Salvation loss. Is it possible?

[epostle1]

Once or twice.
Gee, you're going to educate me. Yet, all you did is make a remark. Show me in Revelation that what you say is so. I will take good notes.
Stranger

You have been shown several times. This is long overdue. Good bye.

 

[ScottA]

You're dodging the question again and I suspect it's because you realize what you said was stupid - and now you're back-pedaling.
Who puts a robe of righteousness on the Pope?

If you regret your ill-thought-out remark - just say so and move on . . .

I answered your question ... which means you yourself are the stupid backpedaling dodger that you called me. Don't be so hard on yourself.

 

[tabletalk]

Show me where Scripture makes this claim.

Try as you might - there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15.
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, EITHER BY an oral statement - OR BY a letter of ours.

Show me an oral tradition that is not written in the Scriptures, please.

 

[Stranger]

I already showed you yesterday that "Babylon" is code for Rome. I explained to you that this is evident in Jewish writings as well:

- Both extrabiblical Jewish tests, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, talk about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans by comparing Rome with Babylon.

- In Revelation, Babylon is described as having “7 hills”. Rome has 7 hills.

- Rev. 14:6-11 speaks of a coming judgment against “Babylon the great" - "she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality”. There is a call to all peoples to worship the Creator in much the same terms as Paul’s preaching to the Athenians (Rev. 14:7; cf. Acts 17:24-25). This judgment is against the classic Jewish polemic against pagan idolatry, which is pagan Rome.

Rome is "Babylon" in Revelation.
Rome is "Babylon" in 1 Peter 5:13.

Code name? Oh yeah I know what that means. It means make it say what you need it to say. The Roman Code.

Extrabiblical is of no value. But, what the heck, when you can turn to 'code' who needs extrabiblical?

Please. One can count 7 hills around any city except in the panhandle of Texas.

All you are saying is Babylon is Rome. You're not proving it in any way. Come on now, educate me.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

00

Every time I read the title of this topic I think "Anything is possible for those who believe."

Don't think God had this topic in mind concerning that scripture.

Many Protestants (especially anti-Catholic ones) hold, by and large, the view that Scripture and sacred, apostolic tradition are somehow unalterably opposed to each other and, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. This is yet another example of a false dichotomy which Protestantism often (unfortunately) tends to create (e.g., faith vs. works, matter vs. spirit). The Bible, however, presupposes tradition as an entity prior to and larger than itself, from which it is derived, not as some sort of “dirty word.”

It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity.

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God’s true traditions).

1 Corinthians 11:2
2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Thessalonians 3:6

Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn’t regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical “tradition of men.”

When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclai.med by “word of mouth.” Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30; John 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition that turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn’t read then anyway). Accordingly, when the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.

In St. Paul’s writing alone we find four of these expressions used interchangeably. And in just the two Thessalonian epistles, “gospel,” “word of God,” and “tradition” are regarded as referring to the same thing. Thus, we must unavoidably conclude that “tradition” is not a dirty word in the Bible. Or, if one insists on maintaining that it is, then “gospel” and “word of God” are also bad words! Scripture allows no other conclusion: the exegetical evidence is simply too plain.
To conclude our biblical survey, we again cite St. Paul and his stress on the central importance of oral tradition:

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me
2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to “follow the pattern” of his oral teaching “heard from me,” but to also pass it on to others.0 This is precisely what the Catholic Church calls tradition, or, when emphasizing the teaching authority of bishops in the Church, “apostolic succession.” The phrase “deposit of faith” is also used when describing the original gospel teaching as handed over or delivered to the apostles (see, e.g., Acts 2:42; Jude 3).

The Catholic Church considers itself merely the custodian or guardian of this revelation from God. The New Testament itself is a written encapsulation of primitive, apostolic Christianity: the authoritative and inspired written revelation of God’s new covenant. It is a development, so to speak, of both the Old Testament and early oral Christian preaching and teaching (i.e., tradition). The process of canonization of the New Testament took over 300 years and involved taking into account human opinions and traditions as to which books were believed to be Scripture.

Thus, the Bible cannot be separated and isolated from tradition and a developmental process. Christianity does not take the view of Islam, whose written revelation, the Q’uran, simply came down from heaven from Allah to Mohammad, without involving human participation in the least. Some extreme, fundamentalist forms of sola Scriptura have a very similar outlook, but these fail the test of Scripture itself, like all the other manifestations of the “Bible Alone” mentality. As we have seen, Scripture does not nullify or anathematize Christian tradition, which is larger and more all-encompassing than itself; quite the contrary.

In Catholicism, Scripture and tradition are intrinsically interwoven. They have been described as “twin fonts of the one divine well-spring” (i.e., revelation), and cannot be separated, any more than can two wings of a bird.

Read more at "Tradition" Isn't a Dirty Word

 

[Stranger]

kepha31

Promises, promises.

No, you will be back. See you then.

Stranger

​

 

[Helen]

God>Jesus>Apostles>elders and successors. There is no room for "man" to butt in and teach something else. Having the Holy Spirit is not a license to rebel against ordained leaders. That's why church structure and accountability is important.

On reading the thread...could not pass this one over...
Hebrews 1
1 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds."
We have a living, vital relationship with Jesus Christ His Son... ..the Holy Spirit is our Teacher..that is why He was given.

I am sure you have a ready answer for this. :)

 

[epostle1]

Show me an oral tradition that is not written in the Scriptures, please.

Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and others. The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.
Arguing about the evidence shows one has little or nothing to do with the first 5 centuries of Christianity.

Oldest known painting of Jesus sitting on His mother's lap.
Catacomb of Priscilla 150 AD.​

 

[BreadOfLife]

Show me an oral tradition that is not written in the Scriptures, please.

Here are TWO:
1. Infant Baptism
2. The Canon of Scripture

 

[BreadOfLife]

I answered your question ... which means you yourself are the stupid backpedaling dodger that you called me. Don't be so hard on yourself.

I didn't call YOU "stupid".
I said you made a stupid remark.

Besides - you didn't answer the question.
Now - since YOU are the one who made the remark - Who puts a robe of righteousness on the Pope?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Code name? Oh yeah I know what that means. It means make it say what you need it to say. The Roman Code.

Extrabiblical is of no value. But, what the heck, when you can turn to 'code' who needs extrabiblical?

Please. One can count 7 hills around any city except in the panhandle of Texas.

All you are saying is Babylon is Rome. You're not proving it in any way. Come on now, educate me.

Stranger

Extrabiblical evidence is of "no value".
Why would you make such an asinine statement?? I was establishing a valid pattern of the allusion to Rome as "Babylon". by sourced other than Scripture to show the historical context.

As for your dismissal of the 7 hills of Rome - it's interesting that most of your anti-Catholic brothers use this fact to "prove" that the "whore" is the Catholic Church because it is located near Rome and the harlot sits on 7 hills. The only problem with that little mess is that Vatican Hill is NOT one of the 7 hills of Rome. You're not even a very good anti-Catholic.

This is like debating with a 3-year-old . . .

 

[aspen]

Perhaps people who are convinced that Peter was never in Rome should look for evidence Paul set up a church in Babylon, Iraq....

 

[ScottA]

I didn't call YOU "stupid".
I said you made a stupid remark.

Besides - you didn't answer the question.
Now - since YOU are the one who made the remark - Who puts a robe of righteousness on the Pope?

Let me help you with that (again):
Yesterday at 3:05 PM#944

 

[BreadOfLife]

Let me help you with that (again):
Yesterday at 3:05 PM#944

Yeah - I'm familiar with the verse - but that's NOT what I'm talking about.

In post #935 - YOU made the following moronic statement:
"And all who are saved shall wear the robes of righteousness. But you have not given robes to all, but to one."

You were implying that we only give a robe of righteousness to the Pope.
Now - ONE more time . . .
Who puts a robe of righteousness on the Pope?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Perhaps people who are convinced that Peter was never in Rome should look for evidence Paul set up a church in Babylon, Iraq....

Yup.
They should also see if they can dismiss the archaeological evidence that is the bones of Peter.

They were not only surrounded by much ancient 1st century graffiti marking the spot underground - but the bones were determined by scientists to have been of an elderly man who was crucified in the FIRST century.

 

[Jun2u]

I think we should put to rest this question about Babylon and continue to move on. Both sides really did not know the answer. While BoL was partially correct on the other hand Stranger kept talking about Babylon of Revelation.

I believe Babylon was the code name for the church at Rome. This code was utilized during the time the Christians were going through a persecution. Hence, to safeguard the identity of the people while communicating with each other they developed this code name. I’m sorry but I don’t know the time frame.

I hope this helped.

To God be The Glory

 

[Stranger]

Extrabiblical evidence is of "no value".
Why would you make such an asinine statement?? I was establishing a valid pattern of the allusion to Rome as "Babylon". by sourced other than Scripture to show the historical context.

As for your dismissal of the 7 hills of Rome - it's interesting that most of your anti-Catholic brothers use this fact to "prove" that the "whore" is the Catholic Church because it is located near Rome and the harlot sits on 7 hills. The only problem with that little mess is that Vatican Hill is NOT one of the 7 hills of Rome. You're not even a very good anti-Catholic.

This is like debating with a 3-year-old . . .

The historical context of ( 1Peter 5:13) is that "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you;" Which means Peter is speaking of Babylon and not Rome. Peter is speaking of Babylon, not Jerusalem. Peter is speaking of Babylon, not Detroit.

I am not an anti-catholic at all. I am part of the Catholic Church. Just not part of your Roman Church.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

I think we should put to rest this question about Babylon and continue to move on. Both sides really did not know the answer. While BoL was partially correct on the other hand Stranger kept talking about Babylon of Revelation.

I believe Babylon was the code name for the church at Rome. This code was utilized during the time the Christians were going through a persecution. Hence, to safeguard the identity of the people while communicating with each other they developed this code name. I’m sorry but I don’t know the time frame.

I hope this helped.

To God be The Glory

It doesn't.

Stranger

 

[ScottA]

Yeah - I'm familiar with the verse - but that's NOT what I'm talking about.

In post #935 - YOU made the following moronic statement:
"And all who are saved shall wear the robes of righteousness. But you have not given robes to all, but to one."

You were implying that we only give a robe of righteousness to the Pope.
Now - ONE more time . . .
Who puts a robe of righteousness on the Pope?

Since I have already answered your question twice, it begs the question: What do you really want to know?

Perhaps you could be more clear and less belligerent.

 

[epostle1]

Since I have already answered your question twice, it begs the question: What do you really want to know?

Perhaps you could be more clear and less belligerent.

BoL: The official title of the Pope is "The servant of the servants of God."

Scott A: And all who are saved shall wear the robes of righteousness. But you have not given robes to all, but to one.
First, the "robes" are washed white in the blood of the Lamb.
Second, it is God that gives out the robes.
Third, accusing Catholics of giving robes other than God to anyone is just plain stupid.
Fourth, Popes acknowledge themselves as sinners as every Christian should.
Fifth, Popes are revered for the office they hold, not necessarily for their personal holiness, but some are more charismatic than others.
Sixth, anti-Catholics give more power and authority to popes than Catholics do, given numerous falsehoods, lies and historical blunders they put out.
Seventh, most of your posts indicate you have authority issues, especially the authority that Jesus gave to His Apostles.
Eighth: "But you have not given robes to all, but to one" is a nonsensical insult.