Salvation loss. Is it possible?

[pia]

"The Bible says to "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Rom. 16:17)"

Ahhh, I think I misunderstood at first.... Apologies !

 

[Helen]

Third party hearsay??
Why is it that NONE of you can tell me that if there are tens of thousands of Protestant sects teaching doctrines that are as different as night and day - WHO is right and WHO is wrong??

BOL you will drive yourself ( and us nuts) if you stress over this...I thought I had answered for myself, if not others...there is no answer...we do not know the answer....God alone knows, and He is not saying.
I only KNOW why in England, the two brothers George and Stephen Jeffreys (1889- 1962) split over the pentecostal issue..both were strong believers in the power of the Holy Spirit in a believers life. Both had the baptism. But they argued..and spilt their powerful ministry.
One started the Elim Pentecostal churches, and one started The Assemblies of God Churches. I attended both once in a while in our town.
The people and pastors overlapped, there seemed no bad feeling between the. (I could see nothing different between each movements!!)
So, for some reason ...my only answer could be PRIDE.
I am GUESSING that other denomination down over the years just strted because of scriptural disagreements.
I know nothing about other denominations.

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over again?
Who know WHY about most things...and those who think that they do know are probably totally wrong!!
No one knows as much as they pretend to know!!

That is why His Name is GOD !!
We ain't.

 

[BreadOfLife]

BOL you will drive yourself ( and us nuts) if you stress over this...I thought I had answered for myself, if not others...there is no answer...we do not know the answer....God alone knows, and He is not saying.
I only KNOW why in England, the two brothers George and Stephen Jeffreys (1889- 1962) split over the pentecostal issue..both were strong believers in the power of the Holy Spirit in a believers life. Both had the baptism. But they argued..and spilt their powerful ministry.
One started the Elim Pentecostal churches, and one started The Assemblies of God Churches. I attended both once in a while in our town.
The people and pastors overlapped, there seemed no bad feeling between the. (I could see nothing different between each movements!!)
So, for some reason ...my only answer could be PRIDE.
I am GUESSING that other denomination down over the years just strted because of scriptural disagreements.
I know nothing about other denominations.

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over again?
Who know WHY about most things...and those who think that they do know are probably totally wrong!!
No one knows as much as they pretend to know!!

That is why His Name is GOD !!
We ain't.

With all due respect - you are saying that God is keeping this big secret because He is the Author of confusion.
Many people on this thread have said that they don't need a Church to guide them - that God teaches them personally when they read the Bible.
My question - which is a valid one is this:
If one person reads the Bible and claims that God is teaching him - and 100 other people claim the same thing - HOW can they come up with different interpretations?

Either 99 of them have it wrong - or God is a great cosmic Practical Joker.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Reread my post. I told you.

Stranger

You were wrong - so there must be another explanation.

 

[bbyrd009]

Jesus did not come to bring division to believers, but between believers and unbelievers.

so you say, and i guess most people assume; but note that most of the division seems to be among "believers."

 

[bbyrd009]

what is IRL

what is IRL - Google Search

"in real life"

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh my goodness, there you go again....When did I EVER say he doesn't want us to be part of His body. I have said the opposite many times, except I am referring to His body, the ones He is accepting into HIS CHURCH, not mans institutions.
Since you write pages and pages of your scriptures with your understanding and get miffed if people don't reply to you and then make a big deal out of that. Why don't you answer? I have asked you several times now about a couple of things and yet you refuse to address them. that is what I commonly call a hypocrite.
If you were an exposer of lies, you would be listening to the Lord, so He can show you the lies, instead of you assuming because of your understanding of the Bible that you know. It is very very clear to me that all you do is glean a tiny portion of what we write and then get on your ever so high horse once again, and keep on with your writings.
Not once have I made up any rules, all I have ever done is pass on what He has told me, and if you don't believe Him, fine. It's your life and your eternity. People like you only continue the lies which has kept believers from seeking God/Jesus/ the Holy spirit, so that through revelation from above, they could get to know the real truth.
Charitable toward catholics? I am quite frankly getting sick to my soul, that I have to keep repeating to you, that I have absolutely nothing against people who call themselves catholics as I firmly believe that even in that awful system, there are still those who truly have a heart for God, which is absolutely clear to me that you have not....With all your studying, how could you have missed the commandment Jesus gave us...I tried to reach out to your earlier today, but as usual you were just as rude as you have been all along. If I could even see a minute detail of love within your writings, I would be more than willing to at least read what you say, but now I simply cannot be bothered, as you keep refusing to answer my questions while riling at me for not answering yours.
So as this turned out to be a complete fiasco ( me trying to reach out to you ) I have no choice but to go back to simply ignoring your posts... wouldn't want to be a stumbling block to those who are weak in faith, as Paul instructed us not to be. I had not seen you that way at the start, but clearly you are in need of the sincere milk of the truth once again, if indeed you got that the first time around. Hope you manage to lose the way of using the written word only and get some proper revelation. You may find yourself a blessing instead of being a person who's only interest is to pull down those you don't seem worthy because they don't belong to your precious institution........I think you need to stop taking the position of usurping the Holy Spirit as our teacher. What? Isn't He good enough for you?

Yes, Pia - you ARE making up your own rules and you HAVE said that you don't need the Body.

YOU claim that Jesus appeared to you and after some discourse - YOU asked Him if you should join a Church - and basically, He said that you were okay by yourself. This kind of "Lone Rangerism" is condemned by Scripture- not supported by it.

YOU, like many others here have stated that you don't need a Church to guide them - that God teaches you personally when they read the Bible. I have asked this question repeatedly - and none of you has been able - or willing to answer it:
If one person reads the Bible and claims that God is teaching him - and 100 other people claim the same thing - HOW can they come up with different interpretations?

This is a valid question and one that should be EASY for any Protestant to answer.
It's easy for ME to answer - so why isn't it for YOU guys?

 

[bbyrd009]

you will drive yourself ( and us nuts) if you stress over this...I thought I had answered for myself, if not others...there is no answer...we do not know the answer....God alone knows, and He is not saying.

4So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God

might be a little clearer now; if not, just holler if you are ever able to change his mind on anything. i'll just hold my breath lol

we are the "temple of God" now...etc.

 

[bbyrd009]

I am GUESSING that other denomination down over the years just strted because of scriptural disagreements.

or because they had an equally compelling product for sale, and found buyers for it also

 

[epostle1]

The Jeusalem council wasn't the Roman Church.

That the Church is indfectibile is accurate as far as the true Church is concerned. That the Church is the Roman Church is where the problem lies.

The Jerusalem Council was as Catholic as you can get. It's a model for all councils. There is the Church in Rome, but never a Roman Church. "Roman" to designate all Catholics was first used as an insult by the Anglicans in the 16th century. There is a Roman or Latin rite, but a Roman Church does not exist. You've been told this, what...100 times? One would think you would get it by now.

You speak half truths. Another word for a lie. The Bible says to "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Rom. 16:17) My how clear it is when you read the whole verse. 'contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned'. There were those causing divisions by changing the doctrine that had been taught by the apostle Paul.

"the doctrine which ye have learned' can only mean authentic Apostolic Teaching or Tradition, not a bible that would not exist for 4 centuries.. So...you accept Apostolic Tradition when it suits you??? Division is anathema in the NT, the hallmark of Protestantism. Is Paul's letter historical or perpetual? Is the Council of Jerusalem historical or perpetual? What criteria do you use to determine which parts of the Bible are historical or perpetual?

As far as division itself, the believers will divide, and should divide in order to maintain the truth. (Luke 12:51) "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." Jesus caused division because He was the truth and taught the truth.

Jesus is not talking about theological chaos or wounds to unity. He's talking about the strife caused by becoming Christian or remaining Jewish. Try reading the context.

The believers in (Rom. 16:17) who were doctrinally correct were the ones dividing, and were commanded to do so by Paul. Thus your speech about Protestants being wrong, in dividing from the Roman Church and with anyone whose doctrine is incorrect, is wrong.

Paul made no commands to rebel against divinely appointed authority. In fact, Paul was subject to the Church. Romans 16:17 says to avoid those causing divisions, which is the very essence of Protestantism.

 

[bbyrd009]

but a Roman Church does not exist.

the scary part is, you believe this with all your heart lol

 

[tabletalk]

What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).

But, the Orthodox Church is included in your rejection, and they became schismatic long before those pesky Protestants.

 

[tabletalk]

Actually - I don't know if you were baptized - so you might not be one.

A Protestant by definition is a non-Catholic Christian.
A Christian must be undergo a Trinitarian Baptism.

If you meet the above criteria - you are a Protestant . . .

I think Mormons have a trinitarian baptism. Are they non-Catholic Christians?

 

[pia]

what is IRL - Google Search

"in real life"

Thanks

 

[pia]

so you say, and i guess most people assume; but note that most of the division seems to be among "believers."

But what is it that they believe? Do they believe in the risen Christ, and if they do, why do they think he has taken a two thousand year holiday? So are they really believers?

 

[pia]

Yes, Pia - you ARE making up your own rules and you HAVE said that you don't need the Body.

YOU claim that Jesus appeared to you and after some discourse - YOU asked Him if you should join a Church - and basically, He said that you were okay by yourself. This kind of "Lone Rangerism" is condemned by Scripture- not supported by it.

YOU, like many others here have stated that you don't need a Church to guide them - that God teaches you personally when they read the Bible. I have asked this question repeatedly - and none of you has been able - or willing to answer it:
If one person reads the Bible and claims that God is teaching him - and 100 other people claim the same thing - HOW can they come up with different interpretations?

This is a valid question and one that should be EASY for any Protestant to answer.
It's easy for ME to answer - so why isn't it for YOU guys?

For the umpteen time, because the bible is NOT Jesus, and He is the Truth. Neither is the bible the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth........And here we have it again, another misquote ( you left every word out, on what I said He replied when I asked Him if it was alright if I did go to a church ), You are to say the very least, more than guilty of what you accuse everybody else of doing, NOT reading the posts properly. But just like with Marymog, I am simply not inclined to go over it again and again, just because your head is too far ahead in figuring out how to shoot me down with your understanding of the scriptures, rather than actually reading what has been written to you.
I do not believe you are a troll as such. but perhaps there should be forums for only catholics, as the old joke goes......You like to think you are the only people of God and have room for no one else.... That might actually be very profitable for both you and those of us who have all had very different experiences with Christ, but have still been able to come together in agreement and unity.

 

[Stranger]

The Jerusalem Council was as Catholic as you can get. It's a model for all councils. There is the Church in Rome, but never a Roman Church. "Roman" to designate all Catholics was first used as an insult by the Anglicans in the 16th century. There is a Roman or Latin rite, but a Roman Church does not exist. You've been told this, what...100 times? One would think you would get it by now.
"the doctrine which ye have learned' can only mean authentic Apostolic Teaching or Tradition, not a bible that would not exist for 4 centuries.. So...you accept Apostolic Tradition when it suits you??? Division is anathema in the NT, the hallmark of Protestantism. Is Paul's letter historical or perpetual? Is the Council of Jerusalem historical or perpetual? What criteria do you use to determine which parts of the Bible are historical or perpetual?
Jesus is not talking about theological chaos or wounds to unity. He's talking about the strife caused by becoming Christian or remaining Jewish. Try reading the context. Paul made no commands to rebel against divinely appointed authority. In fact, Paul was subject to the Church. Romans 16:17 says to avoid those causing divisions, which is the very essence of Protestantism.

There is the Church at Rome but never a Roman Catholic Church. Calling the Church at Rome the Roman Church is equally correct.

The Jerusalem council was Catholic. But it was not Roman. The Roman Church does exist. It had its beginning with the Church at Rome and has since turned into the thing that it is today. But, it does not represent the Catholic Church, though it wants to.

No, I do not accept your 'apostolic tradition'. I have no problem with tradition as long as it is correct and is not put on the same level or above the Scriptures.

How can division be anathema when Jesus caused division? As I showed you.

No, the divisions are caused by those teaching wrong doctrines, which force those who hold to the true doctrines to divide. (Rom.16:17) "Now I beseech you brethren,mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

Division is always necessary. Which is why so many turned away from the Romanist Church. (1Cor. 11:18-19) "For first of all, when ye come together in the church,I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you"

See? The approved recognize the heresies and separate themselves from them.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Jesus did not come to bring division to believers, but between believers and unbelievers.

(1Cor. 11:18-19)

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

I think Mormons have a trinitarian baptism. Are they non-Catholic Christians?

No - and here's why . . .

Mormons us the correct wording (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Unfortunately, they don't believe in the Trinity and deny the deity of Christ.
Therefore, they're "Trinitarian" Baptism is not Trinitarian at all because it's based on a heresy.

 

[BreadOfLife]

For the umpteen time, because the bible is NOT Jesus, and He is the Truth. Neither is the bible the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth........And here we have it again, another misquote ( you left every word out, on what I said He replied when I asked Him if it was alright if I did go to a church ), You are to say the very least, more than guilty of what you accuse everybody else of doing, NOT reading the posts properly. But just like with Marymog, I am simply not inclined to go over it again and again, just because your head is too far ahead in figuring out how to shoot me down with your understanding of the scriptures, rather than actually reading what has been written to you.
I do not believe you are a troll as such. but perhaps there should be forums for only catholics, as the old joke goes......You like to think you are the only people of God and have room for no one else.... That might actually be very profitable for both you and those of us who have all had very different experiences with Christ, but have still been able to come together in agreement and unity.

And you accuse ME of posting falsehoods.
Where do you get the idea that Catholics only consider other Catholics to be Christians?? I have stated repeatedly that a Protestant is a non-Catholic CHRISTIAN.

I have nothing against Protestants. I have many Protestant siblings and friends - and I love them dearly
What I detest - as God does - are LIES. I have absolutely NO tolerance for people who lie about what the Church teaches. There is absolutely NO reason for it - yet MOST of you on this thread are guilty of it.

All I have done is expose those lies - so don't be angry with me.
Instead, look into the mirror and ask yourself why YOU lied . . .