Is it possible to lose salvation?

[Ronald Nolette]

And I’ve already proven that to be a falsehood.

The Letters of a FIRST century Catholic Bishop named Ignatius of Antioch describes the Early Church as being unashamedly Catholic:
- They believed in a hierarchy of Bishops, priests and deacons.
- They believed in and worshipped the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ – and NOT as a symbol.
- They confessed their sins to the Church.
- They believed in the Primacy of Peter and the church at Rome.

Sorry, but when Ignatius was a bishop the division between Jewish and gentile wings was still in effect. The Pauistic churches and other apostles also had their divisions.

There were no priests in the early church as Romanism has priests. Also Ignatius was more 2nd century than first as he was born in the midl century.

And back then catholic was more concerned as uninversal than the sect we know today.

Please would you repost your citre for the work of Ignatius?

Wrong. We look at the Church as the Body of Christ – the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15) - he fullness of Him (Eph. 1:22-23).

And the bible looks at the people, which is the church (ekklesia) as the body of christ it is people and not an organization that is the church.

Correct. The Catholic Church isn’t a denomination
It’s the Original Tree from which Protestant denominations splintered – and continue to splinter . . .

Nice try twisting my response. Big C Catholicism is a sect. small c catholicism is the universal church comprised of people and not an organization.

And as I stated before – I don’t get my theology from Artificial Intelligence . . .

Based on your answers, the intelligence you draw it form is artifical!

And Charles Manson read the Bible – but I wouldn’t call him a Bible scholar . . .

Reading is a FAR cry from understanding . . .

Well that must make you the leader of lack of comprehension. You have swallowed the romanist line, hook, line and sinker!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I’m sorry that you are so gullible as to be taken in by a single false teacher.

Here’s a little advice: If something sounds wacky, chances are that is IS - and you should look for corroborating evidence . .

Let me see, should I take the word of a hard line indoctrinated Roman Catholic or the word of a born again Jew who by the age of thirteen had the penteteuch, and the Poetic books memorized in order? And also was the son of a Jewish rebbe, patriarch of rabbis? And who has studied Jewish culture i Hebrew University? I think I wll go with him and other jewish reference cites on being born again! I knows they know their religion far better than you.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Precisely.

Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and inparture of the Holy Spirit was a NEW experience for the NT age that was foretold in the OT by Ezekiel. And yes – it DOES mirror the way Peter describes the effects of Baptism in Acts 2:38-39.

Baptism is for one who already had their sins forgiven and been born of th eSpirit. Paul made that abundantly clear!

For your information, the Diaspora started over 700 years before the birth of Christ.

And the SAME Church beliefs and practices described in the Didache are echoed by the Eastern and Western Church Fathers (noon-Jewish) over the next several centuries.

FYI ask a Jew when the modern diaspora started and they will tell you 70-135 AD. Rome can't change history When Jews speak of the diapsora they speak of the 70-135 AD event that culminated with Rome plowing under Jerusalem and renaming the land Syria Palaestina.

Learn history it is easy now!

Excommunication is NOT about “kicking out” anybody from Heaven..

It is a Biblical discipline that is prescribed as a corrective measure designed to bring a person BACK to the fold. It is never intended to be a permanent condition.

Do your HOMEWORK . . .

I did, and I did not talk about ex-communication. I spoke of the church declaring someone anathema! Do your homework.

In Christianity, "anathema" refers to a person or thing that is accursed or excommunicated, often due to heretical beliefs or actions.

Definition of Anathema​

The term "anathema" originates from the Greek word ἀνάθεμα (anathema), which initially meant "offering" or "something dedicated to God." Over time, its meaning evolved to signify something that is set apart for destruction or condemnation. In a biblical context, it conveys a state of being completely cut off from God, often due to sin or false teaching.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=7501...lYW5pbmctaW4tY2h1cmNoLWhpc3RvcnkuaHRtbA&ntb=1
Christianity+1
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=7501...lYW5pbmctaW4tY2h1cmNoLWhpc3RvcnkuaHRtbA&ntb=1
Accursed is not just excmmunicated- the church took it upon themself to cut people off from god- playing a god themself

First of all - Biblical Christian Baptism in NOT always described as “dunking”. In fact, it almost never is. Acts 2:41 tells us that over 3000 people were Baptized at Pentecost. The logistics of that would be nearly impossible without Baptism by pouring, as described in the Didache.

Secondly, John 21:19 specifically states that Jesus did MANY things that weren’t written down in Scripture, so YOU can’t possibly know everything that He taught the Apostles.

Are you that dense? And you have this tidy tid bit of supposed fact how?

I was IN Israel at the Jordan river and saw ten pastors baptize over 200 people in20 minutes. So your logistic argument is just so much horse manure.

It is by definition- dunking! Even Paul shows this in romans 6:

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Do you need me to explain to you the spiritual significance and rich symbolism of being dunked and raised from teh watrer in light of Paul?


https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=7501...lYW5pbmctaW4tY2h1cmNoLWhpc3RvcnkuaHRtbA&ntb=1

 

[JLB]

Yes I disagree with your interpretation of what Paul was saying. The Holy Spirit doesn't need Paul to save Gods elect, God saves His elect regardless of what Paul or anyone else does or says

‘Ok, so you don’t believe what Paul said then. Got it.


Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 2 Timothy 2:10


The Lord wants the elect to also obtain salvation.

 

[JLB]

I asked you to show me a single verse to support your unbiblical opinion that God sent His Son to save the whole world. You keep failing to present any evidence to support your unbiblical opinion.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16


Who are you saying is excluded from “the world”?


God loves the world of people, unsaved people.


He wants them to be saved. He sent His Son for that very reason.


Those who believe will be saved.


Denial of the scriptures and insulting everyone, seems to be your whole theology.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Mary even forgot who the real father was.

Where’s your proof for that moronic statement?

You believe Peter didn't have a biological son,

There’s not one shred of evidence that Peter had children. He may have – but there is NO evidence.

...and that he came to Rome following Paul.

Peter was absolutely in Rome and was crucified there upside-down. This is attested to by Clement of Rome (Letter to the Corinthians, written c. AD 96). This letter was written 28 years after Peter’s death.

Additionally, the following ECFs also wrote about Peter’s presence in Rome:
Dionysius of Corinth (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166]).
Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207]).
Eusebius (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).

1 Pet. 5:13 includes the phrase. "Greetings from Babylon". Scripture scholars agree that "Babylon" waas a 1st century code name for Rome because of the ongoing persecutions at the time.

Peter's tomb was discovered underground in Rome in the 1940’s. The bones contained in it were those of a “a robust man, about 60-70 years old” who had been crucified. On the wall, the words, “Peter is here” were inscribed.

I was not talking about John 3.

Then you’re REALLY confused because John 3:5 was the subject of our disagreement . . ..

What does this have to do with a trinity doctrine? More of your Roman mistakes.

I didn’t think you’d understand . . .

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

For your information, “Immanuel” means, “God with us.” This points to the fact that Jesus the Son is God. Two of the three Persons of the Trinity are identified here.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Do be true. He did not say "dunking". Immersion was the term, and baptism canbe a name, the Holy Spirit of the God the Father, water, and perhaps mud. Thus, the immersion of the Holy Spirit had nothing to with water, and it is the final name and stage of the triad. Your logistics are very limiting.

Immersion IS dunking. – and vice versa.
You stuck your foot in your mouth . . .

 

[MonoBiblical]

Where’s your proof for that moronic statement?

[Luk 2:48 KJV] 48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

If he had 2 fathers, which seems to be the case, she forgets about God the father.

There’s not one shred of evidence that Peter had children. He may have – but there is NO evidence.

[1Pe 5:13 KJV] 13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.
5:13 Ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μᾶρκος ὁ υἱός μου

υἱός refers only to biological progeny, including the sons of God.

Peter was absolutely in Rome and was crucified there upside-down. This is attested to by Clement of Rome (Letter to the Corinthians, written c. AD 96). This letter was written 28 years after Peter’s death.

Additionally, the following ECFs also wrote about Peter’s presence in Rome:
Dionysius of Corinth (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166]).
Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207]).
Eusebius (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).

1 Pet. 5:13 includes the phrase. "Greetings from Babylon". Scripture scholars agree that "Babylon" waas a 1st century code name for Rome because of the ongoing persecutions at the time.

Scholars do not understand Babylon still existed, and that the region was instrumental in the beginning of Rabbinical Judaism post temple. Code words are just a silly retcon by silly "church fathers".

Peter's tomb was discovered underground in Rome in the 1940’s. The bones contained in it were those of a “a robust man, about 60-70 years old” who had been crucified. On the wall, the words, “Peter is here” were inscribed.

.I am reminded of the claim of the shroud of Turin being authentic. Neither claims are true.

Then you’re REALLY confused because John 3:5 was the subject of our disagreement . . ..

I didn’t think you’d understand . . .

Jesus does say later that he is the water of life. Both references are Passover related.

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

For your information, “Immanuel” means, “God with us.” This points to the fact that Jesus the Son is God. Two of the three Persons of the Trinity are identified here.

It means "God is with us". Jesus is not named Immanuel, but it called out to his name. Big difference. Since you don't know Greek I won't discuss it further.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Immersion IS dunking. – and vice versa.

It is not the same, moron.

You stuck your foot in your mouth . . .

No, you stuck yours in your mouth.

 

[Ezra]

That's a desperate attempt to defend your false universalism idea. Sorry to pour cold water all over this heretical idea, but it was debunked by the Church as soon as it reared up it's ugly head 1900 years ago.

I'm sending you to the back of the cue, with the rest of those who try to twist what God has said. He said "world" and you say "whole world". Why do you feel the need to add to what God has said, don't you know that he casts those who do this into the lake of fire.

so whats your point you must be Calvinist. if your trying to impress me not working.. if your trying to impress others maybe i dunno

 

[Ezra]

That's a desperate attempt to defend your false universalism idea. Sorry to pour cold water all over this heretical idea, but it was debunked by the Church as soon as it reared up it's ugly head 1900 years ago.

I'm sending you to the back of the cue, with the rest of those who try to twist what God has said. He said "world" and you say "whole world". Why do you feel the need to add to what God has said, don't you know that he casts those who do this into the lake of fire.

lol i guess you have all knowledge ..i bet your right up there with the Holy Spirit ..please read this --

Romans 5:8
​

New King James Version
​

​

8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

who are the sinners ? who was in the world lost WE were who did Jesus die for ? us john 3:16 for God so loved the what ? the World. your Calvinist boat has holes in it and will sink buddy. 3;17 the WORLD through him be saved. you sound like the brass in a orchestra out of sync .. loud noise

 

[Ezra]

Be careful how you speak to an elect Saint of God. You will have to give an account for every idle word you speak

who are you ?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Baptism is for one who already had their sins forgiven and been born of th eSpirit. Paul made that abundantly clear!

Acts 2:38
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.

Notice it doesn’t say:
Acts 2:38
“Repent and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And THEN be baptized.”

Mark 16:16
He who believes AND is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

1 Pet. 3:21
“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”

YOUR problem is that you cherry-pick through the verses that suit YOU and ignore the others that don’t . . .

FYI ask a Jew when the modern diaspora started and they will tell you 70-135 AD. Rome can't change history When Jews speak of the diapsora they speak of the 70-135 AD event that culminated with Rome plowing under Jerusalem and renaming the land Syria Palaestina.

Learn history it is easy now!

No – modern day Christians limit the Diaspora to that short span. Jews know that it started LONG before that . . .

I did, and I did not talk about ex-communication. I spoke of the church declaring someone anathema! Do your homework.

In Christianity, "anathema" refers to a person or thing that is accursed or excommunicated, often due to heretical beliefs or actions.

Definition of Anathema​

The term "anathema" originates from the Greek word ἀνάθεμα (anathema), which initially meant "offering" or "something dedicated to God." Over time, its meaning evolved to signify something that is set apart for destruction or condemnation. In a biblical context, it conveys a state of being completely cut off from God, often due to sin or false teaching.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=7501...lYW5pbmctaW4tY2h1cmNoLWhpc3RvcnkuaHRtbA&ntb=1
Christianity+1
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=7501...lYW5pbmctaW4tY2h1cmNoLWhpc3RvcnkuaHRtbA&ntb=1
Accursed is not just excmmunicated- the church took it upon themself to cut people off from god- playing a god themself

That’s about the most ignorant and contradictory post you’ve made yet.

First, you say you weren’t talking about excommunication.
THEN, you define what an anathema is – but saying that is is an “excommunication”!
Do you ever THINK before you speak??

And an anathema is NOT a “curse”. As I educated you before – it is a disciplinary measure with the hope that the person returns to the fold.

Yours may be a definition of “Anathema” in a secular sense.
In an ecclesiastical sense, however - it is defined as:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Anathema - Placed on high, suspended, set aside

Are you that dense? And you have this tidy tid bit of supposed fact how?

I was IN Israel at the Jordan river and saw ten pastors baptize over 200 people in20 minutes. So your logistic argument is just so much horse manure.

Were those people baptized in the middle of Jerusalem, where there is no rivers or lakes by a bunch of wanted outlaws?

Do you think for a minute that the Jewish authorities would have allowed them to “defile” the Pool of Sloam or other pools by dunking people in the name of the criminal they just executed?

Use your head.
Baptism by pouring, as outlined in the Didache, is about the ONLY way this could have been achieved . . .

It is by definition- dunking! Even Paul shows this in romans 6:

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Do you need me to explain to you the spiritual significance and rich symbolism of being dunked and raised from teh watrer in light of Paul?


https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=7501...lYW5pbmctaW4tY2h1cmNoLWhpc3RvcnkuaHRtbA&ntb=1

And the Didache agrees with you.

Dunking was the norm – but there are exceptions.
THAT’S why it says:
“… in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[Christian Soldier]

‘Ok, so you don’t believe what Paul said then. Got it.


Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 2 Timothy 2:10


The Lord wants the elect to also obtain salvation.

No, I don't believe your interpretation of what Paul was saying. Paul can't save himself or anyone else by his endurance. There is nothing in the bible to support this idea of yours that sinners can save other sinners.

God saved His elect before time began, so the Lord does not want to save anyone, that was a done deal before time began. God doesn't conform to your dictates, He does what ever He pleases, regardless of if you approve or disapprove. Your opinion means nothing to Him.

 

[Christian Soldier]

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16


Who are you saying is excluded from “the world”?


God loves the world of people, unsaved people.


He wants them to be saved. He sent His Son for that very reason.


Those who believe will be saved.


Denial of the scriptures and insulting everyone, seems to be your whole theology.

Why are you rejecting what God has said and replacing what He said with what you say. God never said the "whole world" you just made that up to make your sinking ship stay afloat.

All of those who God did not elect for salvation before He created the world are excluded from "the world". You will never find a single verse to support your private opinion, that "God wants to save the whole world", because no such thing exists.

God hates many people, He said it and you don't believe Him because it exposes your unbiblical opinion of who He is.

The Lord Jesus will cast the vast majority of mankind into the lake of fire to be tormented for all eternity, they will beg for mercy but He will show them none. God doesn't want them to be saved, you just made that up.

God the Father sent His Son to save His elect only, and not a single person can be added to His book of the elect. You will never find a shred of evidence to support your private opinion that God loves the people of the world and that He sent his Son to save the.

I have never denied a single verse of scripture, I believe everything the bible says from Genesis to Revelation. But I do deny your opinion, because Gods Word refutes it.
If some are insulted by the truth of the gospel, then perhaps they shouldn't read it.

 

[Christian Soldier]

so whats your point you must be Calvinist. if your trying to impress me not working.. if your trying to impress others maybe i dunno

 

[Christian Soldier]

lol i guess you have all knowledge ..i bet your right up there with the Holy Spirit ..please read this --

Romans 5:8​

​

​

New King James Version​

​

​

​

8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

who are the sinners ? who was in the world lost WE were who did Jesus die for ? us john 3:16 for God so loved the what ? the World. your Calvinist boat has holes in it and will sink buddy. 3;17 the WORLD through him be saved. you sound like the brass in a orchestra out of sync .. loud noise

My my, you sure hate the truth of the gospel don't you. And you even stoop down to blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. You obviously do it in ignorance, because those who do that are sealed for eternal torment in the lake of fire.

 

[Christian Soldier]

who are you ?

You seem to have some kind of mental disability. I identified my self and you respond with "who are you?". it doesn't get any worse than that

 

[Ezra]

My my, you sure hate the truth of the gospel don't you. And you even stoop down to blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. You obviously do it in ignorance, because those who do that are sealed for eternal torment in the lake of fire.

1st off iam NOT YOUR SON. 2nd i dont have time for your fantasy island Calvinism doctrine . last i have no time for you

 

[Ezra]

You seem to have some kind of mental disability. I identified my self and you respond with "who are you?". it doesn't get any worse than that

the plane the plane