Salvation loss. Is it possible?

[epostle1]

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

That has nothing to do with the tragic separation of whole communities.

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.

Is Christ divided from Paul, Apollos or Cephas? He's talking about a unity you can't see.

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

A pro-Christ Christian doesn't bear false witness or promote false histories or misrepresent someones heartfelt beliefs.

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.

I stand corrected. Saul had his name changed too.
In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17).(told by whom?) He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18), and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2, 9). He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27). Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.” The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.” Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role), and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit Paul's divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

Read more at Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?

 

[mjrhealth]

Is Christ divided from Paul, Apollos or Cephas? He's talking about a unity you can't see.

yes thats the issue you cant see. His unity is in those who listen to and only to Him, who know there salvation is only in and through him, who who are led by and only by the Spirit, who will not listen to and refuse to join to the voice of strangers , mens religions. that all mens religions are false, and all lead men to prison and death, If you are not In Him than you are not His, has nothing to do with mens religions which are an abomination unto God or there doctrines of teh devil.

He wont read this its the truth and He doesnt liek teh truth.

 

[ScottA]

That has nothing to do with the tragic separation of whole communities.

The tragedy is only a tragedy because some defended their own authority, and others defended Christ's authority (alone).

Is Christ divided from Paul, Apollos or Cephas? He's talking about a unity you can't see.

He is talking about the division of following men, and that only Christ is deserving of such a following.

A pro-Christ Christian doesn't bear false witness or promote false histories or misrepresent someones heartfelt beliefs.

Absolutely.

I stand corrected. Saul had his name changed too.
In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17).(told by whom?) He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18), and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2, 9). He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27). Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.” The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.” Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role), and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

Your assessment is in error, for, he said, "I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles."

So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit Paul's divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

I am not a man of any tradition. This too, you assume incorrectly. Nonetheless, I do agree, that to protest against putting a man other than Christ, above all others...is just.

 

[epostle1]

The tragedy is only a tragedy because some defended their own authority, and others defended Christ's authority (alone).

By rejecting the authority Christ established on earth? That's defending opinions.

Your assessment is in error, for, he said, "I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles."

That doesn't disprove Paul being subject to the Church. Besides, "not inferior" does not give Paul primacy. It means not inferior. Paul is not creating a false dichotomy of authority. Peter and Paul were not competitors, but co-workers.
You fail to understand the authority structure of the Apostles. They are all equal in one sense. Even Pope Francis functions as an ordinary bishop for the diocese of Rome. The only difference between him and other bishops is he sits in the Chair of Peter. You can't claim very much continuity from the Apostles, and "0" continuity in your ecclesiology.

I am not a man of any tradition.

Because your definition is false. See my signature.

This too, you assume incorrectly. Nonetheless, I do agree, that to protest against putting a man other than Christ, above all others...is just.

I know of no pope that threw out 7 books of the Bible, and I know of no pope that even claimed to be above Christ, if that is what you are insinuating, without a shred of evidence.

• In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf.9:17). Told by whom? Did Jesus appear a second time?
  
  
• He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),
  
  
• and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).
  
  
• He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).
  
  
• Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
  
  
• Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
  
  
• The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”
  
  
• Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role),
  
  
• and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

That's plenty of proof text to show that Paul was subject to the Church.

​

 

[bbyrd009]

the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.

as the destruction of the Temple makes so clear? C'mon kepha lol

 

[bbyrd009]

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).

ann we gotta swing anna miss, strike 2

 

[bbyrd009]

Sure; this is why we reject any form of Protestantism, because all fail the test of allegiance to God’s Word in Holy Scripture, and the historical pedigree that the fathers always taught was necessary. Every heretic in the history of the world thumbed their nose at the institutional Church and went by Scripture alone. It is the heretical worldview to do so, precisely because they know they can’t prove that their views were passed down through history in an unbroken succession.

who is "we" here? What i am hearing is that you are a Catholic from birth, and could not change your mind if you tried wadr. So all Protestants are lost? Then why are you on a "Christian" forum?

 

[bbyrd009]

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church

you mean a worldly church

We simply have more faith than you guys do.

ya, faith in the world

 

[bbyrd009]

Peter and Paul were not competitors, but co-workers.

you might contrast this with your previous statements; "we" sure are.

Do you not see that you are contradicting yourself in every other line you post?

 

[bbyrd009]

Because your definition is false. See my signature.

your avatar states your position better i think. You mostly make me sorry for all of the decent Catholics out there.

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is no fear in love.

No - but there should be fear in judgment - especially when you lie as much as YOU and the others around here do . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

No it's not. Where is the evidence that Peter was in Rome? And what about (2 Peter 2:7)?

Most credible Protestant scholars have long-abandoned the ridiculous notion that Peter was "never" in Rome.
Most of them change their tune when they study the Early Church and read their UNANIMOUS testimonies.

It's silly to think that you need explicit Scriptural proof to reconcile something having to do with history.
WHY would the Bible need to explicitly talk about where Peter went for YOU to believe it?? Do you believe that Alexander the Great existed?? Do you believe that he conquered all of the lands that history claims he did?? Why?? It's not in the Bible.

How about Martin Luther?? Did he really nail 95 theses to the Wittenburg Cathedral door??
That's not in the Bible either.

The fact of the matter is that Peter WAS in Rome.
His tomb was found - in Rome. It was surrounded by dozens of ancient graffiti claiming this was Peter's grave.
As I stated earlier - he alludes to being in Rome in 1 Pet. 5:13.
Just about every single Early Church Father attests to this fact.

But YOU say it isn't so - so I guess we should ALL stop believing in this fairytale??
What arrogant nonsense

I'll tell you what - if YOU can build as strong a case against the fact that Peter was in Rome - I will leave the Catholic Church today and join YOUR sect.

As for 2 Pet. 2:7 . . .
2 Pet. 2:7
"and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless"

What on EARTH does this have to do with Peter not being in Rome??

There is nothing to show that Peter started any Church in Rome. And Paul is clear that he didn't start the church in Rome. Forget it. Romans is clear as I showed you. (Rom. 1:8,13)
Actually, Jesus is the foundation and we all are workers with Christ on the building. (1 Cor. 3:11-12)

Stranger

And that is a lie.
I already gave you proof from Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp - who was a student of John the Apostle:

Irenaeus (Against Heresies)
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.
To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Do you really think that John lied about Peter being the first Bishop of Rome??
If so - what do you base this on besides your own obstinacy??[/QUOTE]

 

[Stranger]

Most credible Protestant scholars have long-abandoned the ridiculous notion that Peter was "never" in Rome.
Most of them change their tune when they study the Early Church and read their UNANIMOUS testimonies.

It's silly to think that you need explicit Scriptural proof to reconcile something having to do with history.
WHY would the Bible need to explicitly talk about where Peter went for YOU to believe it?? Do you believe that Alexander the Great existed?? Do you believe that he conquered all of the lands that history claims he did?? Why?? It's not in the Bible.

How about Martin Luther?? Did he really nail 95 theses to the Wittenburg Cathedral door??
That's not in the Bible either.

The fact of the matter is that Peter WAS in Rome.
His tomb was found - in Rome. It was surrounded by dozens of ancient graffiti claiming this was Peter's grave.
As I stated earlier - he alludes to being in Rome in 1 Pet. 5:13.
Just about every single Early Church Father attests to this fact.

But YOU say it isn't so - so I guess we should ALL stop believing in this fairytale??
What arrogant nonsense

I'll tell you what - if YOU can build as strong a case against the fact that Peter was in Rome - I will leave the Catholic Church today and join YOUR sect.

As for 2 Pet. 2:7 . . .
2 Pet. 2:7
"and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless"

What on EARTH does this have to do with Peter not being in Rome??

And that is a lie.
I already gave you proof from Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp - who was a student of John the Apostle:

Irenaeus (Against Heresies)
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.
To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Do you really think that John lied about Peter being the first Bishop of Rome??
If so - what do you base this on besides your own obstinacy??

[/QUOTE]

Peter's ministry was to the circumcision. I wrote down the wrong verse. The correct verse is (Gal. 2:7-9) "But, surely you have heard that before. Or, is it possible this is the first time? "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter....that we should go to the heathen and they unto the circumcision."

There you go. Scriptural proof that Peter did not found the Church at Rome. Neither did Paul as he says himself. So my view is based on the Scripture.

Paul certainly had a role to play in the establishing the Church at Rome later. But it was already a Church when he got there. (Rom. 1:8,13)

Iraneus is wrong if he said that Peter and Paul started the Church at Rome. They didn't. And no single Church was ever given such authority as Iraneus states. He is part of the problem in what we have today as the Roman Catholic Church. An oxymoron.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

yes thats the issue you cant see. His unity is in those who listen to and only to Him, who know there salvation is only in and through him, who who are led by and only by the Spirit, who will not listen to and refuse to join to the voice of strangers , mens religions. that all mens religions are false, and all lead men to prison and death, If you are not In Him than you are not His, has nothing to do with mens religions which are an abomination unto God or there doctrines of teh devil.

not sure i'd have put it that way, but it did strike me strange that ppl insisting upon a visible Church suddenly now understand the unseen lol

 

[bbyrd009]

Your assessment is in error, for, he said, "I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles."

amen. you have the exact same authority as the pope; you just have fewer ppl who believe it is all

 

[bbyrd009]

By rejecting the authority Christ established on earth?

the authority goes from Christ to..well, not you, as you recognize a false king, but at least to the faithful in Christ, as Scripture plainly outlines, in many places. Please take your false king and your doctored Bible and go

 

[bbyrd009]

See my signature.

your signature is as counterfeit as your belief wadr, and this can be verified by reading about "the doctrines of men."

and my apologies, i would put this differently if i thought you could hear it; but as it is, i can only speak to posterity.


aren't there Catholic forums available where you could speak this worldly religion stuff and not be abused?
it is not exactly fun having to dog you all the time lol

 

[bbyrd009]

I know of no pope that threw out 7 books of the Bible, and I know of no pope that even claimed to be above Christ, if that is what you are insinuating, without a shred of evidence.

this is mostly why i follow you; for the comedy relief

 

[Helen]

this is mostly why i follow you; for the comedy relief

I don't ever have to write any posts in this thread any more...all I have to do is click "like" on Scott's and your posts LOL
How the thread went from "Can salvation be lost"...back to the Catholic v Protestant issue once again, I have no idea...but, fun eh?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Peter's ministry was to the circumcision. I wrote down the wrong verse. The correct verse is (Gal. 2:7-9) "But, surely you have heard that before. Or, is it possible this is the first time? "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter....that we should go to the heathen and they unto the circumcision."

There you go. Scriptural proof that Peter did not found the Church at Rome. Neither did Paul as he says himself. So my view is based on the Scripture.

Paul certainly had a role to play in the establishing the Church at Rome later. But it was already a Church when he got there. (Rom. 1:8,13)

Iraneus is wrong if he said that Peter and Paul started the Church at Rome. They didn't. And no single Church was ever given such authority as Iraneus states. He is part of the problem in what we have today as the Roman Catholic Church. An oxymoron.

Stranger[/QUOTE]
Soooo, you're saying that John the Apostle LIED to Polycarp, who then LIED to Irenaeus??
Ummmm, based on what - YOUR opinion??

And while were at it - are you really so ignorant as to NOT understand that there were Jews in Rome??
Why do you think that BOTH Apostles were there??

Irenaeus isn't the Problem.
Protestant rebellion is the problem . . .