Can a Person Lose Salvation?

FOMWatts<>< · Mar 1, 2005

Qoheleth said:
By your characterization of God, you will turn from God if that is what he purposes for you though--right? You do not have any say in this?

Q

Yep, you are right...if HE has purposed me for Hell, then that is where I will be. Knowing my the solidity of my salvation helps me in this. It helps me know that I love the Lord my God, and those that love Him know Him and those are the Elect of God. If a man loves God, through God the Son, He will not be turned away. I am not saying that some can come knocking at the door and God say, "Oh no, you are made for hell!" I am saying that those who come to Him are those whom HE has called to Him. That is why the message is for everyone, so that all will have their exposure to the message that brings faith, faith FROM God brought forth by His calling, and HIS opening up the listeners heart. If they are not of the Elect, they will not want to hear it, they will not undertand, because the message of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing, but to those that are living, it is the power of God! I find the message of the cross to be utterly amazing, therefore I must be a child of the Elect. I will accept God's will for me, whatever it may be is what I was trying to say in the last post. Assurity is the difference between the two messages.

FOM<><

pro_odeh · Mar 1, 2005

I think you are mixing up the free will and God's forth knowledge! They are two diffrent things. Yes, God does know everything that will happen, but He also gave us a will so that we could be able to choose between good and evil. Even though God knows what we will choose, we are the ones who make the choice. The fact that God knows our choice does not mean that it is He who intentionally sends us to hell.
I don't have time for more today, but I will be back later...
God bless!!!

FOMWatts<>< · Mar 1, 2005

pro_odeh said:
I think you are mixing up the free will and God's forth knowledge! They are two diffrent things. Yes, God does know everything that will happen, but He also gave us a will so that we could be able to choose between good and evil. Even though God knows what we will choose, we are the ones who make the choice. The fact that God knows our choice does not mean that it is He who intentionally sends us to hell.
I don't have time for more today, but I will be back later...
God bless!!!

I'll assume this was addressed to me, because I realllllly want to reply regardless. If God chose us, BECAUSE we chose Him and He just had privy information on our choice, that would be a choice made on OUR merit, or our positive volition, which we do not have, that would not be grace (unmerited favor), that would be earning our salvation by CHOOSING God. Also, take a look at these verses about Jacob and Esau...

Romans 9:10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

I mean, it can not get much clearer. It had NOTHING to do with what they had done, or not done in the future, but ALL to do with God's purpose in Election, we do not even know what that purpose is, but we do know that He has one...God's will be done.

FOM<><

GenemZ · Mar 1, 2005

DrBubbaLove said:
No that was not my point. But now that you mention it, if we all did follow the Church there would be unity in all Christian faith and that would be Good.

If only everyone would submit to Communism and not fight it, there would only be good, too. No more war. No more greed. Everyone would be in harmony with the dictates of the state.

If you can be holy where you are, then you are better off there than being a marginal Catholic. Essentially as a Christian, one is Catholic in that all Christians are part of the Body of Christ. Outside it, a Christian is not in "communion" with the Church and is separated from both being able to receive All the Graces administered through the Church, as well as the fullness of all the Truths revealed to man from God.

If it is not what the Word teaches.... and only the dictates of a man who people decide to submit to as their spiritual "king", there can be no unity in the Spirit. Only in the willingness to submit to an order created by men in the name of God.

You are correct about the Jewish faith, it is older than all ours.

Just to clarify.....

The Model T Ford is part of the same family as a Ford Taurus. The Jewish faith is our faith taken to the next stage in God's plan. It is not another faith, but the same faith which has become advanced. What Jews practice today, is not what was the faith of their fathers. So, that is probably why as you see it as an "older faith." Its still faith.

We speak here of NT things however. Most "rabbis" only accept the OT (and depending on sect maybe only certain parts authoritatively) and they collectively have indeed been studying it longer. We would be wise to consider how they view the Old Testament, but we also know that the completion of that story, the fulfillment is in the New Testament. Neither part is complete without the other. So yes, I would think understanding the first part, would to a large degree but only to a point, be aided by knowing how the Jews view it.

The point was (which you missed) was that my mother was willing to make the rabbi into her "pope." That, what ever he said, she would accept as being the truth. In other words, she was guaranteeing that she would reject the word concerning Christ, because she fully submitted to the interpretation of the bias of the man she chooses to listen to. God is not pleased with that attitude. For even paul admired those who refused to accept his word as being final (like Catholics do with the Pope) , but rather..... these believers tested what he taught by searching the Scriptures to prove him out.

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11

Are Catholics allowed to question the teachings of the church in like manner? If the Pope says something is so? Are you allowed to think for yourself and question? To test his words by searching the Scripture to see if what he says is in agreement with the entire Bible?

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21

And, if you find he is in error? Or, that the church teaching contains error? What are you allowed to do?

When I used to live in Massachusettes I attended Bible studies which were sponsored by a local Catholic church. (By the way. I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood. almost all my friends I loved and grew up with, were Catholic).

One night while listening to a lesson being presented by a priest, I found that he was missing a vital point of Scripture concerning the resurrection. During a time when we were free to exchange ideas I shared with him the understanding that I was shown to be accurate. He paused. He nodded. He then was relieved to see what I just told him. He said, "yes! yes!" He then told me something that till this day has not left me. He said to me (before all listening)..... "Please be patient with us Catholics. You Protestants have been into studying the Word in depth for many years. This is something only relatively new to us." (I paraphrased a bit, but that was the essence to what he said to us).

And, I might add, the members of the local Catholic church would rent out a room at the community center to hold these studies. They would not be held on the church property. Each week was a new visting priest to give a study. And, in attendance it appeared I was the only non Catholic to be present. I am not Protestant, but that is what he called me.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Qoheleth · Mar 1, 2005

12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

I mean, it can not get much clearer. It had NOTHING to do with what they had done, or not done in the future, but ALL to do with God's purpose in Election, we do not even know what that purpose is, but we do know that He has one...God's will be done.

Yet this is not in reference (and in proper context and tradition) to individual salvation.

Q

FOMWatts<>< · Mar 1, 2005

Qoheleth said:
Yet this is not in reference (and in proper context and tradition) to individual salvation.

Q

IT IS IN REFERENCE, and it has ALL to do with salvation, it has to do with how God works in purposing HIS plan, not OURS. You left off the important part of the verse pal...

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

It has to do with all that we are talking about; free-will, could Esau have DONE something, say CHOOSE God to make Him love him? No! Because before they were born or had done ANYTHING of merit, good or evil, God LOVED Jacob and HATED Esau; The ordination of God, did God look into the future to see what these two fellas would do? NO! HE CHOSE what they would do, he fashioned them together and he knit them together to work out HIS purpose, not their own...;salvation, it has all to do with salvation, could Esau, or Pharoah, or Judas, done anything to go to Heaven? Could they have refused to do what God had purposed them to do? No they couldn't have. They were made for destruction so that His might and power be shown to HIS people, not those that are not His people. COME ON!

FOM<><

Qoheleth · Mar 1, 2005

IT IS IN REFERENCE, and it has ALL to do with salvation, it has to do with how God works in purposing HIS plan, not OURS. You left off the important part of the verse pal...

pal ??? Somewhat condescending wouldnt you say?

To say that God has elected some to salvation and some to damnation, would say that if there were two brothers in a family, one a believer and the other unbeliever; that God had mercy and compassion on the one who was saved, but that He did not show any mercy or compassion on the one who was unsaved, should he die in that state. God's actions are not based alone on his Foreknowledge but are based in the back ground of his attribute of love. If you will notice in Romans 9: 18 it says in that verse, "therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy."

Therefore, some would say that if the unconverted brother would die in his sin, God did not have mercy on him. That is a false view of the teaching of this verse. All the truth concerning the attitude of God toward unsaved man is not to be found in one verse. Romans 9: 18 is not the whole of the Bible, neither does it teach all about the mercy of God toward the children of men. What does this verse teach? Is there any hint as to whom God will have mercy upon? If you turn to Romans 11:32 there will be some light on the truths concerning God and those who are the objects of His mercy. Romans 11: 32 tells us:

32. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Now how many are the objects and recipients of God's mercy? The text clearly tells us that he has mercy upon all. God does not only have mercy on a few but His mercy is expanded until it reaches all men. God has mercy upon all men and His mercy upon all is according to Romans 11:32. Whom does he harden? Romans 9:17.

17. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Those who purposely harden themselves against God. God had mercy upon Pharaoh and that mercy was extended to Pharaoh even while hardening his heart. God's mercy is upon all. Do not limit it to a few." (Andrew Telford)

BTW, note in Exodus that Pharaoh hardens his heart for the first five plagues. After having done that to himself, then with the sixth plague, God hardens Pharaoh's heart. In other words, God is confirming the hardening action that Pharaoh had already done on himself.

Q

tdcharles · Mar 1, 2005

FOMWatts<>< said:
Wow, if the truth makes you turn from God I would say you never truly knew Him anyway, because to know Him is to love Him and the only way to turn from Him is to have never known Him. The only way to KNOW Him is to read His word and not judge Him with human wisdom and standards. To you I would say, who are you to question God? Can He not do what He wants with what He has made? Is it not His right to purpose some for great things and some for normalcy, even poverty? God does what He wants, because His purpose is His ultimate goal. More than making you or I happy, He will always bring glory to Himself. I would encourage reading more scholars on these verses because I too have read other scholars and ALL of them came to the same conclusion that I have. I do not stand alone in my thinking, there are a number of people who are slowly coming back to taking the Word of God at what it says, and we love Him anyway and BECAUSE of it. I pray that if I am in error, that scripture speak to me, possibly through one of you. That the Holy Spirit open my mind and my heart to what is truth if what I feel He has already shown me proves false. I welcome being wrong, because proving me wrong would be causing me to learn, which is what I am here for.

Could you also please list some of the scholars you have read that came to a different conclusion? I would like to read what they have to say about it. Thanks. Here are some of the ones that I have read:

John MacArthur Jr.
John Calvin
Jonathon Edwards
Walter Elwell
C.H. Spurgeon
Holman N.T. Commentary

Though all but a few of these are reformed, they all are scholars of Greek and interpreted their beliefs from the Greek translation from these and other verses. I am no scholar of Greek, but with a little time I can break down these verses on here if you like. I am not trying to persuade you so that you may turn from God, I would hate to see that happen, but I feel your comment was based on your confidence that I was wrong. I do not take offense, because that is why we are all here to portray what we understand as the Truth from scripture. I know that you do the saem and as a brother I respect you for that. However, if I ever be proven wrong and something turns out to be true about God that I find unbelievable or unfair, I will NEVER turn from God. I will struggle and serve in His name until I die. Nothing true about the God I serve will scare me away using my own judgements. Remember, God is NOT fair, if He were, we would all be in Hell.

God Be Blessed,

FOM<><

I primarily read Albert Barnes, William Burkitt, Adam Clarke, but I have several others as well. They are unanimous in their opinon that you are taking too many creative liberties with the scripture (for example Acts 3:17). Although it is suggested that sometimes God does inspire humans to do His will, they never take it farther than that. If you tone down your argument then they will be in agreement with you. The problem, I think, is that you take bits and pieces of scripture and make generalizations.

I was beginning to understand our purpose on earth. But now you've reduced humans to mere dolls that God plays with. Let's just use common sense, in order to accept Christ you must have a conscious choice to do so, otherwise WE don't make the decision, thus not commiting the act of accepting. Why even have a Gospel if everything is predestined? If your response is I shouldn't question God, don't bother responding.

Endure2 · Mar 1, 2005

genex,

As for your first question, it was to FOMWATTS, like it says.

but you dont seem to understand that just becuase God deals with someone in wrath, it doesnt mean he doesnt love them. the bible says Gods chastisement is on those he loves.

no, God so loved the world that he gave his only son, and God died for the world before the world ever received his offer, before it ever believed, before there was anything righteous about it. it doesnt say he was offering his love, he said he loved the world.

it says he demonstrates his own love for us...
yes that means he loved us. it was his love for us.

you said

That is because they were already his. Like a rebellious teenager who parents weep over when their child does bad things and follows the crowd.

so you agree God loved them?

then why doesnt your normal logic apply here, God made the ground open up and swallow people, people died at the hand of the sword, people die in slavery, people were ravished and destroyed... in his dealings with them.

if that doesnt xchange that God loves them... why does hell change that God loves people there?

as a RULE, God loves everyone.
God hating esau meant that God had preference agaisnt him. it doesnt mean he didnt love esau.

God loved the world and died for it, while it never believed, while it was not righteous, while few heard and accepted... but it says he loved the world, many later came to believe in him, but this was when they all turned and killed him, he loved them. it says he loved them.

but this is nonsense to be debating over something like this.

God is not as materialistic as you think, he loves me, he doesnt just love what i do for him or for what i give him. thats not love. even i understand that.

FOMWatts<>< · Mar 1, 2005

Qoheleth said:
pal ??? Somewhat condescending wouldnt you say?

To say that God has elected some to salvation and some to damnation, would say that if there were two brothers in a family, one a believer and the other unbeliever; that God had mercy and compassion on the one who was saved, but that He did not show any mercy or compassion on the one who was unsaved, should he die in that state. God's actions are not based alone on his Foreknowledge but are based in the back ground of his attribute of love. If you will notice in Romans 9: 18 it says in that verse, "therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy."

Therefore, some would say that if the unconverted brother would die in his sin, God did not have mercy on him. That is a false view of the teaching of this verse. All the truth concerning the attitude of God toward unsaved man is not to be found in one verse. Romans 9: 18 is not the whole of the Bible, neither does it teach all about the mercy of God toward the children of men. What does this verse teach? Is there any hint as to whom God will have mercy upon? If you turn to Romans 11:32 there will be some light on the truths concerning God and those who are the objects of His mercy. Romans 11: 32 tells us:

32. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Now how many are the objects and recipients of God's mercy? The text clearly tells us that he has mercy upon all. God does not only have mercy on a few but His mercy is expanded until it reaches all men. God has mercy upon all men and His mercy upon all is according to Romans 11:32. Whom does he harden? Romans 9:17.

17. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Those who purposely harden themselves against God. God had mercy upon Pharaoh and that mercy was extended to Pharaoh even while hardening his heart. God's mercy is upon all. Do not limit it to a few." (Andrew Telford)

BTW, note in Exodus that Pharaoh hardens his heart for the first five plagues. After having done that to himself, then with the sixth plague, God hardens Pharaoh's heart. In other words, God is confirming the hardening action that Pharaoh had already done on himself.

Q

I apologize if you thought "pal" was condescending, I say that a lot and I mean it as a term of brotherhood because after all, despite our difference in doctrine, we are part of the same brotherhood, unless of course God has chosen us for different purposes

You say that my view of the verse is false, so lets break down the verse and also a few other verses that refer directly to this doctrine...all of scripture can be viewed in light of the truth of this verse, but we must acknowledge that our understanding is not God's and His purpose in election is unknown to us. I'll break it down on the next post...

FOMWatts<>< · Mar 1, 2005

[size=-1]HEHEHE after much work and trying to fit it all in I had too much stuff on here, EVERYTHING happens for a reason...if you care to break down these verses in Greek blueletterbible.org has a great translator, it gives all definitions of the original text of the Bible, a great resource for our discussion.[/size]

I'll be back sometime tonight after class.

FOMWatts<><

GenemZ · Mar 1, 2005

Endure2 said:
genex,

As for your first question, it was to FOMWATTS, like it says.

but you dont seem to understand that just becuase God deals with someone in wrath, it doesnt mean he doesnt love them. the bible says Gods chastisement is on those he loves.

Chastisement is not the same as wrath. That would be like saying a spanking is like getting run over by a tank and blown up!

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36

Wrath is not for the believer. It says, wrath is for those who believe not.

"For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thessalonians 5:9

That says, we are not appointed to receive the wrath of God once we are saved.

no, God so loved the world that he gave his only son, and God died for the world before the world ever received his offer, before it ever believed, before there was anything righteous about it. it doesnt say he was offering his love, he said he loved the world.

Interesting point.

It does not say he loves the world. It says (past tense) that he loved the world. God only loves the world as he originally created it to be.

Genesis 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

That tells us that as it originally was, He loved it. In contrast, He could not love the world after the fall of man. For it says.....

1 John 2:15
"Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

If God presently loved the world, we would love the world, too. And, with God's approval. For the love of God abides in us when we are filled with the Spirit.

At one time God loved (past tense) the world. He now desires to redeem it. Salvage it (salvation). Bring it back to what he once had it to be..... But, he does not love the world today. He can not. Its a lost and dying world.

it says he demonstrates his own love for us...
yes that means he loved us. it was his love for us.

I see. When you are allowed to test drive a car. You simply take it home and keep it? No....... God was demonstrating for all to see what it is that he has to offer of Himself. Many refuse.

if that doesnt xchange that God loves them... why does hell change that God loves people there?

Hell is a refuse dump that burns forever. Do you dig up your septic tank and re-eat a meal you once loved before it became waste? Likewise, God loved what he intended all to be in original creation. But, the world is now fallen. It is a wate. Many refuse to believe and are evil. God hates evil. God does not love the world. He "loved" the world as it was when he first created it.

as a RULE, God loves everyone.
God hating esau meant that God had preference agaisnt him. it doesnt mean he didnt love esau.

I love you so much I will kill you?

I love you so much I will steal from you?

God loves Osama bin Laden?

God loves evil men?

God loves you because you believed in Christ.

God is not as materialistic as you think, he loves me, he doesnt just love what i do for him or for what i give him. thats not love. even i understand that.

Right now he loves you because of what Jesus did on our behalf. He loves you "in Christ." For, Christ died in our place. But, God will not be free to love you (for you, being just you) until after you are in your sinless glorified resurrection body.

Yes, to some extent, God is materialistic. For its in our material bodies that our sin nature resides. It is our sin that God hates and kept us separated from union with him until Jesus paid for our sins. The material part of us (our flesh) kept is from the spiritual life we now find in Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:2
"To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christtheir Lord and ours."

Once we are in our resurrection bodies we will be perfect and without sin. We will be righteous in who and what we are. That is when God will be free to love us directly, and no longer having to love us through Christ. Right now, God must now see us through the filter of his justice. Seeing us in Christ, is to be seeing us crucified in Christ. He sees our flesh as (legally) being already dead.

Galatians 2:20
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."

God must now see us as having been crucified. Once we are in our glorified resurrection body it will be no longer necessary for him to see us that way. He will then see us as being the same righteousness (in ourselves) as the Son has.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Wild_Fan4Christ · Mar 1, 2005

Personal interpretation....don't take things out of context

As far as I'm concerned, threads like this one about if you can lose your salvation is making a mockery out of Jesus. The question should not even come up as anyone who calls themself a Christian also believes in a hell. So why then do you not believe you "can't" lose your salvation? If you are already "saved," shouldn't you be up in heaven right now?

Again, don't take things out of context with your personal interpretation.

GenemZ · Mar 1, 2005

Wild_Fan4Christ said:
Wild_Fan4Christ said:

Personal interpretation....don't take things out of context

Click to expand...

First of all. Who are you responding to?

Second. Ok. If it was to me? Then, what is the context?

You only provided your personal opinion if you fail to provide the very context you claim "who ever" did not provide.

As far as I'm concerned, threads like this one about if you can lose your salvation is making a mockery out of Jesus.

Click to expand...

One side is. Which one, you do not say.

The question should not even come up as anyone who calls themself a Christian also believes in a hell. So why then do you not believe you "can't" lose your salvation? If you are already "saved," shouldn't you be up in heaven right now?

Click to expand...

First of all, you used a double negative. A double negative cancels itself out. I am not sure that was your intention. For you said....

So why then do you not believe you "can't" lose your salvation?

Click to expand...

The double negative would not be needed if you stated it this way.

"So why then do you believe you "can't" lose your salvation?"

But.... You said....

So why then do you not believe you "can't" lose your salvation?

That is saying that one does not believe that they can not lose their salvation. There's the rub. You can not be responding to my post, because I have been showing why we can not lose our salvation. But, without saying to whom you were speaking, it appeared right after my post, as if you were somehow responding to me.

That's Ok. If you are new at this, it just takes time to get it so others will not be confused. Next time, you may wish to highlight the area to quote from the other, then click on the "Quote" icon on top (to far right).

Again, don't take things out of context with your personal interpretation.

Click to expand...

Again, without you providing the needed context which you claim is missing, we have no idea if you truly understand the context, yourself. What you did was in effect, was to say .....

" It's my opinion that you are opinionated."

Grace and peace, GeneZ

DrBubbaLove · Mar 1, 2005

Genez,
why are all these people clogging our thread?

Some Catholics do not understand their faith or even what the Pope represents. We do not believe everything the Pope says is an edict or doctrine. In matters outside Doctrine, Tradition and Holy Scripture, the Pope is as entitled to an opinion as anyone else. Think we would do well to listen to his opinion on anything. Would think any one so holy as our current Pope, must have wisdom from God. But we do not wait for his every word. As for his Infallible word, heard that our Pope has only had to use that grace in the official capacity 3 times in almost 2000 years. So that fact should clue you in that you are mistaken about what a Pope is to us. Do not feel bad, many Catholics are mistaken as well, so you are not alone in this.

Knowing what little I do about how long they study before becoming Priests, would say that one was not speaking of his own knowledge but in general of all Catholics. Most Catholics do not know the Bible like protestors do. If they go to mass regularly they hear almost all of it read in a repeating 3-year cycle, but few read it for themselves. I am a convert so have the best of both now! This does not meant the Church has not studied and given opinion on all aspects of the Bible, so my point stands. But you make a good point about us, we should all read the Bible more!

As to using buildings on Church grounds, the rules can very between dioceses or even among parishes. Am told that at one time (and maybe even now with some Pastors) that the use of the Parish building was tightly controlled. This does not seem to be strictly the case today. Also think that Catholic Priests have sometimes been suspicious (and often rightly so) of lay people wanting to lead study groups at the Church. The teaching authority of our Church comes from Jesus, through the Apostles and is given to the Priesthood today. To allow anyone to use the Church to teach scriptures without over-sight is dangerous, so it is often easier to maintain a policy of not allowing it unless it is a Bishop authorized course. Keeps people from dancing with snakes you know!

There is a shortage of Priests and other religious. The ones I know are extremely busy every day, so teaching classes is a priority, just not the first on their lists. However, even in my large parish the classes offered are often not well attended. So the attitude of many Catholics towards learning needs to change also.

My parish is large, has a gym and pre-school and several large meeting rooms a few smaller ones. There are weekly scripture classes for adults. During Lent this year they are showing and discussing Mel Gibson's move THE PASSION at the Parish and in homes. Am told the Church is becoming more active in promoting adult education and from my experience this is true. It still does not compare with a private Catholic education K-12. Those schools are unfortunately rare today. Think Catholic education may be making a come back given the sorry state and/or leadership of so many public school systems.

Wild_Fan4Christ · Mar 1, 2005

genez pointed out a mistake I made in my post, oops :doh:

Wild_Fan4Christ said:
Personal interpretation....don't take things out of context

As far as I'm concerned, threads like this one about if you can lose your salvation is making a mockery out of Jesus. The question should not even come up as anyone who calls themself a Christian also believes in a hell. So why then do you not believe you "can't" lose your salvation? If you are already "saved," shouldn't you be up in heaven right now?

Again, don't take things out of context with your personal interpretation.

It should read, "So why then do you believe you can't lose your salvation?"

My bad, I was typing fast. Thanks for pointing that out genez

I was not responding to anyone person in particular. I was just making a statement that I see from many Protestant church's that have fallen prey to this trap. It is personal interpretation of scripture.

Hence the reason for my post. This matter has been settled and has been for 2,000 years. Again, it is not something we should be discussing as it makes a mockery out of Jesus. Personal opinion and personal interpretation are two totally different things. It is ok to have a personal opinion. But to have your own interpretation of scripture is not. One person may say something is right while another person says it is different. Pretty soon, as we do now, we have people arguing on something but no one comes to a conclusion as to what is truth. People leave even more confused in the end which defeats the purpose of Christianity.

Again, I say this is a mockery of Jesus and should not be continued. I am so happy I have the Catholic Church's teaching on this with the Magisterum of scripture interpretation :crossrc:

GenemZ · Mar 1, 2005

DrBubbaLove said:
Genez,
why are all these people clogging our thread?

They are "clog hoppers?" One thread, to another?

Some Catholics do not understand their faith or even what the Pope represents. We do not believe everything the Pope says is an edict or doctrine. In matters outside Doctrine, Tradition and Holy Scripture, the Pope is as entitled to an opinion as anyone else.

Good to know.

Knowing what little I do about how long they study before becoming Priests, would say that one was not speaking of his own knowledge but in general of all Catholics. Most Catholics do not know the Bible like protestors do. If they go to mass regularly they hear almost all of it read in a repeating 3-year cycle, but few read it for themselves. I am a convert so have the best of both now! This does not meant the Church has not studied and given opinion on all aspects of the Bible, so my point stands. But you make a good point about us, we should all read the Bible more!

I know of Catholics who did read the Bible for themselves. The ones I know left the RCC, after they found out what the Bible says, in contrast to what tradition of the Church teaches. I am not saying all catholics who read their Bible do this. Only the ones I know who read their Bible.

Also think that Catholic Priests have sometimes been suspicious (and often rightly so) of lay people wanting to lead study groups at the Church. The teaching authority of our Church comes from Jesus, through the Apostles and is given to the Priesthood today.

These were all ordained Catholic priests. Not, lay teachers.

To allow anyone to use the Church to teach scriptures without over-sight is dangerous, so it is often easier to maintain a policy of not allowing it unless it is a Bishop authorized course.

That is ( in my Biblically oriented opinion ) a wrong way to have the Bible taught. Each pastor-teacher should be led of the Spirit to teach what is needed for his given congregation. The needs of each congregation can not be the same. To have a bureaucratic system of teaching is to, in effect, cut off the relationship between the pastor-teacher and the Holy Spirit's leading. The pastor's relationship is then not where it should be. Between him and God. This Bishop has gotten in between. That is not good. That is not Scriptural. Individual congregations have vastly different needs. Their needs can not be met by generic messages dictated by a Bishop. And, in any given Church today, the pastor-teacher is the Bishop. He is the elder overseer. This is no longer the early days of the church age when things were just getting started and established. At best, we have deacons to oversee the congregation, but they never tell the pastor what he is to teach.

Keeps people from dancing with snakes you know! There is a shortage of Priests and other religious. The ones I know are extremely busy every day, so teaching classes is a priority, just not the first on their lists. However, even in my large parish the classes offered are often not well attended. So the attitude of many Catholics towards learning needs to change also.

Got it in reverse. If the teaching is truly good, you would have to have standing room only. You would not need to change the attitude of the congregation. You need to change the teaching. What many fail to see, is that the Church is supposed to be a calssroom where the Bible is taught and learned. Foreign concept to you? Sad to say, today in many cases, it would be.

My parish is large, has a gym and pre-school and several large meeting rooms a few smaller ones. There are weekly scripture classes for adults. During Lent this year they are showing and discussing Mel Gibson's move THE PASSION at the Parish and in homes. Am told the Church is becoming more active in promoting adult education and from my experience this is true.

While you are at it? Can you show me where in Scripture that to "give up" something for Lent is stated? I never found it in my Bible. I am wondering where it can be. Mind letting us know where this is commanded in the Word of God?

It still does not compare with a private Catholic education K-12. Those schools are unfortunately rare today. Think Catholic education may be making a come back given the sorry state and/or leadership of so many public school systems.

Like I have told you. I was brought up Jewish in a Catholic neighborhood. My mom used to tell me how she disliked the lack of discipline I had in public school. She told me (more than once) how she would have preferred to have me attend Catholic school, for there the students receive good discipline. But, because we were Jewish, I did not attend. But, God made up for lost time when he led me to Bible College years later.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

DrBubbaLove · Mar 1, 2005

Genez, been fun but we drift way off. Am sorry you have so many misunderstandings about the Church and that my feeble attempt to explain seems to have only confused you more.

later

GenemZ · Mar 1, 2005

DrBubbaLove said:
Genez, been fun but we drift way off. Am sorry you have so many misunderstandings about the Church and that my feeble attempt to explain seems to have only confused you more.

later

I do not think I misunderstand as much as you claim. If one really understands what he is involved with, his attempts would not be feeble. He would be able to explain.

Oh well........ If, drift you must.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

linden · Mar 1, 2005

genez said:
...There is no such thing as salvation according to your concept. It all depends if we catch God on a bad day when we lose our salvation. If he's in a bad mood, and we do something wrong? Wham! If he is in a good mood? Well, OK..... he'll let us live longer in order to get saved again. Right?...

Gene, sounds like they have not read the following verse:

1 John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Linden

Can a Person Lose Salvation?

Follower of the Way

-=Disciple of Jesus Christ=-

Follower of the Way

Well-Known Member

Byzantine Catholic

Follower of the Way

Byzantine Catholic

Ora et labora

Veteran

Follower of the Way

Follower of the Way

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads