Salvation loss. Is it possible?

[bbyrd009]

He can't help himself. It's the way he's made.

so, the devil made him do it?

 

[Job]

so, the devil made him do it?

I don't believe the Lord is into habitual name calling, so that leaves only one other source.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't believe the Lord is into habitual name calling, so that leaves only one other source.

That's funny - because in MY Bible - Jesus called people like YOU, "Hypocrites" . . .

 

[ScottA]

WE don't clothe ourselves in anything from God.
HE clothes us.

Incidentally - you DID blow me off for over a dozen exchanges because you knew you had no valid answer for this nonsense.

You are avoiding the issue, and your position...which you have only just made clear.

If you know that we do not clothe ourselves in anything from God, why do Catholics (and others) dress up and lift up their leaders in glory and reverence?

I would argue (and have been) that to do so is putting reverence and glory where it is not due. Moreover, that it is a hindrance to those who would otherwise give glory and reverence to God whom is due, and that it is a sin against which Christ spoke the same harsh words as I have been quoting. And that there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are avoiding the issue, and your position...which you have only just made clear.

If you know that we do not clothe ourselves in anything from God, why do Catholics (and others) dress up and lift up their leaders in glory and reverence?

I would argue (and have been) that to do so is putting reverence and glory where it is not due. Moreover, that it is a hindrance to those who would otherwise give glory and reverence to God whom is due, and that it is a sin against which Christ spoke the same harsh words as I have been quoting. And that there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.

Soooo, YOUR problem is with priestly vestments??
Rev. 1:13, 4:4, 6:11, 7:9, 15:6, 19:13-14 tells us about priests wearing special vestments in the heavenly liturgy. Do you have the same problem with Protestant ministers wearing vestments or a collar?? Talk about being nit-picky and divisive.

Here on earth, Catholic priests wear liturgical vestments when celebrating Mass. In fact the entire Mass is taken right out of the Bible . . .

Rev. 1:10 speaks of the heavenly liturgy being celebrated on the Lord's day. Catholics are obliged to attend mass on Sunday (the Lord’s Day).
Rev. 1:12, 2:5 speaks of lampstands or “Menorahs” in heaven. They are also used in the mass here on earth.
Rev. 1:13, 4:4, 6:11, 7:9, 15:6, 19:13-14 tells us about priests wearing special vestments in the heavenly liturgy. Here on earth, Catholic priests also wear liturgical vestments when celebrating Mass.
Rev. 2:5, 16, 21; 3:3; 16:11 speaks of a penitential rite going on in heaven – just like the in the Mass on earth.
Rev. 15:3-4 speaks of the “Gloria” being recited in heaven. You will hear this recited during the Mass on earth.
Rev. 4:4, 5:14; 11:16, 14:3, 19:4 mentions the presbuteros(oi) (priests) in heaven. On earth, the priest offers Jesus’ eternal and ongoing sacrifice during the Mass.
Rev. 5:8, 6:9-11, 8:3-4 speaks of the saints in heaven interceding on our behalf – just as they are petitioned in the Mass.
Rev. 4:8 speaks of heaven's un-ending hymn of praise to God, “Holy, Holy, Holy”. This very same prayer is recited in the Mass.
Rev. 2:17 speaks of manna in heaven that is given to the faithful. Likewise, during the Mass, we receive the true manna - the Eucharist.
Rev. 5:8, 8:3-4 speaks of incense being used in heaven which has been part of the celebration of the Mass from the beginning.
Rev. 6:9 tells us about the martyrs under the heavenly altar which is mirrored by the Church's tradition of having relics of saints under the altars of our churches on earth.
Rev. 5 speaks of the Lamb (describing Jesus). During the Mass, Jesus is described as the Lamb of God during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
Rev. 8:3, 11:1, 14:18, 16:7 speaks of an altar being present in heaven – which illustrates that an eternal sacrifice is being offered. That sacrifice is the very same one being offered on the altar during the Mass.
Rev. 14:4 speaks of those who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They are celibate. In the same way, our celibate priests and religious here on earth follow the Lord.
Rev. 15:7, 16:1-4, 8, 10, 12, 17; 21:9 speaks of chalices (bowls) being used in the heavenly liturgy. Likewise, chalices are used to offer our Lord’s eternal sacrifice on earth during the Mass.
Rev. 17, 19:9 speaks of consuming the Lamb at the marriage celebration in Heaven. This is done at every single Mass on earth during Communion.
Rev. 19:1, 3, 4, 6 speaks of the “Alleluia” being recited in heaven. You will find this recited at every Mass here on earth.

Finally, in Rev. 5:14; 7:12; 19:4, we read that heaven's concluding liturgical prayer “Amen” is the very one that is recited at the end of the Mass on earth.

If the clothes are what bother you - then you have bigger problems than I thought . . .

 

[amadeus]

If I point to the difference between Peter and the Holy Spirit, it is because they are different, just as any man is different than the Holy Spirit. Men are not the Holy Spirit, He is our Helper, that's all.
I am saying nothing against those appointed by God for service, any more than I am against my own eyes for seeing or my legs for walking. But it is only my Head that has authority over them. He who has an ear, let him hear.
This is me (in Christ) telling you this very thing. Why then do you not hear even yourself, that "men" have no authority?
Popes, if they are of God, are indeed kings (and priests), as I am. But a king under Christ does not lift himself up, or allow himself to be revered above other men: "And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
The church has no authority of its own.
The church has not authority of its own.

Indeed, the Church without the Head in place is mindless. Jesus, of course, is the Head:

"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." Col 1:18

So the authority belongs not to the headless body, but to the Head.

 

[epostle1]

I think you got it backwards my dear friend. He said you must eat my body and drink my blood. If he meant it LITERALLY he would be handing them his body and blood.

Right?

Confused Mary

Jesus wasn't taking about His physical parts, He was talking about His very Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, substantially present in consecrated Bread and Wine.

 

[epostle1]

Indeed, the Church without the Head in place is mindless. Jesus, of course, is the Head:

"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." Col 1:18

So the authority belongs not to the headless body, but to the Head.

That's your problem, you have a heavenly authoritive head with no earthly authoritive body. That may explain your rigid anti-institutionalism.

 

[amadeus]

Th

The only actual hierarchy is the Head over the entire body. All else is no more than interdependence, and our need for each of our divers members. But the moment we begin to say, "Certainly the neck is above the hand, and the hand above the foot", then we are not walking in unity, nor even with the Lord. And there we begin to argue.

Haven't you then defined the hierarchy, which as you say is walking in unity. Each of us is to do our assigned job, which is not as a boss over other members of the body. The apostle Paul describes it here:

"But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. " I Cor 12:18

 

[amadeus]

That's your problem, you have a heavenly authoritive head with no earthly authoritive body. That may explain your rigid anti-institutionalism.

I am not against God's institution, but the question for each us would be, 'What and where is it?'. Jesus effectively rejected what the natural Israelites [Jews] had done with what God gave them. I believe He would do the same with most of what men have done with God gave them through Jesus.

 

[epostle1]

Jesus wasn't taking about His physical parts, He was talking about His very Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, substantially present in consecrated Bread and Wine.

John 6:35,41,48,51 – Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven. Jesus does not say 'I am the spiritualized symbolic bread from heaven.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

How would you answer this question? How did Jesus? Why would the Jews ask this question in the first place?

John 6:53 – 58 – Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 – however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 – He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 – to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.
THE EUCHARIST - Scripture Catholic

 

[epostle1]

I am not against God's institution, but the question for each us would be, 'What and where is it?'.

​

Jesus effectively rejected what the natural Israelites [Jews] had done with what God gave them.

Jesus effectively rejected their man made traditions. He was a devout Jew and followed good Jewish traditions all His life.He was circumcised as a Baby, went to Jerusalem for the annual Passover and other celebrations.(Rosh Hashana, Sukkot etc.) He rejected their making void the word of God with man made traditions, He did not reject Judaism.

I believe He would do the same with most of what men have done with God gave them through Jesus.

That's why He came; to save sinners, not righteous people.

 

[amadeus]

@kepha31
My friend, I was baptized RC when I was 6 years old. I served faithfully as an altar boy until after my graduation from high school. During those years, no one could have convinced that the RCC was in error. God has take to many places since then. The RCC was not the first group to work at reconstructing God's plan nor the last. We will not convince others that we are right and they are wrong. Only God is able to do that, even though He often does His work through people. So how does one know what is true and what is false? Each one must follow what God shows to him. The RCC does acknowledge that some not on their rolls please God.

The pat answers of the Catholic will mean no more to me than the pat answers of Protestants and others who believe that they have the best or even the only way. God does have the only Way through His Son. So I believe and I believe that some Catholics and some Protestants will be with Him at the end of their course. It is not my job to assign a place there. Neither is it my job to define the precise details for any given other person walking along God's highway of holiness.

"So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." I Cor 3:7

 

[epostle1]

@kepha31
My friend, I was baptized RC when I was 6 years old. I served faithfully as an altar boy until after my graduation from high school. During those years, no one could have convinced that the RCC was in error. God has take to many places since then.

Does that mean your previous experiences in the CC had nothing to do with where you are now? If God has taken you to "many places" does that automatically mean He was previously absent from the beginning?

The RCC was not the first group to work at reconstructing God's plan nor the last.

God's plan doesn't need reconstructing, but ongoing renewal to implement it. That's why we have councils.

We will not convince others that we are right and they are wrong. Only God is able to do that, even though He often does His work through people.

Truth can only be proposed to those who are disposed to receive it.

So how does one know what is true and what is false? Each one must follow what God shows to him.

Do you think individualism and relativism are true?

The RCC does acknowledge that some not on their rolls please God.

That's true. The CC teaches the fullness of truth, and she also teaches she is not the only church with truths.

The pat answers of the Catholic will mean no more to me than the pat answers of Protestants and others who believe that they have the best or even the only way.

I'll try to avoid pat answers. Truth is objective, not subjective. Your theology is individualistic and relativistic so on what grounds can you be sure it's true?

God does have the only Way through His Son. So I believe and I believe that some Catholics and some Protestants will be with Him at the end of their course. It is not my job to assign a place there. Neither is it my job to define the precise details for any given other person walking along God's highway of holiness.

It's not my job either but ask yourself if you have formulated a private theology as a yardstick for assessing the historic Church.

Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible "unity" that exists only in the hearts of believers?

If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."

What is the expiration date of this verse?

"So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." I Cor 3:7

Does that mean we don't need anyone to plant and water? Of course the credit goes to God for the increase, but planting and watering are metaphors for the function of a bishop.
"I planted, Apollos watered... He who plants and he who waters are equal." (1 Corinthians 3:6, 1 Corinthians 3:8)

Most Protestants do not have bishops, a Christian office which is biblical (1 Timothy 3:1-2) and which has existed from the earliest Christian history and Tradition.

Have a nice day.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Haven't you then defined the hierarchy, which as you say is walking in unity. Each of us is to do our assigned job, which is not as a boss over other members of the body. The apostle Paul describes it here:

"But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. " I Cor 12:18

Paul ALSO wrote the following, regarding the LEADERS of Christ's Church on earth:

1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you.

1 Tim. 5:17
Let the ELDERS THAT RULE well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

1 Cor. 12:28
And God has placed in the church FIRST of all apostles, SECOND prophets, THIRD teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.

EVERY Protestant sect has leadership because they ALL recognize that there IS a hierarchy in Christ's Church - but most of the hypocritically refuse to admit it . . .

 

[epostle1]

You are avoiding the issue, and your position...which you have only just made clear.

If you know that we do not clothe ourselves in anything from God, why do Catholics (and others) dress up and lift up their leaders in glory and reverence?

I would argue (and have been) that to do so is putting reverence and glory where it is not due. Moreover, that it is a hindrance to those who would otherwise give glory and reverence to God whom is due, and that it is a sin against which Christ spoke the same harsh words as I have been quoting. And that there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.

Do you mean the leader that washed the feet of drug addicts and criminals? The same leader that has eaten with the homeless? Do you honor your parents??? You are are a real piece of work.

Why do you have such issues revering anyone? Paul tells us to “imitate” him, which is a concept, it seems to me, similar to “honoring” or “veneration” (1 Cor 4:16, Phil 3:17, 2 Thess 3:7-9); and this is because he, in turn, imitates Christ (1 Cor 11:1, 1 Thess 1:6). We are exhorted to honor and imitate the “heroes of the faith” in Hebrews 6:12 and chapter 11.

Do you honestly think that by giving honor to other human beings it somehow supplants, replaces or competes with the worship due to God alone? Do you realize how STUPID that is?

 

[mjrhealth]

Just like you can't stop lying . . .

Oh so now you admit you are a liar, finally took long enough.

Joh_8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

[bbyrd009]

That's your problem, you have a heavenly authoritive head with no earthly authoritive body. That may explain your rigid anti-institutionalism.

well "institutionalism" strikes me, and i guess many, as "the world."

 

[bbyrd009]

It is always literal.

it cannot be made to make even logical sense, and who would get offended at being handed bread and wine? So then if you believe Communion will help you to get Christ all of the way inside you, bam do it ok, but see that you can do Communion as a ritual your whole life and still "go to hell," if you do not grasp the spiritual intent.

 

[bbyrd009]

That's why He came; to save sinners, not righteous people.

amen. David was not the apple of God's eye because he was perfect as we would define that, but because he was humble and quick to rebound, and seek forgiveness. Do priests forgive sins?