Is it possible to lose salvation?

[Marymog]

Yes . All men who spoke or taught
should have been tested by what the true apostles , the true and holy scriptures , said .
But many simply trust in other writings as if they are infallible .
Here is the key my friend .
Let us learn the bible well
and from the scrips we test anything man has ever said or ever will say , or write .
But many do not do this .
And even many of the few who claim they do so , STILL have sat under men that twisted the scrips .
AM i saying with upmost urgency that its a madhouse of confusion and delusion within much of christendom today
Am i saying with upmost urgency that even now there are many within christendom that work hand in hand
with even the great and mighty imams and other false religoins
YES I AM . ITS A MASSIVE DELUSION in the house mailman dan
and this delusion is A UNIFYING ONE .
Only it aint UNDER GOD , HIS CHRIST .

 

[Marymog]

Amen!

Lol....You say "amen" to such a bizarre an un-biblical post?

Sooo tell me Michiah; do you test and agree with everything that @amigo de christo "has ever said or ever will say, or write"?

Curious Mary

PS....be careful with your answer

 

[amigo de christo]

Lol.....amigo, you have always cracked me up with your 'everyone is infallible except me' postings.

Sooooo if the Catholic Church (the Pope) is not infallible AND John Calvin is not infallible............WHO, in your opinion is not infallible?

(I already know I am going to get a rambling response that says 'scripture is not infallible' or some bizarre statement like that)

I look forward to your Scripture based answer..................Mary

GOD , thus CHRIST is infallible . Thus You bet HIS words are TRUTH and TRUTH IS INFALLIBLE .
In fact all men are as grass .....................
the sun rises and they wither and the flower does perish .
BUT THE WORD of the LORD ENDURES FOREVER .
So lets learn them scriptures of Truth and be refreshed .
NO MAN is infallible. Not me , not you , not calvin or the popes .
LET GOD BE TRUE but every man a liar so that you are JUSTIFIED IN YOUR SAYINGS
and overcome when you are judged .
MEN have been fleecing much all of christendom .
And worse this has got in this last generation .
They now preach a god of love , BUT NOT THE GOD . NO HIS LOVE has been denied
by this ecumincal interfaith lie . this lie they call love and do beleive will bring upon them world peace n safety .
YEAH RATHER ITS SUDDEN destruction that shall come upon them all .

 

[GodsGrace]

You can uphold the church fathers as if their writings are infallible if you wish. I'll stick with Scripture. (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Yes sir.
Ignorance is bliss.

Here's a question for you mailmandan:

Do you believe that JOHN and PETER passed on incorrect teachings?
Do you believe that they wrote on some pages and NEVER SPOKE TO ANYONE about what Jesus taught?

 

[walter]

You decide, wouldn't all the scriptures be important?

Use any Bible translation you like.

Believe
John 3:16
John 10:27-28
Colossians 1:22-23a
Acts 16:30, 31
1 John 2:2


Knowledge or Know
John 17:3
1 John 5:20
2 Timothy 3:15
1 Timothy 2:3, 4.
Psalm 79:6


Repent
Acts 3:19
Acts 26:20.
Acts 2:38
Matthew 3:2
Matthew 4:17


Get baptized
Matthew 28:19
Acts 2: 38, 40, 41
Acts 8:36-38
1 Peter 3:21
Mark 16:16
Acts 10:47-48


Obey Jesus and God's instructions in the Bible
Hebrews 5:9
Matthew 28:20
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
John 3:36
John 14:15
Luke 8:21
Matthew 7:24
Romans 2:8
Acts 5:29
1 John 5:3
Matthew 19:17
James 1:22
Matthew 7:21

Endure to the end
Mark 13:13
Hebrews 10:36
1 Corinthians 9:27
James 5:11
Romans 8:13
James 1:2-4

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Let us learn the bible well
and from the scrips we test anything man has ever said or ever will say , or write

Amen!

Lol....You say "amen" to such a bizarre an un-biblical post?

“Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” (Tit 1:9, KJV)

What is unbiblical about what @amigo de christo posted?

do you test and agree with everything that @amigo de christo "has ever said or ever will say, or write"?

I test every man’s words against the scriptures.

Moreover, I test MY OWN words and thoughts against the scriptures!

 

[amigo de christo]

“Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” (Tit 1:9, KJV)

What is unbiblical about what @amigo de christo posted?





I test every man’s words against the scriptures.

Moreover, I test MY OWN words and thoughts against the scriptures!

Exactly my friend . now to the trenches for the HARLOT rests not .

 

[nedsk]

Were the writings of the church fathers inspired and infallible? NO
Were the writings of John Calvin inspired and infallible? NO
Were the writings of Scripture inspired and infallible? YES.

Agree or disagree?

No one claims the church fathers writings were inspired and fallible but what they do is give us information about what the church believed and taught before your patriarch Luther came along. You need to accept the silliness you believe is only 500 years old. I know it's hard but you need to face it.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

There's a lot thrown out here to think about and discuss, and sorry if I missed details earlier in this conversation, but to take things one by one--

Where in the Bible does it teach "sola" scriptura? (And, just to make sure we have the same definition in mind, I understand "sola scriptura" to be the claim that the Bible is the "sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice")

You will not find the phrase Scripture alone in Scripture. But you will find passages and words that say Scripture is the source for all issues of faith, doctrine and practice either directly or through the priniciples found in Scripure.

Jesus said it best.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

With this, any "new revelation" must conform with the priniciples and teachings found in Scripture.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

@Ronald Nolette doesn't concern himself with Chirstian history NOR Scripture. Rondald only concerns himself (or herself, I don't know how he/she identifies) with what his/her protestant men have taught him.

Ronald N is a waste of your time...........But I appreciate your efforts to reveal the Truth.

Well aside from your not so subtle ad-hominen about me, you couldn't be more wrong. If you would bother to ask, you would find I do have a rather large knowledge of early church history.

And I follow biblical teachers be they protestant or Catholic. I know you are mired and chained to Romanist theology.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

- In his 1st century document, Letter to the Corinthians (95AD) - Clement of Rome issues ruling from Rome to the Church in Corinth. Only a Pope can make such a decree.

So at one point we had approx. 12 pontiffs ans the Apostles in their scattrings wrote rulings to the churches they helped establish.

- In the 2nd century document, De Pudicitia - Tertullian refers to the Bishop of Rome, Pope Callistus as “Pontifex Maximus” and “Bishop of Bishops”.

Interesting He used the pagan term used for the highest ruler of the pagan councils. also it means supreme pontiff or ruler not bishop of bishops.

- In the 2nd century, Pope Victor settled the matter of the Quartodeciman Controversy and when Easter would be celebrated.

Sorry, but Bishop victor did not settle the controversy. He had a very heated disagreement with Bishop Socrates of ephesus. The matter wasn't "officially settled" until the ruling of the council of Nicea in 325. Such wasted time over when to celebrate Easter when the Apostle Paul said it really doesn't matter when we celebrate but that we celebrate (Romans 14 paraphrased).

The word ”Pope” isn’t even an official title of the Bishop of Rome. It is simply a term of endearment which means “Papa”. Nobody gets “Popized” – but thank you for that utterly ignorant term .

Well "popized" is a very "official term". when one Pope dies even the Catholic church Cardinals go into conclave and elect a new Pope. they do not elect a Bishop of Rome. Maybe you should inform all the priests and Cardinals who blather about they elect a new pope., and the announcement when the white smoke issues forth; "habemus papem" we have a new pope.

Still waiting for you rlist of "implied verses that show Mary sinless, Mary ever virgin, Mary Queen of Heaven and purgatory are biblical.

 

[walter]

63 Church Father Quotes on the Angel of the Lord

This is a repost of the following article: By: The Trinitarian Ode CHURCH FATHER QUOTES ON THE MESSENGER/ANGEL OF YAHWEH Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.)Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 34&n…

answeringislamblog.wordpress.com

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 34 “..although the words of the Psalm expressly proclaim that reference is made to the everlasting King, i.e., to Christ. For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and Angel, and man, and captain (Josh. 5:13-15), and stone, and a Son born, and first made subject to suffering, then returning to heaven, and again coming with glory, and He is preached as having the everlasting kingdom: so I prove from all the Scriptures.”

Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 4 Ch. 17 From Exodus. How Jesus, the Successor of Moses, called the Angel, and about to be the Leader of the People, is said to bear the Name of Christ. “20. And behold, I send my angel before thy face, that he may keep thee in the way, that he may bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Take heed to thyself and hearken unto him and disobey him not; for he will not give way to thee, for my name is upon him (Exodus 23:20-21).”

Contra Celsum Book 8 Ch. 27 “He who by his piety possesses the favour of the Most High, who has accepted the guidance of Jesus, the Angel of the great counsel, being well contented with the favour of God through Christ Jesus, may say with confidence that he has nothing to suffer from the whole host of demons.”

Justin Martyr lived in the 2nd century AD, from approximately 100–165 AD.

Eusebius of Caesarea lived in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries CE

Contra Celsum was written around the year 248 AD by the Church Father Origen of Alexandria.

 

[Marvelloustime]

GOD , thus CHRIST is infallible . Thus You bet HIS words are TRUTH and TRUTH IS INFALLIBLE .
In fact all men are as grass .....................
the sun rises and they wither and the flower does perish .
BUT THE WORD of the LORD ENDURES FOREVER .
So lets learn them scriptures of Truth and be refreshed .
NO MAN is infallible. Not me , not you , not calvin or the popes .
LET GOD BE TRUE but every man a liar so that you are JUSTIFIED IN YOUR SAYINGS
and overcome when you are judged .
MEN have been fleecing much all of christendom .
And worse this has got in this last generation .
They now preach a god of love , BUT NOT THE GOD . NO HIS LOVE has been denied
by this ecumincal interfaith lie . this lie they call love and do beleive will bring upon them world peace n safety .
YEAH RATHER ITS SUDDEN destruction that shall come upon them all .

@amigo de christo

 

[nedsk]

You will not find the phrase Scripture alone in Scripture. But you will find passages and words that say Scripture is the source for all issues of faith, doctrine and practice either directly or through the priniciples found in Scripure.

Jesus said it best.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

With this, any "new revelation" must conform with the priniciples and teachings found in Scripture.

So it's not clearly which you you're interpreting it to mean only. It's not clearly stated like, you can see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Or eat my flesh and drink my blood for my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. If it was that clear it wouldn't need your interpretation right?

 

[BreadOfLife]

So at one point we had approx. 12 pontiffs ans the Apostles in their scattrings wrote rulings to the churches they helped establish.

There were Twelve original Bishops – and Peter was the leader (Matt. 16:18-19, John 21:15-19, Luke 22:31-32, Matt. 10:2, Mark 16:7, Acts 1:22, Acts 2:14-36, Acts 3:6-12, Acts 5:2-11, Acts 10:1-6).

Interesting He used the pagan term used for the highest ruler of the pagan councils. also it means supreme pontiff or ruler not bishop of bishops.

Pontifex Maximus isn’t a “pagan” term. It simply translates as “Greatest Bridge-Builder”.
Oh – and I NEVER said that it meant “Bishop of Bishops”. Tertullian added that title after “Pontifex Maximus”.

Try doing your hoomework, for a change.
It would be nice if YOU could stop being dishonest . . .

Sorry, but Bishop victor did not settle the controversy. He had a very heated disagreement with Bishop Socrates of ephesus. The matter wasn't "officially settled" until the ruling of the council of Nicea in 325. Such wasted time over when to celebrate Easter when the Apostle Paul said it really doesn't matter when we celebrate but that we celebrate (Romans 14 paraphrased).

WRONG, again.

Victor settled the matter that was later codified at Nicaea.

Well "popized" is a very "official term". when one Pope dies even the Catholic church Cardinals go into conclave and elect a new Pope. they do not elect a Bishop of Rome. Maybe you should inform all the priests and Cardinals who blather about they elect a new pope., and the announcement when the white smoke issues forth; "habemus papem" we have a new pope.

You are again resorting to LIES.

“Pope” is NOT an official title of the Bishop of Rome. As I have already schooled you, It simply means “Papa” and is a term of endearment.

Here are the official titles of the Bishop of Rome, so YOU don’t have to continue to wallow in ignorance . . .
- Bishop of Rome
- Vicar of Jesus Christ, aka Vicar of Christ
- Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
- Primate of Italy
- Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
- Sovereign of the State of Vatican City
- Servant of the Servants of God

Do your HOMEWORK, son . . .

Still waiting for you rlist of "implied verses that show Mary sinless, Mary ever virgin, Mary Queen of Heaven and purgatory are biblical.

And I'm stil wating for YOU to give me some Biblical rebuttals . . .

I’ve given you plenty on Mary’s sinlessness and Perpetual Virginity that YOU have YET to address.
When you can offer me a Biblical rebuttal for the evidence I have given you – THEN I will be inclined to give you more . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

No one claims the church fathers writings were inspired and fallible but what they do is give us information about what the church believed and taught before your patriarch Luther came along. You need to accept the silliness you believe is only 500 years old. I know it's hard but you need to face it.

nedsk
Some are afraid of church history....I truly believe this.
Maybe they're afraid of what they'll learn?
Maybe they'll find out that what they believe was NEVER part of the early church.

I'd rather learn from someone that knew John and learned from HIM...
than someone that came along a few hundred years ago,,,,kept some church teachings,,,,
but with time many of even those got thrown out.

Too many odd ideas that some label as Christian.
I really fear for our "religion".....one of the top 3 world-wide.
and
the right one I truly believe.

 

[BreadOfLife]

. .

Still waiting for you rlist of "implied verses that show Mary sinless, Mary ever virgin, Mary Queen of Heaven and purgatory are biblical.

Oh, what the heck - give me a Biblical rebutall for this Biblical defense of Mary's Sinlessless and Perpertual Virginity . . .

The Ark of the Covenant was pure and undefiled. It was NOT to be defiled by the touch pf man (Num. 4:15) – under the penalty of death (2 Samuel 6:1-7). In the same way – Mary was pure and undefiled by sin. The same applies to her with regard to the touch of man.

The following comparison chart illustrates the Old Testament type, the Ark of the Covenant (OT) with the New Testament fulfillments of that type, Mary (NT):

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.

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)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

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 the Holy Spirit down as fire 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).

In the Book of Revelation, we see the New Ark of the Covenant in Heaven being spoken of at the very end of Chapter 11, verse 19: “Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.“

The very next verse is in Chapter 12 (Rev 12:1): “A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.”

Verse 2 says: “She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.”

We know that this child is Jesus because in verse 4, we read: “She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.”

There is simply NO getting around the fact that the Woman/Ark here in Revelation 12 is Mary.

 

[GodsGrace]

. .


Oh, what the heck - give me a Biblical rebutall for this Biblical defense of Mary's Sinlessless and Perpertual Virginity . . .

The Ark of the Covenant was pure and undefiled. It was NOT to be defiled by the touch pf man (Num. 4:15) – under the penalty of death (2 Samuel 6:1-7). In the same way – Mary was pure and undefiled by sin. The same applies to her with regard to the touch of man.

The following comparison chart illustrates the Old Testament type, the Ark of the Covenant (OT) with the New Testament fulfillments of that type, Mary (NT):

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.

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)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

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 the Holy Spirit down as fire 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).

In the Book of Revelation, we see the New Ark of the Covenant in Heaven being spoken of at the very end of Chapter 11, verse 19: “Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.“

The very next verse is in Chapter 12 (Rev 12:1): “A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.”

Verse 2 says: “She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.”

We know that this child is Jesus because in verse 4, we read: “She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.”

There is simply NO getting around the fact that the Woman/Ark here in Revelation 12 is Mary.

OK Great verses.
Except there was no wailing in pain.
Rev 12:2

 

[RomeSweetHome]

You will not find the phrase Scripture alone in Scripture. But you will find passages and words that say Scripture is the source for all issues of faith, doctrine and practice either directly or through the priniciples found in Scripure.

Jesus said it best.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

With this, any "new revelation" must conform with the priniciples and teachings found in Scripture.

Let's focus on the first paragraph of what you said. A couple things--

1. Which "passages and words" do you refer to when you refer to "passages and words that say Scripture is the source for all issues of faith, doctrine and practice"?

2. What "Scripture" is referred to in these passages you have in mind? For instance, you might point to 2 Timothy 3:16, but when Paul wrote those words, "Scripture" would not have referred to what we now have as the New Testament - much of which wasn't even written by the early 60s (and all of which wasn't fully agreed upon informally until the late fourth century {and not formally settled fully until the 16th century}). Instead, Paul was referring to what we call the Old Testament; but even saying that, we have to caveat that it's not exactly clear what books Paul considered "Scripture" out of all the texts that were available at the time (since there was no formal, agreed-upon "canon" even of the Old Testament, outside of the Pentateuch, in either Jewish or Christian circles until after Paul's death - at best, it seems, we could argue that the Septuagint is what Paul had in mind here {since we know from his Old Testament quotations that he used the Greek translation of the passages he quotes, generally}, but if you concede that, then you'd have to accept the historic Christian canon {that is, the Catholic canon} including the Maccabees and the rest that Protestants have excised from their canon). If, as you implicitly seem to argue, these passages are authority for treating the existing Protestant Bible (and nothing more) as the relevant "Scripture" - well, by what or whose authority was *that* decided, since that's not the "Scripture" referred to in these passages of Scripture?

As for Matthew 4:4, you seem to acknowledge that it doesn't say anything about "sola" Scriptura. And to the extent you mean to imply that "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" means the Protestant Bible - well, that presents all the same problems in point (2) above.

As for your third paragraph, Catholics wholeheartedly agree that dogma must "conform with" Scripture; so I don't think the point is relevant to the "sola" Scriptura question.

Finally, there are a number of passages in Scripture that underscore the equal authority of verbal instruction alongside written instruction. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, for instance, Paul tells his audience to "hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter." In other words, Scripture itself speaks of non-Scriptural (indeed, non-written) matters as authoritative. In other words, to use your phrasing, Paul is pointing here to something other than "Scripture" (as you seem to use the term) and yet he clearly treats it as another source for "issues of faith, doctrine and practice." How do you reconcile that with your claim?

 

[Dan Clarkston]

No one claims the church fathers writings were inspired and fallible but what they do is give us information about what the church believed and taught

And they certainly were not teaching catholic doctrine which came later as satan brought heresy in to the church

Acts 20:27-30
For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.