Is it possible to lose salvation?

[Ronald Nolette]

I know you are mired and chained to YOUR theology.

As you are yours. that is more a compliment than insult for both of us. If you did not hold fast to your theology and only be moved by very compelling and empirical biblical evidence- I would consider you shallow, which I don't.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I know you are mired and chained to YOUR theology.

Just to let you know;

I was once a very real practicing Catholic. No more.

However to honor someone whom I respect and admire deeply (who is Catholic) I am reading the following and studying them:

Behold Your Mother (Marian theology) by Tim Staples
Meeting the Protestant challenge by Karlo Broussard
and :
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Revised in accord with the Latin text promoted by Pope John Paul the Second.

All written by Catholic Scholars.

I would venture a bet I am far more open to change than you if presented with the very compelling biblical evidence.

 

[nedsk]

Take a good look at this and find some truth. @GodsGrace
-
-
1.. Sacried Tradition
The Catholic Church views their own Sacred Tradition as their most important source of revelation, meaning that a good majority of Catholic teachings are not found in any verse in any Bible. This contrasts with most Protestant denominations that emphasize sola scriptura(Scripture alone).

2.) . Purgatory
The concept of Purgatory, a state of purification after death for those who die in God's grace but still need cleansing, is not found in the Bible. The MaryCult also prays for souls in purgatory, which again is not found in any verse in any Bible.

3.) Mary's Assumption and Immaculate Conception:
These are Mary Cult doctrines that developed over time and are not found in any verse in any Bible. The Assumption refers to Mary's bodily ascension into heaven, (in her dead body, she flew there).....while the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary being conceived without original sin, which is another MaryCult false doctrine that is not found in any verse in any Bible.

4.). Transubstantiation:
This doctrine, central to the man made MaryCult theology regarding the ""Eucharist"", states that the bread and wine offered in the Mass are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. This specific explanation of transubstantiation is not found in any Bible verse in any Bible.

5.) The Authority of the Pope:
The Catholic Church believes and teaches that the Pope, as the successor of Saint Peter, has a unique authority as the head of the Church, a role not found in the Bible, in any verse, in any bible. The MarCult in fact beleive and teach that He is the mouthpiece of God, Himself. This is not found in any verse in any Bible.

6.) . Other FALSE Practices and Teachings:

Other False MaryCult practices not found in any verse in any Bible include..

Infant Baptism for Salvation is not found in any Bible.

Veneration of Saints is not found in any Bible.

Removing and collecting Dead Body Parts ( RELICS).. is not found in any Bible.

Praying the Rosary is not found in any Bible.

The use of Holy Water is not found in any Bible.

Feast days for Mary are not found in any Bible

LMBO eat my flesh and drink my blood for my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. I can listen to the person that beside that it I can listen to you. I'm still waiting for you to show evidence for osas and either of the solas. Until you do that I don't care about what drivel you post.

 

[Behold]

LMBO eat my flesh and drink my blood for my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Yet, noone at the last supper actually ate Jesus's Flesh or drank His Blood.
Instead, they all had some bread and some wine.

"Think".

 

[Muna]

A “Covenant” by definition is a binding agreement made between TWO or more parties.
WHO do you think made the choice – the baby or the parent??

The SAME is true in the case of the COVENANT of Baptism. The parent will choose for the child:

Acts 2:38-29
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your CHILDREN and for all who are far off—for ALL whom the Lord our God will call.”

"Your children" wouldn't fly there though, because that is just speaking of their offspring, just as if similar was spoken to the prophets themselves, where it could be said, " the promise is for you and for your children"

As shown here

Acts 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

So he is speaking to the children of the prophets even there, yet these are not literally young children/infants

Besides, the verse you quote will not allow it, because it says "REPENT and be baptized" how can a newborn repent of anything?

You show a picture of circucision of babies by the hands of men, whereas the circumcision of Christ is by the Spirit in the verse verse you quote (follow the words "REPENT and be baptized) first. Jesus even speaks of believing before being baptized, Philip and the enuch could also be said to be a demonstration of the same, "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, IF thou believest with all thine heart, THOU MAYEST. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And there it is, "he that believeth and is baptized".

An infant can neither repent (and be baptized) nor believe (and be baptized) because both occur in the heart, and the promise of the Spirit also pertains to and circumcises the heart. Whereas in what is called infant baptism is really just getting them wet, which holds no meaning or any particular value for the infant.

I can understand trying to justify the same (infant baptism that is) by using the example of circumcision by the hands of men, but Jesus was a minister to the circumcision and he was circumcised the eighth day (by the hands of men) but was also baptized when he become a man, and John (who had the holy Spirit from his mothers womb) said that he still had need to be baptized by Jesus. I do not see how that case can be made between the examples given us in both John and Jesus.

 

[nedsk]

Yet, noone at the last supper actually ate Jesus's Flesh or drank His Blood.
Instead, they all had some bread and some wine.

"Think".

Oh course they did. What did Jesus say at the last supper? Read my word? No. Did he say believe in me? No. Did he say listen to some rando named behold on a obscure Internet site? No even though he knew you'd be here

I'd tell you to "think" but what good would that do?

 

[Marymog]

Just to let you know;

I was once a very real practicing Catholic. No more.

However to honor someone whom I respect and admire deeply (who is Catholic) I am reading the following and studying them:

Behold Your Mother (Marian theology) by Tim Staples
Meeting the Protestant challenge by Karlo Broussard
and :
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Revised in accord with the Latin text promoted by Pope John Paul the Second.

All written by Catholic Scholars.

I would venture a bet I am far more open to change than you if presented with the very compelling biblical evidence.

Hey Ronald,

I appreciate your story. All the books you listed are good however I would also recommend Crossing the Tiber and Upon this Rock by Stephen Ray!

Being open to change doesn't mean that you are more righteous. Being open to change means you don't recognize The Church with authority that Christ started. Scripture says, "Obey your leaders (those that rule over you) and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls,...... you who are younger, be subject to the elders. ". You don't recognize anyone that rules over you and you have no elders! You rule over you. You think that you can read Scripture and properly interpret it to reveal the Truth from it.

Scripture says if you refuse to listen to The Church, you are to be excommunicated and that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Since you have no Church, you can never be excommunicated and you don't accept any church (denomination) as the pillar and foundation of truth.

So in regard to your bet, being open to change only means you are open to the teachings of false prophets.

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Marymog]

As you are yours. that is more a compliment than insult for both of us. If you did not hold fast to your theology and only be moved by very compelling and empirical biblical evidence- I would consider you shallow, which I don't.

Thanks Ronald.

I know it is impossible to have a tone in our words when we are writing them, but rest assured my tone with you is not harsh or mean or belittling etc etc. I am just being matter of fact and straightforward.

Jesus prayer has not been denied (John 17:20-23). There is only One Church with One Teaching, and I have found that Church which is the one you fled. With that said that means I am not mired and chained to my theology because it is not "my" theology. It is the theology of the One True Church that was started by Christ, continued with the Apostles and continued with the men they taught and continued with the men those men taught etc etc etc until the year 2025 and beyond. The Church never stopped teaching the Truth and The Church never went away. There were just some men, such as yourself, who think that they know the Truth and taught a different truth and sadly other men followed. Most of this happened during the Protestant Revolution........Which destroyed Christianity.

You are mired and chained to YOUR theology.......which you have made clear can change at any given moment the more you study Scripture and the writings of other men.

Good luck on your journey. I hope it leads you back to The Church.

 

[Marymog]

“interpretation.”

Some people like throwing that word around to make people stumble in the word of God.

God gives instructions in his holy word, both with plain commands and with multiple examples throughout time. No “interpretation” is required for these things.

“Interpretation” merely involves an explanation of meanings of words. In scripture it also involved explaining of dreams (which interpretations only belonged to God)

“…And Joseph said… Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Gen 40:8, KJV)

Any “interpretation” is solved by utilizing a dictionary. Also, knowledge of the entire Holy Bible is crucial because the Bible often explains itself in multiple places.

Your “interpretation” argument is vanity and a smokescreen.

And you have no argument for your theory. You have fulfilled Scripture though: 2 Peter 3:16

How do you fulfil/interpret this passage: Matthew 18:17

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Straw man argument. I never said anything about either side holding more weight. I'm neither a Roman Catholic nor a Calvinist, which both have some major doctrinal flaws. The argument that the logic of the early church fathers must be right because they lived during the time of the apostles is an appeal to authority and historical proximity. However, it's an oversimplification that does not fully capture the complexity of the argument. Some of the early church fathers, had direct, personal connections to the original apostles. Their proximity gave them a vantage point on the original apostolic teaching and the earliest understanding of Christianity, yet while some early church fathers knew the apostles directly, the majority were separated by at least one generation. Their testimony was not "first-hand," but based on the oral and written accounts of others. The further removed from the apostolic era, the more their information passed through multiple hands. What we have today are copies of copies of copies of their writings. God promised to preserve His Word but not their writings. The early church fathers did not always agree on everything, just like theologians today. To assume their logic must always be right would require ignoring their disagreements. Their authority is qualified by the generational gap, theological disagreements, and recognition that they were not divinely inspired in the same way as the apostles. Their writings are best understood as historical and theological resources, not as infallible texts.

I agree with what you have written. If I left you with the impression that I thought that the Church Fathers were infallible, I apologize. I never thought that, nor do I think I have written that. I do believe that the teachings (writings) of the Apostolic Fathers (students of the Apostles) rightly hold grave weight over the doctrines of The Church........as they should.

Scripture says that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth and that the church decides that you can be excommunicated if you don't agree with the teachings of The Church. That means that The Church (leaders of The Church) has the authority to decide what teachings of the Church Fathers should be considered doctrinally true. And that is what The Catholic Church practices.

Once you, mailmandan, find that Church with authority (like I have)........you will know the Truth.

Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well as the bible tells us that God would raise up a prophet like Moses (Jesus) we know there is a direct comparison. show me the direct comparison between the ark and Mary7? Or even a direct metaphor or symbol

I have better than that. I have a direct quote that is almost verbatim to the OT type:

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

NT fulfillments don’t require direct comparisons.
Where is the “direct” comparison between Joseph and Jesus?

The Ark did not carry God in it! So that comparison is a FAIL

The Ark carried symbols of God and His power:
1. Aaron’s rod
2. The Tablets of the Law (God’s Word)
3. A Jar of Manna (Bread from Heaven

The NEW Ark (Mary) carried the fulfillment of those things:
1. God’s power was displayed through Aaron’s rod
2. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).
3. I am the living bread that came down from Heaven (John 6:51)

So show me an even implied mention that saints in heaven pray for us. Every Scripture exhorting to intercede is between humans on earth! Nowhere in the bible do we see anyone pleading with dead saints to pray for them.

Rev. 5 shows the elders in Heaven taking our prayers to God:

Rev. 5:8
And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints (US).

NOW – why don’t YOU show me a verse that says those in Heaven are no longer a part of the Body of Christ.

Paul was alive and weell on planet earth and was asking saints alive and well on planet earth, not even an allegorical mention of praying to saints in heaven to intercede for us.

And WHERE is the mention – allegorical or otherwise – of Sola Scriptura??

As Scripture says there is only one mediator b etween god and man-the man christ Jesus. We have NO co-mediatrix we need to plead to to stay trhe hand of an angry god as is or was at least taught when I was a good little catholic boy and is in my Catholic Family bible with teh Nihil Obstat and Impramatur.

Jesus is the only mediator, in that, only HE can bring peace between the Father and us. As for “Mediatrix” – we are ALL mediators and intercessors.

But we see necromancy expressly forbidden in Scripture and praying to the dead an evil abomination. there is not even a hint of a call to pray to Jude or Michael or Mother Mary for anything.

YOU don't even understand what "necromancy” is.
Allow me to educate you . . .

According to the Biblical prohibitions on necromance (Lev. 20:6, Deut. 18:10-12) – it is against seeking information (oracles) from the dead or from fortune tellers and mediums.

Asking a member of the Body of Christ to pray for you is NOT necromancy because it doesn’t seek to glean information FROM those in Heaven.

Don’t use words unless you KNOW what they mean . . .

We have but one mediator to God- Jesus. And Jesus ever liveth to make intercession for us. Once again the Scriptures which even the romanists agree is gods Infallible Word, shows th living interceding for the living.

And once again – I already educated you on this point above . . .

All the saints are busy with divine chores to pray for us. It is not even hinted at in Gods word. Only in Catholic Dogma. the living pray for the living. Your vain human reasoning does not change the Scriptures.

As I educated you above - Rev. 5 shows the elders in Heaven taking our prayers to God:

Rev. 5:8
And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints (US).

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Being open to change doesn't mean that you are more righteous. Being open to change means you don't recognize The Church with authority that Christ started. Scripture says, "Obey your leaders (those that rule over you) and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls,...... you who are younger, be subject to the elders. ". You don't recognize anyone that rules over you and you have no elders! You rule over you. You think that you can read Scripture and properly interpret it to reveal the Truth from it.

Never thought of myself as more righteous. I know my old nature to well to think I am better than others.

And you are very wrong that I do not recognize spiritual authority.

I am under a senior pastor and a group of elders. I do obey spiritual authority.

If by reading it and understanding it. Yes we can! Not fOtherwise we would not need pastor/teachers to mature us as written in Ephesiand.

But if you are suffusing that only rome and its leaders have the right to interpret the Word- you are wrong. No one is allowed to interpret the Word.

Only two organizations hold that the laity are not allowed to seek to understand the WQord for themselves-Rome and teh Jehovahs Witnesses. Both are wrong and have led their followers astray in many areas.

Scripture says if you refuse to listen to The Church, you are to be excommunicated and that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Since you have no Church, you can never be excommunicated and you don't accept any church (denomination) as the pillar and foundation of truth.

So in regard to your bet, being open to change only means you are open to the teachings of false prophets.

Well first off, you have grossly misapplied the Matt. 18 verse and ripped it way out odf the context jesus was speaking of. It was about church discipline and not being a robot to accept what ever the leadership of a sect says.

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Well to you they may be false- but you have not established that by empirical evidence but mere opinion. And as they say about opinions, they are like buttholes, every one has one and they generally stink!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Jesus prayer has not been denied (John 17:20-23). There is only One Church with One Teaching, and I have found that Church which is the one you fled. With that said that means I am not mired and chained to my theology because it is not "my" theology. It is the theology of the One True Church that was started by Christ, continued with the Apostles and continued with the men they taught and continued with the men those men taught etc etc etc until the year 2025 and beyond. The Church never stopped teaching the Truth and The Church never went away. There were just some men, such as yourself, who think that they know the Truth and taught a different truth and sadly other men followed. Most of this happened during the Protestant Revolution........Which destroyed Christianity.

You are mired and chained to YOUR theology.......which you have made clear can change at any given moment the more you study Scripture and the writings of other men.

Good luck on your journey. I hope it leads you back to The Church.

See and I believe I am mired to the truth Jesus taught. So you have a differing opinion of me as I of you. I guess we shall leave it to when we stand before Jesus to know for certain.

See I believe teh REformation rescued Christianity from the millennium of when Rome ransacked peoples lives, killed, butchered and stole from people and sent armies to kill. the Dark Ages as they used to be called were birhted by Rome and its evil practices and false teachings, many of which are still practiced to day.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

Coincidental.

The inordinate veneration of Mary is unbiblical.

 

[BreadOfLife]

"Your children" wouldn't fly there though, because that is just speaking of their offspring, just as if similar was spoken to the prophets themselves, where it could be said, " the promise is for you and for your children"

As shown here

Acts 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

So he is speaking to the children of the prophets even there, yet these are not literally young children/infants

This is NOT used in the same context.
In Acts 3:25 - Peter is speaking to adults – about themselves.

In Acts 2:39 – Peter is speaking to adults about their children.

Besides, the verse you quote will not allow it, because it says "REPENT and be baptized" how can a newborn repent of anything?

You show a picture of circucision of babies by the hands of men, whereas the circumcision of Christ is by the Spirit in the verse verse you quote (follow the words "REPENT and be baptized) first. Jesus even speaks of believing before being baptized, Philip and the enuch could also be said to be a demonstration of the same, "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, IF thou believest with all thine heart, THOU MAYEST. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And there it is, "he that believeth and is baptized".

An infant can neither repent (and be baptized) nor believe (and be baptized) because both occur in the heart, and the promise of the Spirit also pertains to and circumcises the heart. Whereas in what is called infant baptism is really just getting them wet, which holds no meaning or any particular value for the infant.

I can understand trying to justify the same (infant baptism that is) by using the example of circumcision by the hands of men, but Jesus was a minister to the circumcision and he was circumcised the eighth day (by the hands of men) but was also baptized when he become a man, and John (who had the holy Spirit from his mothers womb) said that he still had need to be baptized by Jesus. I do not see how that case can be made between the examples given us in both John and Jesus.

The entire argument that a child MUST grow up and declare his faith before being Baptized is ludicrous when compared to circumcision.

As I indicated before – a “Covenant” is a binding agreement made between TWO or more parties. In this case – it’s a sacred binding agreement. An infant is 100% unable to enter into a sacred binding agreement with anybody.

Just as in the case of the Old Covenant – God mad the allowance for the parents to speak on behalf of their children because it was THEIR responsibility to raise them in the faith.
The very SAME is true in the case of Baptism because it is also required.

This is why we see Peter Baptizing the entire household of Cornelius in Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14, in Acts 16:23-33 with the entire household of the Philippian Jailer, and in 1 Cor. 1:16 with the entire household of Stephanas.

 

[nedsk]

Just to let you know;

I was once a very real practicing Catholic. No more.

However to honor someone whom I respect and admire deeply (who is Catholic) I am reading the following and studying them:

Behold Your Mother (Marian theology) by Tim Staples
Meeting the Protestant challenge by Karlo Broussard
and :
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Revised in accord with the Latin text promoted by Pope John Paul the Second.

All written by Catholic Scholars.

I would venture a bet I am far more open to change than you if presented with the very compelling biblical evidence.

The most unconvincing argument I've ever heard in these discussions is, I used to be a Catholic. That means absolutely nothing.

Eat my flesh and drink my blood for my flesh is real drink and blood is real drink. Compelling biblical evidence? If you have to try and explain why Jesus didn't mean what he is clearly saying there then you're not compelled by biblical evidence.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Coincidental.

The inordinate veneration of Mary is unbiblical.

Here is another Type and Fulfillment that you cannot claim is just "coincidence"

OT - On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).

NT - On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

120 priests - 120 disciples
The Ark of the Covenant - Mary, the New Ark
The Holy Spirit came down as fire - The Holy Spirit came down as fire

You can ignore the obvious if you want - but that's on YOU . . .

 

[Michiah-Imla]

@BreadOfLife

How did all the New Testament writers miss all this crucial stuff?

Perhaps because Mary the mother of Jesus has no special importance above every other believer.

Otherwise, would not Peter, or one of the Apostles, had plainly declared Mary’s eminent position during the Pentecost event?

 

[nedsk]

@BreadOfLife

How did all the New Testament writers miss all this crucial stuff?

Perhaps because Mary the mother of Jesus has no special importance above every other believer.

Otherwise, would not Peter, or one of the Apostles, had plainly declared Mary’s eminent position during the Pentecost event?

Why would they? They all knew her eminent position as would anyone reading the passage. Scripture and tradition. Oh right you believe in the unbiblical sola scriptura. My bad

 

[Michiah-Imla]

would not Peter, or one of the Apostles, had plainly declared Mary’s eminent position during the Pentecost event?

Why would they?

Umm… so this wouldn’t be a point of controversy…