How Do Protestants Avoid This Scripture?

[Guest JeffCR07]

also, J Calvin, I would like to point out that you did not, in fact, answer the statement that I made.

I argued that Calvin's espousing of Double Predestination, as defined by him, is inherently contradictory to the Calvin quote which you provided in your post.

As a response, you gave a "Reformed view," which, though it may be relevant to the discussion, does not address my quandry whatsoever.

It seems that a blatant contradiction of Calvin's, which, as you have so aptly shown demanded a "Reform view," inherently puts the disciples of Calvin on shaking ground.

The Catholic Church, West and East alike, has never contradicted itself. If you would like to contest this point, I would ask you to find to contradictory passages in the Catholic Catechism and post them here.

Also, if you could address my initial point, that would be awesome too. Thanks!

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jun 29 2004, 10:37 AM'] So you looked at it as kind of a "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us" thing? or more like "go to your brother and settle your argument before worshipping" (extreme paraphrase there...)? [/quote]
Um, kinda both. I mean, I guess the latter in the sense that we were taught to confess our sins to each other, and also to forgive. Now that I'm going through the process of becoming Catholic, I really like the way the Church does it. For one thing, it's clearly delineated, and there's such an emphasis on confessing one's sins to God. And of course there's the confession stated at the beginning of Mass, which really helps to focus & humble me. I think my Protestant churches were always trying to accomplish this, but maybe they didn't know how exactly.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='P3chrmd' date='Jun 30 2004, 02:21 AM']

I used to believe this trash as a southern baptist! ITS THE WORK OF THE DEVIL! To believe in eternal security is evil! Its the Devil saying...."hey, you excepted Jesus as your Lord...right? And you know you are saved now forever...so why don't you go out and sin...do all you want...it dosen't matter...because you are eternally secure"!
[/quote]
That's not the spirit eternal security. The spirit of it is that, once you have started a life following Jesus and filled with the Spirit, it's a life-long process of continuing to grow in God and follow Him. The idea is that, if you have truly committed to living your life for God, you will continue to do so, which is in effect eternal security. Not that you can't fall away, but that you will choose not to do so. Or maybe my Baptist church explained things differently than yours did. I do believe a lot of people twist the idea of eternal security in the ways you are saying.

[P3chrmd]

[quote]That's not the spirit eternal security. The spirit of it is that, once you have started a life following Jesus and filled with the Spirit, it's a life-long process of continuing to grow in God and follow Him. The idea is that, if you have truly committed to living your life for God, you will continue to do so, which is in effect eternal security. Not that you can't fall away, but that you will choose not to do so. Or maybe my Baptist church explained things differently than yours did. I do believe a lot of people twist the idea of eternal security in the ways you are saying.[/quote]

But saying that you believe in eternal security...gives satan a chance to wisper those things in your ear..."go on...sin...your saved...it want matter!!!"

And then if you ask someone wo believes in OSAS about the folks who truely do turn away from the Lord and start the live a life of sin completley...YET...they were "saved" and accepted Jesus as their savior...and their response will be "Oh...well they were never really saved to begin with"!!!!! WTF!!??

So they can validate someones salvation by the fact if the backslide or not

And not even all protestants believe in OSAS! Only curtin baptist do...southern baptist I think are the only ones...because i know Pentecostals who don't and Methodist who don't!

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='P3chrmd' date='Jun 30 2004, 02:05 PM']
But saying that you believe in eternal security...gives satan a chance to wisper those things in your ear..."go on...sin...your saved...it want matter!!!"

And then if you ask someone wo believes in OSAS about the folks who truely do turn away from the Lord and start the live a life of sin completley...YET...they were "saved" and accepted Jesus as their savior...and their response will be "Oh...well they were never really saved to begin with"!!!!! WTF!!??

So they can validate someones salvation by the fact if the backslide or not

And not even all protestants believe in OSAS! Only curtin baptist do...southern baptist I think are the only ones...because i know Pentecostals who don't and Methodist who don't! [/quote]
None of this is true. You are making an intellectually dishonest, Strawman Argument.

[P3chrmd]

[quote]None of this is true. You are making an intellectually dishonest, Strawman Argument. [/quote]

Sorry have to disagree with you there bud!!!!

Would you like me to call my southern baptist family (aunt, uncle, cousin, ect...) and ask them what they believe...and they will say EVERYTHING I JUST SAID....

So...lets just say that....your the one who is wrong...I know exactly what I am talking about !

[P3chrmd]

and if you are saying that the fact that not all protestants believe in OSAS is not true...well go to a methodist website...go to a Free Will Baptist website...go to a Church of God of Prophecy website...hell...go to ANY PROTESTANT website that is not southern baptist...and im 99.9% sure that they WILL NOT beleive in OSAS!

[Archaeology cat]

I think this is all getting blown out of proportion. Do I believe in eternal security? Yes. I have security in my salvation, which is always being worked out, as the Apostle Paul states, because I continue to follow God. That is my basis for security, my continuing to follow after God. If I ever stopped following God, I'm not saying that I would be okay because I was "saved" once. I grew up Southern Baptist, so I'm quite familiar with OSAS, and I've never quite understood the argument that, if someone backslides, they were never truly saved to begin with. Maybe I have a different view of eternal security, because I don't believe you can be "saved" and then do what you want. I believe I have security only if I daily renew my commitment to God. I don't know if that clarifies anything, so I'll just stop now.

[MorphRC]

[quote]But saying that you believe in eternal security...gives satan a chance to wisper those things in your ear..."go on...sin...your saved...it want matter!!!"[/quote[ Thats true. And if your Christian that would be one of his greatest false doctrines. I mean I asked a Baptist, about OSAS, and if you could go and kill 40 Million people and go to heaven, he was so idiotic and ignorant about it he said straight to my 'cyber-face' YES. I can do whatever I want coz God's already forgiven me.

[MorphRC]

[quote]But saying that you believe in eternal security...gives satan a chance to wisper those things in your ear..."go on...sin...your saved...it want matter!!!"[/quote]

Sorry

[Archbishop 10-K]

[quote]I mean I asked a Baptist, about OSAS, and if you could go and kill 40 Million people and go to heaven, he was so idiotic and ignorant about it he said straight to my 'cyber-face' YES. I can do whatever I want coz God's already forgiven me.[/quote]


Egad, that's really disturbing.

[Archaeology cat]

Not all Baptists are like that, but yes, some are ignorant enough to believe that. Yes, Satan can try to lie to you about your security, telling you to go on and sin anyway, but then you pray to God for help, and enlist the help of the Saints and other Christians to pray for you, too. Since I don't think I'm getting anywhere, I'm just going to stay out of this debate now.

[MorphRC]

I know not are all like that Shin, but more than some are, and its seriously disturbing they can actually believe in Christ, and still belief such a stupid and ungodly doctrine.

[Archaeology cat]

Okay, I can agree with that. I really think a lot of the difference is just a difference in the semantics, and that a lot of the times we mean the same thing, but the words get mixed up. But yes, some people have a misunderstanding of how it's supposed to be, and, unfortunately, they're usually the loudest.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Neal4Christ' date='Jun 27 2004, 07:38 PM'] Well, since I am still a Protestant, at least for now, I will tell you how I dealt with it: I didn't . It was one of those hard passages that I would tend to ignore. However, if I was forced to interpret it, I would have said that it was only a power given to the apostles.

In Christ,
Neal [/quote]
The Apostles have the power to pass on their power to others, as is seen in the very first chapter of Acts of the Apostles: (Acts. I. 15, 26)

In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty:)

Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.


Here the Apostles chose a successor to Judas to be a Bishop, as they themselves were. My brother (user amarkich on this forum) wrote something convincing about this:

[quote]Well, the main issue here seems to be that of Papal authority and the successors of St. Peter. This can be understood using history and by knowing what the early Christians believed. It is obvious that there must be a single Church that can lead all Christians; otherwise there is no telling what can happen in the area of Doctrine. We know that Christ said that the Church must be one and also that it must be visible. With that being said, the following is an statement from an email I sent someone on the subject of Papal authority. All of it is relevant; there is no extraneous information.

"It is evident that Christ made St. Peter the head of the Church (St. Matthew xvi.18,19). This is carried out in the early Church. For example, Saint Peter was martyred in A.D. 67. St. John (the last Apostle to die) was still alive up at least until A.D. 100. All Christians know that Christ gave power to His Apostles to teach the Gospel and His message. Like He says in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, He will build a Church on the rock of Peter. With that being said, we know that Christ has made a Church that all men should follow. Most protestants believe that this authority (to be able to preach Christ's teachings with authority) was only delegated to the Apostles and not to anyone else. This can be disproved with  simple historical knowledge. We know that St. Peter died in A.D. 67 and that there had been 2 other men who had taken over for him in Rome (where St. Peter lived and taught Christ's message, taking authority of the Christians in that city). After the death of the second successor of Peter (this would be the fourth person to be the head of the Christians in Rome), a man named St. Clement took over. St. John, an Apostle of Christ Himself, was still alive in Ephesus, a city near Corinth (the Christians at Corinth were written to by St. Paul; these Epistles are found in the Bible and are called I Corinthians and II Corinthians). Now, Rome is very far from Corinth compared to Ephesus, but even so, St. Clement wrote his own epistles to the Corinthians in the year A.D. 96 telling the Corinthians the way that they were supposed to act in order to be following the teachings of Christ. Why was it that this man, the fourth man to be the leader of the Christians in Rome, was telling the Corinthians how to act if Ephesus was much closer AND if the man who was the head of Ephesus was also an Apostle of Christ?! The only explanation is that the Christians knew that Christ had not only given authority to St. Peter but also to all of his successors, making leader of the Christians in Rome the leader of the Christians throughout the world. This is an illustration of the fact that the leader of Rome has special authority from Christ, exceeding even that of the Apostles (other than St. Peter). This is why the Pope still lives in Rome today; he is the successor of St. Peter and has been given special authority from God. So not only did St. Peter have the authority to lead the Church but so do his successors. That is an example of a theological and logical argument and proof of the fact that the Pope has the authority and capability to be infallible. He has the authority to "bind all things on Heaven and earth". With that being said, it is imperative that we believe what all the Popes have said using their authority (they do this by writing things called Papal Bulls and Papal Encyclicals). We can discuss what some of these writings have said in the next email. How can you believe that you do not have to obey the Pope when his authority comes from Christ, God Himself?"

Now, the next pertinent issue is the claim that the authority of Peter could not have passed to his successors because of the fact that his successors have erred in their personal lives. This, however, has no bearing on what Christ said. He did not guarantee that every Pope would be perfect in his personal lifestyle; He only assured that the Pope would be infallible. He did not say that the Pope would be holy nor did He say that the Pope would even be God's choice for the leader of the Church. All He did was grant authority to him. Now, with that being said, we can look at the life of St. Peter, who undeniably was given the mark of infallibility (as it says in the Bible). St. Peter denied Christ three times after being given the authority over the Church and infallibility! Certainly no Pope of the Middle Ages or Renaissance ever did that! There is no denying that Pope Alexander VI had illegitimate children, but in comparison to denying Christ, this is very little. Likewise, even though Pope Alexander committed sin, this does not mean that he does not have authority from God. Remember, God also grants authority to all political leaders (as the Bible also states), but this does not mean that every political leader does the Will of God. We must remember that there is free will that can cause leaders of great institutions (even the perfect one, the Church) to fall in their sins. This does not however, diminish their power as granted by God. Look at the leaders of the Jews in the Old Testament! Did God suddenly say that the Covenant He made with them was void? I think not. He punished them (some may say He has punished us with divisions brought about by the evils of the protestant revolutionaries). With that being said, I think it is clear that no one will claim (at least any longer) that the sin of a Pope discredits his infallibility to "bind things on Heaven and on earth", which Christ has certainly given him. History seems to be on the side of the Catholic Church. If the Pope really were not infallible, if his teachings could be incorrect, would not these corrupt men have taught that immorality was not sinful, that sex outside of a covenant with God was fine, and that all of their actions were justified in the eyes of God? Of course they would have, but they did not. This is just another testimony that the Popes are indeed infallible. Look at the Bible, history, and logic objectively. Anyone who is sincerely searching for the Truth will see that the Bible gives the basis for infallibility, history confirms the practice by early Christians, and it is completely in agreement with logic. Does it not make sense that the teachings of Christ should be continued throughout the history of His Church? Also, is it not only logical that there be a visible head of the Church who can make decisions concerning what should and should not be done so that all of those who call themselves Christian can be united under the same beliefs (the Truth), the truths that are taught and held to be true by Christ? If you are open-minded and look at the situation objectively, it is certain that you will come to this same conclusion. Remember the words of Christ “He who rejects you rejects Me”. It is clear that anyone who is not Catholic has certainly rejected the Apostles, and thus, Christ. [/quote]

God bless.