allow this.

1 Tim. 4:10 - Paul says we toil and strive because we have our "hope" (not our assurance) on the living God. This is not because God is unfaithful, but because we can be unfaithful. We toil and strive for our salvation.

1 Tim. 5:5 - she who is a real widow, and is left all alone, has set her "hope" (not her assurance) on God. Our hope is a guarantee only if we persevere to the end.

1 Tim. 5:15 � Paul writes that some have already strayed after satan, as God Himself tells us in 1 Tim. 4:1. They were on the right path, and then strayed off of it.

2 Tim. 2:10 - Paul endures for the elect so that they "may also obtain salvation." This verse teaches us that even the "elect,� from the standpoint of human knowledge, have no guarantee of salvation.

Titus 1:2 - Paul says that he is in the "hope" (not the certainty) of eternal life. Paul knows that his hope is a guarantee if he perseveres, but his ability to choose sin over God makes his attainment of eternal life less than an absolute certainty until it is actually achieved.

Titus 2:13 - awaiting our blessed "hope," the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Titus 3:7 - Paul says we have been given the Spirit so we might become heirs in the "hope" (not the certainty) of eternal life.

Heb. 3:6 - we are Christ's house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our "hope" (not our certainty).

Heb. 6:11 - we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of "hope" (not certainty) until the end.

Heb. 6:18 - we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the "hope" (not the certainty) that is set before us.

Heb. 6:19 - we have a "hope" that enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone before us.

Heb. 7:19 - on the other hand, a better "hope" (not certainty) is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

Heb. 10:23 - let us hold fast the confession of our "hope" without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.

Heb. 11:1 - now faith is the assurance of things "hoped" for (not guaranteed), the conviction of things not seen (heaven).

Heb. 12:1 � let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us.

Heb. 12:15 � see to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no root of bitterness spring up and cause trouble, and by it many become defiled.

James 1:12 - we must endure trial and withstand the test in order to receive the crown of life. It is not guaranteed.

1 Peter 1:3 - by His mercy we have been born anew to a living "hope" through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

1 Peter 1:13 - set your "hope" (not assurance) fully upon the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 1:21 - through Him you have confidence in God, who raised him from the dead so that your faith and "hope" are in God.

1 Peter 2:2 - like newborn babes, long for spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation. How can you grow up to something you already possess?

1 Peter 3:15 - always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the "hope" that is in you.

1 John 3:3 - and everyone who thus "hopes" in Him purifies himself as He is pure. These verses teach us that we must cooperate with God�s grace and persevere to the end to be saved. We can and do have a moral certitude of salvation if we persevere in faith, hope and love.

Top[/QUOTE]

My dear "walkingeagles".

Please cite your source for your large copy and paste post from http://www.scripturecatholic.com/ , the site where Scripture twisting is the norm.

In God's Grace,
Ric
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 21, 2008 - 1:47AM #50
Anesis
Posts: 1,543
RicGator, welcome to Beliefnet, and to the Evangelical Christianity forum. I hope you will make your way around, check out the various discussions and forums, and come back to the EC board often!

Anesis
Beliefnet Community Host
Evangelical Christianity
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook