Salvation loss. Is it possible?

[ScottA]

Th

Is there a hierarchy in God's Order? Certainly, but to see that Order and to follow that Order requires more than being a member of the RCC or of any other organized Christian group... as I see it, and I believe, as God sees it.

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.

 

[ScottA]

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.

...Oh r-e-a-l-l-y....

 

[epostle1]

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."

Sorry, I don't understand what post you are referring to. A number would help.

We have a living, vital relationship with Jesus Christ His Son... ..the Holy Spirit is our Teacher..that is why He was given.

Everybody needs a living, vital relationship with Jesus Christ. And everybody that does, has the Holy Spirit, manifested in varying degrees according to His purposes. But not everybody is commissioned to teach the deposit of faith or there would be chaos.
What does the Holy Spirit teach you personally about the amorality of test tube babies, surrogate mothers, in vitro fertilization, euthanasia: and other critical moral issues that are not in the Bible? and how many holy spirits are there teaching different people different things?
If the Holy Spirit teaches you directly with no need for a historic, authoritive institution called the Church, then what you claim to be taught directly must be infallible. If it's not infallible, what assurance to I have that what you are taught is not just your opinion?

 

[epostle1]

h r-e-a-l-l-y....

Those are not robes of righteousness, they are vestments that have developed since ancient Israel. Pope Benedict was more flamboyant than other popes, and was entitled to his preferences.

God commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49–52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that the priests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33, 39:1–8, 24, 29). r-e-a-l-l-y...​

Hunting the Whore of Babylon | Catholic Answers

Unfortunately, Scott has no concept whatsoever of development.
Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?

 

[ScottA]

Those are not robes of righteousness, they are vestments that have developed since ancient Israel. Pope Benedict was more flamboyant than other popes, and was entitled to his preferences.

God commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49–52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that the priests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33, 39:1–8, 24, 29). r-e-a-l-l-y...​

Hunting the Whore of Babylon | Catholic Answers

Unfortunately, Scott has no concept whatsoever of development.
Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?

That was for Israel (that was then, this is now).

Do you not know that these are the times of the gentiles, the church age, that those things were a shadow of things to come, which now are?

Apparently not, and that is the problem.

 

[pia]

The only actual hierarchy is the Head over the entire body

Hello Scott....I couldn't agree more and I know there are a few others here who would also....I saw a bit of a reference above to a Robe of Salvation......I am not 100% certain but isn't it described as The Gown of salvation and then The Robes ( plural ) of Righteousness ? One thing I did find out, is that we are actually wearing a garment, one that we are given by the Lord, this garment can be cleaned ( as He showed me once )....For a human man to take it upon himself to put on what only God can give, I am not fond of, also didn't Jesus make reference to having to go to a Kings palace to see men in fine red and purple robes ? Hardly appropriate for a servant of The Lord..... :) Pia

 

[epostle1]

All of what your Church calls *Sacred Tradition* was finally written down in Scripture, or not included for reasons that only God knows. There is no continuing oral tradition.
Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church are not infallible; only the Scriptures are. Again, I'm woefully inadequate to provide proofs for these statements.

If it were not for Tradition, you would have no Scripture. It was the infallible authority of the episcopate, which is a Tradition, that discerned the inspired books from the fake books. No Tradition, no Scripture. Any reputable Protestant historian would agree with me.

 

[Stranger]

There is no 'infallible authority of the episcopate'.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

That was for Israel (that was then, this is now).

Do you not know that these are the times of the gentiles, the church age, that those things were a shadow of things to come, which now are?

Apparently not, and that is the problem.

What was hidden in the OT is revealed in the NT. It doesn't mean sever your roots, which Protestantism has done by abandoning the "shadows of things to come" before Christ.
Here is the correct verse.
Colossians 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths. 17 These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. You mock the pope's vestments worn to celebrate the Epiphany, fixed on externals and ignoring the substance. But you haven't a clue what the substance is.

C. S. Lewis, the famous Anglican writer, once wrote:

The very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power . . . of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them.

Read more at Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?

 

[Stranger]

Protestantism hasn't severed it's roots with the Old Testament. Romanism severed itself from the reformers or Protestants.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

Hello Scott....I couldn't agree more and I know there are a few others here who would also....I saw a bit of a reference above to a Robe of Salvation......I am not 100% certain but isn't it described as The Gown of salvation and then The Robes ( plural ) of Righteousness ? One thing I did find out, is that we are actually wearing a garment, one that we are given by the Lord, this garment can be cleaned ( as He showed me once )....

The robes of righteousness are washed white in the Blood of the Lamb. It occurs only in Revelation 7:14

For a human man to take it upon himself to put on what only God can give, I am not fond of,

No pope has ever taken upon himself to reach up to heaven and get a washed robe. The notion is absurd. Vestments are no more a heavenly robe than the minister's $600 suit.

also didn't Jesus make reference to having to go to a Kings palace to see men in fine red and purple robes ? Hardly appropriate for a servant of The Lord..... :) Pia

Jesus used kings and masters in his parables, he wasn't opposed to hierarchies of his day. The Vatican is not a palace. The Queen of England lives in Buckingham Palace, the president of the U.S. live in the White House, the resident of Argentina lives in the Pink House, and the Pope lives in the Vatican.
I don't think it would do any good to have the Pope wear rags and live in a shack. The problem here is you have no idea what he does.

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

In lie #4, Hunt states, "She [the Whore] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (verse 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy." He then cites the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that bishops wear certain purple vestments and cardinals wear certain red vestments.

Hunt ignores the obvious symbolic meaning of the colors—purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. Instead, he is suddenly literal in his interpretation. He understood well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than literal sex, but now he wants to assign the colors a literal, earthly fulfillment in a few vestments of certain Catholic clergy.

Purple and red are not the dominant colors of Catholic clerical vestments. White is. All priests wear white (including bishops and cardinals when they are saying Mass)—even the pope does so.

The purple and scarlet of the Whore are contrasted with the white of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This is a problem for Hunt for three reasons:
(a) we have already noted that the dominant color of Catholic clerical vestments is white, which would identify them with New Jerusalem if the color is taken literally;
(b) the clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation ("the righteous acts of the saints;" 19:8); implying that the clothing of the Whore should also be given a symbolic meaning; and
(c) the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the Whore may be old (apostate) Jerusalem—a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25–26).

Hunt ignores the liturgical meaning of purple and red in Catholic symbolism. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs.

It is appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet, if for no other reason because they have been liturgical colors of the true religion since ancient Israel.

Hunt neglects to remind his readers that God commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49–52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that the priests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33, 39:1–8, 24, 29).

Many books have bounced off the lies of Dave Hunt, deceiving many good Christians. Don't be so easily fooled.

 

[pia]

The robes of righteousness are washed white in the Blood of the Lamb. It occurs only in Revelation 7:14 No pope has ever taken upon himself to reach up to heaven and get a washed robe. The notion is absurd. Vestments are no more a heavenly robe than the minister's $600 suit.
Jesus used kings and masters in his parables, he wasn't opposed to hierarchies of his day. The Vatican is not a palace. The Queen of England lives in Buckingham Palace, the president of the U.S. live in the White House, the resident of Argentina lives in the Pink House, and the Pope lives in the Vatican.
I don't think it would do any good to have the Pope wear rags and live in a shack. The problem here is you have no idea what he does.

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

In lie #4, Hunt states, "She [the Whore] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (verse 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy." He then cites the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that bishops wear certain purple vestments and cardinals wear certain red vestments.

Hunt ignores the obvious symbolic meaning of the colors—purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. Instead, he is suddenly literal in his interpretation. He understood well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than literal sex, but now he wants to assign the colors a literal, earthly fulfillment in a few vestments of certain Catholic clergy.

Purple and red are not the dominant colors of Catholic clerical vestments. White is. All priests wear white (including bishops and cardinals when they are saying Mass)—even the pope does so.

The purple and scarlet of the Whore are contrasted with the white of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This is a problem for Hunt for three reasons:
(a) we have already noted that the dominant color of Catholic clerical vestments is white, which would identify them with New Jerusalem if the color is taken literally;
(b) the clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation ("the righteous acts of the saints;" 19:8); implying that the clothing of the Whore should also be given a symbolic meaning; and
(c) the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the Whore may be old (apostate) Jerusalem—a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25–26).

Hunt ignores the liturgical meaning of purple and red in Catholic symbolism. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs.

It is appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet, if for no other reason because they have been liturgical colors of the true religion since ancient Israel.

Hunt neglects to remind his readers that God commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49–52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that the priests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33, 39:1–8, 24, 29).

Many books have bounced off the lies of Dave Hunt, deceiving many good Christians. Don't be so easily fooled.

I am at a bit of a loss as to why you bother to write to me, since you reject completely what I have shared and that's fine, you don't have to believe me, as you obviously don't even know me, but you cannot change my experiences with your religious beliefs, not today not ever....So perhaps save your fingers and don't write those long things which in my view just spits in the face of the Lord......

 

[Copperhead]

Hunt ignores the liturgical meaning of purple and red in Catholic symbolism. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs.

That may be, but it is too bad that the RCC hasn't really openly repented of their creating many of those martyrs during the dark ages and other times including the interesting tortures, mostly developed by the Jesuits, that came to be used against those the RCC despised. It might be the case in some local or regional areas, but there never has been a full on repentance and seeking of forgiveness by the RCC hierarchy for what they did to believers who did not follow the RCC. And one doesn't even had to have heard of Dave Hunt to know of the atrocities that were committed by the RCC against dissenting believers. movies have been made that show such things. I learned of such things as a child, long before Dave Hunt ever started writing books.

Even today, in some areas where the RCC has major influence on the people and local government, there is sometimes institutional discrimination against protestant believers. The apple doesn't fall fall from the tree.

There are some great, loving, admirable people who also are catholic that would never harbor such animosity. But the institutional church does indeed have the blood of the martyrs on its hands. And the anathemas directed at many protestant beliefs (like salvation by grace alone) in Vatican II shows that not much has changed. A leopard can't change it's spots.

 

[Copperhead]

If it were not for Tradition, you would have no Scripture. It was the infallible authority of the episcopate, which is a Tradition, that discerned the inspired books from the fake books. No Tradition, no Scripture. Any reputable Protestant historian would agree with me.

You might want to try another line of reasoning. Even God, as exampled in many passages of scripture, used unbelievers and out right haters of God to fulfill His purposes. The primary cannon of scripture was already recognized and in place prior to the Council of Nicea in 325. The council simply acknowledged what already was and Constantine had several copies made of the scripture to reflect that. The RCC wasn't fully developed as an institutional church yet. And it is amazing the vitriol that was handed out by the RCC against those that made attempts to get the scriptures into the hands of the common people in their own language. The RCC did preserve the scripture, but made itself the sole authority on owning, reading, and interpreting it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

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.

What part of my question are you having difficulty with?
You didn't answer anything. All you did was post a verse of Scripture - but that doesn't explain the comment YOU made:
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."

I'll simplify this so that a 1st grader can understand and ask it differently:
Explain your statement above.

How's that?

 

[BreadOfLife]

You might want to try another line of reasoning. Even God, as exampled in many passages of scripture, used unbelievers and out right haters of God to fulfill His purposes. The primary cannon of scripture was already recognized and in place prior to the Council of Nicea in 325. The council simply acknowledged what already was and Constantine had several copies made of the scripture to reflect that. The RCC wasn't fully developed as an institutional church yet. And it is amazing the vitriol that was handed out by the RCC against those that made attempts to get the scriptures into the hands of the common people in their own language. The RCC did preserve the scripture, but made itself the sole authority on owning, reading, and interpreting it.

That's interesting - too completely false and unsubstantiated.

First of all - the onus is on YOU to tell us exactly when the Catholic Church came into being since you claim it wasn't "fully developed" in the 4th century. History is absolutely clear that the Catholic Church existed fro the very beginning and "Catholic Church" was being used as a title by the end of the 1st century. It is also clear that the office of the Papacy existed from Peter, as documented by Irenaeus in the mid 2nd century in his treatise Against Heresies.

Secondly - there were MANY canons floating around by the 4th century - so for YOU to say that it was already established is a flat out lie. There was still much discussion and debate until the end of the 4th century at the time of the Synod of Rome (382) where the Canon was first declared. It wasn't until THIS point that ALL other canons were null and void. The Canon was reiterated at the Councils of Hippo (392) and Carthage (397).

7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon. 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

Try as you might - you cannot rewrite history

 

[BreadOfLife]

That may be, but it is too bad that the RCC hasn't really openly repented of their creating many of those martyrs during the dark ages and other times including the interesting tortures, mostly developed by the Jesuits, that came to be used against those the RCC despised. It might be the case in some local or regional areas, but there never has been a full on repentance and seeking of forgiveness by the RCC hierarchy for what they did to believers who did not follow the RCC. And one doesn't even had to have heard of Dave Hunt to know of the atrocities that were committed by the RCC against dissenting believers. movies have been made that show such things. I learned of such things as a child, long before Dave Hunt ever started writing books.

Even today, in some areas where the RCC has major influence on the people and local government, there is sometimes institutional discrimination against protestant believers. The apple doesn't fall fall from the tree.

There are some great, loving, admirable people who also are catholic that would never harbor such animosity. But the institutional church does indeed have the blood of the martyrs on its hands. And the anathemas directed at many protestant beliefs (like salvation by grace alone) in Vatican II shows that not much has changed. A leopard can't change it's spots.

Hmmmm . . . where is the "apology" from Protestants for the 72,000 or so Catholics killed by Henry VIII??
Why is there no "apology" for the tens of thousands of Catholics who were starved to death by Elizabeth I??
Have the Calvinist Protestants ever apologized for murdering Dutch Catholic friars and clerics at Breille in the 16th century??

The problem with anti-historian Catholic haters like YOU is that you conveniently forget all of the blood that is on YOUR hands as a Protestant. Believe me, there is plenty of blood on everybody's hands - so before you go on pontificating about the "evils" of the Catholic Church - take a look at the historical mess in your OWN back yard . . .

 

[Marymog]

"eating and drinking Christ" is a painting of a spiritual concept, not some ritual done in a building imo

Hmmmm.....

Your opinion is OPPOSITE of scripture and what Jesus said: 1 Corinthians 11:24 (along with many other passages that destroy your opinion).

Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

Hmmmm.....

Your opinion is OPPOSITE of scripture and what Jesus said: 1 Corinthians 11:24 (along with many other passages that destroy your opinion).

Mary

no prob, then you should have no prob answering why Christ did not just hack off an arm and drain some blood into a cup then lol.

On thenight when He was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took bread, 24gave thanks, broke it, and said,y “This is My body, which isz for you. Do this inremembrance of Me.”aa

and btw i do not mean to condemn a meaningful ritual, done "as oft as ye gather," iow 3 times a year, but communion is def something that is meant spiritually and not literally, or else "took bread" and "said, This is My body" when His Body was right there with Him cannot be made to make logical sense.

 

[BreadOfLife]

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

This is a nonsensical and lazy response.

I never said that Babylon was Jerusalem. Babylon in New Testament terms applies to pagan Rome.
Peter was never in Iraq. He was crucified on Vatican Hill and buried there. He was writing from Rome.

I have given you both Scriptural equivalents between Babylon and Rome as well as extrabilical sources making the SAME comparison.

Do you nave ANY evidence other than your silly opinions??
I didn't think so . . .