Salvation loss. Is it possible?

[Stranger]

History is your enemy.

That just proves you can't read, or avoid, my signature.

You showed my an out of context verse that has nothing to do with Paul, and you are trying use that to justify a revolt. Jesus isn't talking about that either. Read some commentaries.

No, history and the Bible is your enemy.

What do I care about your signature?

Sorry but (1 Cor. 11:18-19) wasn't out of context. It was very clear. So was (Rom. 16:17).

Stranger

 

[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).

How about the Schism of 1054? Is the Orthodox Church schismatic, sectarian and divisive?

 

[epostle1]

The epistle of Clement is not Scripture. Why do you put such emphasis on something not Scripture?

Because it's history, which is your enemy. You balk at any ECF that disagrees with your preconceptions.

Neither Peter or Paul established the Church at Rome.

“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.”
Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).
He was only trained by John the Apostle and only the 3rd bishop of Antioch, so what does he think he knows? Besides, it's not in scripture so you can ignore it.

‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth.”
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.”
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

WHAT? EARLY CHURCH FATHERS? IT'S NOT SCRIPTURE SO I CAN IGNORE THEM!!!​

 

[epostle1]

How about the Schism of 1054? Is the Orthodox Church schismatic, sectarian and divisive?

A schism does not necessitate a new denomination. The Orthodox are not Protestants. It was a complicated tragedy and you are posting a rabbit trail.

 

[mjrhealth]

They have not rejected you; they have rejected Me as their king. 

you remembered

 

[mjrhealth]

TRUST me - I don't lean on "nothing but" the writings, sister .

well we dont trust you and those writings you so happily through around like confetti,

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

for one called BOL you certainly have no life in you.

1Co_2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

and

Eph_5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth

of which you have none, your words are a testiment to that.

 

[aspen]

The Tree of life in the Garden appears to be Christ. We cannot approach Christ or attain salvation on our own. Christ approaches us

 

[ScottA]

.
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).
The heresies of Paul's day, which John also wrote against, were the Gnostics trying to infiltrate the church. They fasted from meat, not according to the teachings of Jesus, but because they thought the food itself was evil. They frowned on marriage, not according to the teachings of Jesus and Paul on celibacy, but because they thought flesh was evil. They denied the Incarnation and the Real Presence. Ignorant biblical illiterates like to beat Catholics with 1 Timothy 4:3 and it backfires when it is discovered who Paul is talking about. Do some research on the Gnostics and they fit 1 Timothy 4:3 to a "T".

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

Stranger

[/QUOTE]
One scripture cannot cancel out another to aid your own different attempt at division. And you call the kettle black. Paul also commanded:

"As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:9

And also: "Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Corinthians 1:12

...So, when you say you are of Peter or some other you have named Pope - it is you who do this, that divide from the faith, and take up another gospel.

 

[Stranger]

Because it's history, which is your enemy. You balk at any ECF that disagrees with your preconceptions.


“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.”
Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).
He was only trained by John the Apostle and only the 3rd bishop of Antioch, so what does he think he knows? Besides, it's not in scripture so you can ignore it.

‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth.”
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.”
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

WHAT? EARLY CHURCH FATHERS? IT'S NOT SCRIPTURE SO I CAN IGNORE THEM!!!​

Early Church Fathers are not Scripture. And they were just as prone to error as you are.

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

Jesus BUILT His Church - but it was ESTABLISHED by His Apostles.

yes and man built an abomination and called it his church, but mans religion is a harlot a counterfit, and teh devil loves it, so many of Gods people held captive by religion,

 

[mjrhealth]

What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions,

yes mens religions, thats why they are rejected by God, He cant be a part of something that is not of Him.

 

[epostle1]

Early Church Fathers are not Scripture. And they were just as prone to error as you are.

Stranger

The Early Church Fathers reflect history, which is why you are forced to dismiss them. Worse, you are forced to re-write history to make it fit your man made system. Their general consensus is what counts, not the few errors that few of them made. Some say their general consensus is infallible, (not inspired) and I am inclined to agree. You have no doctrinal continuity with their general consensus or even unanimity on certain doctrines, therefore "not scripture" is just an excuse. You have to pretend they didn't use scripture.

 

[Stranger]

The Early Church Fathers reflect history, which is why you are forced to dismiss them. Worse, you are forced to re-write history to make it fit your man made system. Their general consensus is what counts, not the few errors that few of them made. Some say their general consensus is infallible, (not inspired) and I am inclined to agree. You have no doctrinal continuity with their general consensus or even unanimity on certain doctrines, therefore "not scripture" is just an excuse. You have to pretend they didn't use scripture.

All that you have said proves you don't have Scripture to support your claims. Only 'history' or 'tradition'.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

One scripture cannot cancel out another to aid your own different attempt at division. And you call the kettle black. Paul also commanded:[/quote] The CC hasn't separated from anyone.

"As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:9

See post #819. I am not going to repeat myself.

And also: "Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Corinthians 1:12

Paul is not saying that Peter is not above Paul in authority any more than he is saying that Christ is not above both of them. What Paul is saying is that if you accept any one, Christ , Peter, Paul, or Apollos, then you must accept all of the others. A person cannot rationalize a rejection of any one of them.

...So, when you say you are of Peter or some other you have named Pope - it is you who do this, that divide from the faith, and take up another gospel.

No pope has the authority to change the gospel. The gospel is contained in every Mass, and it's essentially the same as yours, you are just too prejudiced to find out for yourself. So if our Gospel is wrong, so is yours because you borrowed it from us. Since you made the false charge it's up to you to prove it instead of resorting to mindless anti-Catholic nonsense.
Explain why Peter is the only Apostle who had their name changed.

 

[mjrhealth]

Explain why Peter is the only Apostle who had their name changed, and no pope has ever taught a different gospel. Since you made the false charge it's up to you to prove it instead of resorting to mindless anti-Catholic nonsense.

Than there was another who had his name changed, Gen_17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. whats that got to do with teh lies and deceipt,

 

[mjrhealth]

mindless anti-Catholic nonsense.

not anti catholic, anti , anti christ, or catholism. Always playing games with words.

 

[Stranger]

One scripture cannot cancel out another to aid your own different attempt at division. And you call the kettle black. Paul also commanded

And, who are you talking to? Are you such a coward as to try and not name the one you are posting to? And here you have this avatar of some battle-tested soldier. What a facade.

Do they teach this deception stuff in Roman schools?

Stranger

 

[Helen]

The Tree of life in the Garden appears to be Christ. We cannot approach Christ or attain salvation on our own. Christ approaches us

Amen..good and clear post. Thank you.

 

[pia]

(1Cor. 11:18-19)

Stranger

Jesus is quoted as saying, that parents will come against their own children and children against their parents, He was talking about the people of Israel. Denoting that some would come to Him and be baptized into the new covenant, and some would not, and just like in Nazi Germany, people would 'dob' each other in to the S.S. or the Gestapo, so they could be punished ( usually by death ) because they did not agree with their fascists overlords. In Israel they would have been 'dobbed' in to the Pharisees or the Sanhedrin.
It says in the Bible that Jesus said, that He did not come to bring peace on the earth, but a sword. But neither did He come to particularly BRING dissension ( He was just aware that it would happen ), and the sword He mentions is The Truth of Gods Word, which divides, as people believe different things. It is also referred to as The Sword of the Spirit which is the only 'offensive' part of the Holy Armour, all the other parts are 'defensive'. What amazing gifts He has given to mankind !

 

[ScottA]

The CC hasn't separated from anyone.

What do you call following one of the twelve instead of Christ alone?

Paul is not saying that Peter is not above Paul in authority any more than he is saying that Christ is not above both of them. What Paul is saying is that if you accept any one, Christ , Peter, Paul, or Apollos, then you must accept all of the others. A person cannot rationalize a rejection of any one of them.

No. Paul said, while using himself as an example and disqualifying himself, that Christ was who men should follow, that only Christ had died for their/our sins.

No pope has the authority to change the gospel. The gospel is contained in every Mass, and it's essentially the same as yours, you are just too prejudiced to find out for yourself. So if our Gospel is wrong, so is yours because you borrowed it from us. Since you made the false charge it's up to you to prove it instead of resorting to mindless anti-Catholic nonsense.

No Christian is anti-Catholic. On the contrary, we are pro-Christ.

Explain why Peter is the only Apostle who had their name changed.

Because he was the first born again son of Israel. But it was Saul known as Paul who was first born again of the gentiles...whom you did not give so great an honor.