Can a Christian lose their Salvation, or Are their former Christians (cont.)

The Bible came from God.

Again, your aruguing with yourself. You first said "Christ calls'. I respond to your statement that 'Christ calls' and use your term. You then say 'No, God calls'. To which I respond that 'Christ calls' is your statement, not mine. To which you now say they are the same thing. Ok.

The main point in this discussion is that you recognize that I am saying none are saved unless they come to Jesus Christ as their Saviour. And your saying that a person can be saved without coming to Christ if they are in a false religion but being faithful to that belief.

You base your belief on what the Church says the Bible says. I base my belief on the Bible alone.

Quantrill

 

Lots of literature claims to be "from God." Lots of literature about Jesus claimed to be from God but are not included in the Holy Bible. Why do you accept MathewMarkLukeJohn and not ThomasJudasMaryPhilip?

God didn't drop from heaven the Bible, gold-leafed, red-lettered, and leather-bound into Quantill's lap.

I guess, as a fellow Christian, I assumed the most basic tenet of Christianity was understood.

<==YOU. THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. And I clarified it REPEATEDLY to make sure you understood. Now it HAS to be purposeful obfuscation.

The Church wrote the texts in the Bible by Divine Inspiration, gathered the texts together, analyzed various religious themed texts, codified the text contained in the Bible, and protected the Bible for centuries from loss and corruption. If you have faith in the teachings of the Bible, you have faith in the authority of the Church whether you have the balls to admit it or not.

 

Because Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are inspired by God. The others are not. They were recieved as inspired by the people of God.

The Church didn't exist until Acts 2. The Old Testament was already in existance. The New Testament was written by those who were part of the Church. It was not written due to the orginaization of the Church setting out to write it. It was written because God inspiried certain ones to write what He wanted. And this in turn was later received as the Word of God.

My faith is not in the authority of the Church. My faith is in God and Christ. And I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and base my beliefs on the Bible. I recognize,but do not have faith in, the authority of the Church. And anything the Church, any Church says or dictates, I do not recieive until first seeing if the Scriptures really say that. I do not recognize the authority of the Church over the Bible.

Well, I assumed the same and its not helping.

Yes, it is what you said. See your post #90. After that you attempt to prove it but can't. Thus you must resort to being unclear. Create a fog. And indeed a fog you have created.

Quantrill

 

HOW do you determine that?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

WHO received it? ("it" being those particular books determined to be inspired)

So is mine--and part of that faith in Christ is BELIEVING what he says as recorded in the Bible.

And.....you don't see the circular logic there?

Nor do I--I recognize Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Teaching Authority of the Church as co-equal modes of Divine Revelation. They mirror the Trinity in how where one is present, so too are the other two.

It's probably due to the Doctrine According to Quantrill not being Sacred or Divinely inspired.

Spare me. Clarity is definitely my forte. You, on the other hand, obfuscate like bunnies reproducing.

 

Nor do I. There are a couple segments missing in the flow diagram.

1: Somewhere near that current bottom position there is needed the placement of the 'Church'... "Because the Church says so"

Question: Well how did the Church make a determination?

2: The Scholars made the decision, based on their private interpretations of a ancient scripts, and felt that those writings should be included in a book called the Bible. ... "Because that was the correct subjective thing to do."

After the insertion of those points, I can clearly see the circular logic.

 

Add in the Scriptures of the OT--the Sacred Tradition of the Jewish Faith and how it prefigured and completes the claims of the NT--and also, don't forget, the historical relevance of faith in action over time--then consider all of this together in the context of the claims being made as to authority.

It's not so circular, then. Now, though not "proved," particular faith becomes more rational and evidentiary.

 

With your final summation I can agree; as that summation shows clearly that the man-made systems of logic do not apply to the Word of God. It is through the Spirit of God communing with the spirit of man that interpretation is made. Not necessarily according to the rules and logic used by the Scholars.

 

I don't disagree that there absolutely is the need for faith--but I believe that there is such a thing as a "rational faith"--not all "faith" is rational, IMO.


When confronted with certain facts, some limited claims need to be abandoned in favor of better reasoned claims, or one is not using God's gift of reason to full advantage. God doesn't like it when gifts are squandered.

 

Giving consideration to all the various definitions of the word "rational", I would have to conclude that all faith is 'rational' to one level or degree or the other.

Again, the dependence upon the term 'reason' and its past tense form "reasoned" only implies that a level of 'normal thinking' has occurred or is occurring or will be incorporated. The use of the adjective "better" only throws in a dulling effect, as the word "better" is ambiguous when no particular standard is used as a comparator, which would enable various considerations to be of varying values depending upon the standard that is used as the comparator.

God also does not like it when gifts are used in a manner that does not glorify Him.

 

If somebody sins against the Holy Spirit he will lost his/ her Salvation.

Mark 3:28-29 King James Version (KJV)

28Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal d amnation.

Matthew 12:31-32 King James Version (KJV)

31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

 

Do you know what it means to sin against the Holy Spirit?

 

Hence, why I said, "more rational," and "better reasoned" rather than say any faith was "irrational."

-- wow--quite a wordy way to say, "it's relative." That's why standards of logic are necessary, though one cannot be a slave to it. I reject relativism because I believe in God--God being the Objective Standard despite our knowledge of him.

I agree.

 

As I said, the Gospels, you mentioned, were recieved by the people of God as the Word of God. As to 'who' those people of God were, they were the early Christians. They gave their testimony and witness that these were the Word of God in their acceptance of them.

Glad to hear you believe what Christ says.

It doesn't bother me that it is circular logic. If its true is what is important. That it is cirucular simply means it is completely contained and cannot be argued against. Yes, the Bible declares itself to be the Word of God. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. My doctrine is based upon the Word of God alone.

Tradition and the teaching of the Church is important but not to be placed on the same level as the Bible. And its here that you, or the Roman Church, is in error. Some tradition is true and good. Some, not. Same with the teaching of the Church.

Quantrill

 

It was early Christian peoples that wrote the Gnostic Gospels.

It was the authority of the Church that preserved the integrity of Jesus' message.

I think that speaks for itself.

The Bible is a product of Church Tradition. There is no escaping that FACT. Tradition preceded the Bible.

 

Sorry, Im not buying that.

Im not discounting the role of the Church, the Church being the born-again followers of Jesus Christ, in recognizing and identifying and preserving those writings which are inspired by God. And, I do not discount the authority the Church has.

But, Church tradition and teaching is not on the same level of authority as the Scriptures.

No, the Bible is a product of God. The people of God, the Church, simply hear and recognize God's voice in those NT writings. The Church does not make any writing inspired.

Quantrill

 

You are twisting my words in your third paragraph. The rest is correct, except I disagree with paragraph 2 and believe there is AMPLE evidence that my view is more accurate to the Eternal Truth than yours.

 

How have I twisted your words. You said the Scriptures and Tradition and the Churches teachings are co-equal. I am saying they are not equal. The Church must submitt to the authority of the Scriptures.

Quantrill

 

This game of yours is stupid.

Never said that it did!

 

Im not playing any game. This discussion has gone back to the root problem between Catholics and Protestants. Where does the authority lie?

Quantrill

 

Perhaps you are right about the "root problem," but you most definitely play games with what you claim Catholicism believes. You bear false witness.

 

Everybody has been the bearer of 'false witness' at one point in their life or the other.... except Jesus...

 

You accuse me of bearing false witness but do not give evidence for it. I assure you I am not playing a game.

I showed you how you equated the authority of the Bible with the authority of the Church in its tradition and teaching. And I disagreed with it.

I do not see false statement or false accusation on my part.

Quantrill

 

So? That doesn't mean anything here as I have not.

Quantrill

 

You have never told a lie? Really? Not even a tiny, teeny little lie?

At any rate, the comment was made as a derision to the comment made by Felicity and directed to you.... her comment to you "You bear false witness." My comment was to cause her to reflect on her own status as one who has been the bearer of 'false witness'.

 

A teeny tiny lie is not the same as false witness.

Quantrill, you bear false witness when you purposefully misrepresent what the Catholic Church teaches, and your purposeful twisting of words to suggest this Catholic (me) presented the teachings as you twist them. That is more than a lie--that is false witness against your neighbor. Technically, lying and false witness are deceit. Lying is much more broadly defined. Specifically attributing a falsehood to or about another is false witness.