Is it possible to lose salvation?

[Ezra]

Calvinists don't believe mankind has free will even though it's taught in God's Word:

i know i was in carm forum full of them.. i was called all kinds of names.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It would not, and you would lose day one.

Sooooo, you claim that the 2nd Coming already happened - but you don't have a date or ANY documented evidence.

What color is the sky in your world??

Wow, you are proving it isn't a title by your gibberish.

On the contrary - I just proved it, Einstein.

You can continue to live in denial . . .

And what you do say about the other catholic churches.

There's only ONE Catholic Church . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

There weren't going to be any witnesses because he was to come like a thief in the night. But the historical implications are there.

That’s an idiotic argument.

If He already came – then everybody who was left would be an eyewitness to the mass disappearance, Einstein . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Mister Jesus defines what born above or what begun up means. The statement is not for the modern believer.

It’s NOT for Biblically ignorant people like YOU . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, what is stupid is using that document from a disproven canon.

No – LYING about what is IN that document is even MORE stupid . . .

It, the NT never says she had permanent virginity. You seem to not know it or quote it. The burden is on you buddy.

The Bible never mentions the Trinity, either – but is s implicitly taught.
SAME with Mary’s perpetual virginity.

What is NOT taught is that Mary had other children . . .

You know the implicit evidence is about chastity and not virginity.

No – it’s about BOTH.
I have presented this Biblical evidence ad nauseam on this forum.

 

[MonoBiblical]

That’s an idiotic argument.

If He already came – then everybody who was left would be an eyewitness to the mass disappearance, Einstein . . .

Yes, no witnesses wrote it down; and writing was not common among the gentiles, thus the real Israel disappeared without a trace, except the New Testament.

 

[MonoBiblical]

On the contrary - I just proved it, Einstein.

You proved it was a bunch of generic nouns, congratulations. And now you need to deny Peter having a biological son. This should be interesting.

 

[MonoBiblical]

There's only ONE Catholic Church . . .

The Eastern Orthodox would disagree.

 

[MonoBiblical]

The Bible never mentions the Trinity, either – but is s implicitly taught.
SAME with Mary’s perpetual virginity.

What is NOT taught is that Mary had other children . . .

Mary's "permanent" [virginity] is not taught, nor is a virgin birth, but a virgin conception is. The trinity is not taught in the Greek ever, but Tyndale and others have not been corrected for their historic mistakes. In fact, Modern Rome embraces these mistakes.

 

[MonoBiblical]

No – it’s about BOTH.

That is a lie, because you know the concepts are not the same.

 

[ProverbsInPink]

i know i was in carm forum full of them.. i was called all kinds of names.

How do you define free will?
When God is Sovereign and has Dominion over all creation.

 

[MonoBiblical]

How do you define free will?
When God is Sovereign and has Dominion over all creation.

Choosing God without the threat of brute force. He doesn't want robots.

 

[Ezra]

How do you define free will?
When God is Sovereign and has Dominion over all creation.

whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.. did anyone force you to be saved ? was a gun held to your head that forced you to pray? that's free will the holy spirit draws you not forces

 

[RomeSweetHome]

Well neither you nor Bread of life have given any real evidence that married stayed a virgin. All you have provided is vague philosophical possibilities based on how things like the word "until" is used, when even a primary school student reading the scripture would know that
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
When told that "know" means sexual relations would know that Jospeh waited until after jesus was born to have marital relations with his wife.

Evidence just from the pages of Scripture (never mind the overwhelming weight of history):

1. John 19:27, when Jesus gives Mary to John and he takes her as his own mother (eis ta idia), doesn't make historical sense if Jesus had younger brothers from Mary who would have been legally responsible for the widow Mary once Jesus was gone. I've seen attempts to read this as a merely metaphorical account, but I assume you're not that kind of protestant given your other beliefs. I've also seen attempts to spin this as Jesus making moves in light of his brothers' unbelief, but we know that they were very quickly restored after his resurrection, as they became the leaders in the Jerusalem church. Jesus in his ommiscience knew that, of course - no need to give his mother a new adopted (believing) son to care for her the rest of her days if she had other children who also quickly became and remained lifelong believers.

2. Luke 1:34. Mary's response to Gabriel's announcement that she will conceive demonstrates her intent to remain a virgin. As St. Augustine observed about this passage, "This is shown by the words which Mary spoke in answer to the Angel announcing to her her conception; How, says she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin." CHURCH FATHERS: Of Holy Virginity (St. Augustine).

Against those, you have "brothers" (which, as we've discussed at length already, carried much broader semantic range in the Greek of the NT authors than just biological siblings), and "until" (which, we know from its usage in Matthew itself as well as other passages, does not here carry the connotation that a change happens after the "until" event occurs - as even Reformers like Calvin readily acknowledged, "no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ.” [REBUTTED] Top Objections to Mary's Perpetual Virginity)

We will gladly stay on virginity until you tire of trying to prove philosophically instead of by real evidence.
And no I am not defensive in the least.

Sure, there's plenty "philosophical" here to support the dogma as well (if, by philisophical, you mean reading the whole of scripture as Jesus and the NT authors did, to be richly symbolic/prophetic in addition to its literal historical meaning). But even setting all that aside, the perpetual virginity makes sense of the biblical and historical data; the post-Protestant view against it does not.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

I know all this and have argued for it. but at the request of someone not on these threads, I received and read the book "Behold your MOther." It is a defense of the four main MArian dogmas. it is filled with suppositions, philosophical musings and horrendous exegesis and hermeneutics. The hypotheses for Mary are based on philosophy and not Scripture. Some even say it is bringing into teh church the Isis/Osirus and Egyptian mythologies.

Good book. Sounds like you didn't read it (at least not in good faith) if that's your takeaway. And not to be rude (sincerely), but as you are one who now admits he doesn't even have the linguistic skills to look up what words are in the septuagint, are you in any position to critique the exegetical and hermeneutical work of others who are obviously more trained than you in the original languages?

 

[MonoBiblical]

Sure, there's plenty "philosophical" here to support the dogma as well (if, by philisophical, you mean reading the whole of scripture as Jesus and the NT authors did, to be richly symbolic/prophetic in addition to its literal historical meaning). But even setting all that aside, the perpetual virginity makes sense of the biblical and historical data; the post-Protestant view against it does not.

There is a reason the Catholic version makes no sense. The foremost-Gospel of James is rather cheap in that encourages men to go after cheap virgins, and pretends a woman can and was a permanent virgin. Jerome admittedly suggested wrongfully males could virgin.

Mary had perpetual chastity unto the day she died, but biologically perpetually virginity makes no sense whatsoever. Obscuring what virginity is makes problems, and is an unbalanced Roman Catholic approach.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified – ALL 73 (not 66) Books.

- 11 years after that, it was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo (393).
- 4 years later, at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

Do your HOMEWORK . . .

I am still catching up on recent posts, but has there been any meaningful response to this, on the historical point about the formation and scope of the canon?

 

[RomeSweetHome]

There is a reason the Catholic version makes no sense. The foremost-Gospel of James is rather cheap in that encourages men to go after cheap virgins, and pretends a woman can and was a permanent virgin. Jerome admittedly suggested wrongfully males could virgin.

Mary had perpetual chastity unto the day she died, but biologically perpetually virginity makes no sense whatsoever. Obscuring what virginity is makes problems, and is an unbalanced Roman Catholic approach.

Respectfully, I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you drawing a distinction between (1) Joseph and Mary never consummating (a point it sounds like you agree with) and (2) the idea of in partu virginity (the idea that Mary was miraculously preserved physically through childbirth) (which, it sounds like, is what you take issue with)?

Right now, I am focused on the former, as that is what I understand to be modern evangelicals' issue with the dogma.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

HILARIOIS . . .

Allow me to educate you about Alexander Hislop’s heavily-debunked work, "The Two Babylons".

Just about everything you listed is right out of Hislop's book. One of his staunchest adherents, Ralph Woodrow was so obsessed with Hislop that he wrote his own book called "Babylon Mystery Religion". HOWEVER - when doing some actual research for a follow-up book, he discovered to his horror that his hero Hislop simply INVENTED all of his nonsense.

Woodrow quickly pulled his book from print and published a work debunking Hislop called "The Babylon Connection?" He now runs a website APOLOGIZING for his first book and trying to make sure that people know about Hislop's garbage.

Apparently - YOU didn't get the memo . . .

Soooo, that means what, exactly??

Jesus’s story seems to mirror many facets of pagan gods like Tammuz in Mesopotamia, Adonis in Syria, Attis in Asia Minor, and Horus in Egypt.

Krishna was –born of a Virgin, baptized in a riven, put to death, resurrected and ascended to Heaven. Do these things make you doubt the truth about Jesus?

I missed this earlier, but exactly. It reminds me of the old adage about how a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can get out of bed (or something to that effect, think it was Churchill). Hislop peddled flat out misinformation that seeped its way even to this day into modern antiCatholic propaganda. And even though evangelical scholars themselves have walked away from his work because of its falsehood, the folks in the pews still have their worldview shaped by that propaganda.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

Why did not the first century church exalt Mary as Queen of heaven or a perpetual virgin when the plain reading of Scripture debunks that claim.

I mean, we're explaining as we speak about the Scriptural basis for the perpetual virginity. I dont want to get sidetracked on the Queen of Heaven, but its clear-cut from Revelation 12, then from the biblical understanding of the identity of the mother of king as we see in the OT that is riffed on in passages like John 2.

Also all the romanist claims for Mary do not appear in Scripture (except through twisting verses and allegorizing scriptures like the easterngate and the ark of the covenant).

The more you repeat it doesnt make it true.

If Mary was the important, you would think that god would have let teh inspired writers of Sacred Scripture write on it. But after Acts 2 Mary becomes invisible! For the focus is Jesus as Mediator and not Mary as co-Mediattrix.

Again, false biblically (she's there, plain as day, in Revelation 12). And misleading logically (you could make a similar argument about any number of doctrines that we'd all agree on).