ECT DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
In fact, I did exactly that in Post #434 above.


The ONLY mention you made of John 10:28 on that post is this:

Yes, God has given us eternal life. The Bible is clear, however, that we can forfeit that divine gift through grave sin and rebellion (see cited sources above).

The Lord Jesus says that those to whom He gives eternal life "shall never perish":

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (Jn.10:28).​

Of course your ideas indicate that those who are given eternal life can forfeit eternal life. But that could not be right because the Lord said that they "shall never perish.

You believe what Rome teaches even though the Lord Jesus Himself contradicts their teaching.

Let us look more closely at what you said:

Yes, God has given us eternal life. The Bible is clear, however, that we can forfeit that divine gift through grave sin and rebellion (see cited sources above).

Once again we can see that the Lord Jesus contradicts what you said:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (Jn.6:37).​

I am sure that you will not believe what the Lord Jesus said there because your final authority is not the Scriptures but instead it is Rome.
 

Cruciform

New member
"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (Jn.10:28).
I've already answered this. Other biblical texts indicate that while those in a state of grace (righteousness) "have eternal life and shall not perish," a man is also capable of forfeiting the state of grace through grave sin and rebellion. Again, your interpretation of Jn. 10:28 must account for ALL of the biblical data, not merely a select portion of it. Your preferred interpretation fails to account for the full testimony of Divine Revelation. Therefore, it simply cannot be correct.

You believe what Rome teaches even though the lord contradicts their teaching.
Rather, I believe what Christ's one historic Church teaches because Jesus Christ equated it with his very own teachings in truth and authority (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15), and to disobey the teachings of the Church is therefore to reject the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

You, however, presume to place your own preferred interpretations above the teachings of Christ's one historic Church, and therefore of Jesus Christ himself.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
In fact, I did exactly that in Post #434 above.


The ONLY mention you made of John 10:28 on that post is this:

Yes, God has given us eternal life. The Bible is clear, however, that we can forfeit that divine gift through grave sin and rebellion (see cited sources above).

The Lord Jesus says that those to whom He gives eternal life "shall never perish":

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (Jn.10:28).​

Of course your ideas indicate that those who are given eternal life can forfeit eternal life. But that could not be right because the Lord said that they "shall never perish.

You believe what Rome teaches even though the Lord Jesus Himself contradicts their teaching.

Let us look more closely at what you said:

Yes, God has given us eternal life. The Bible is clear, however, that we can forfeit that divine gift through grave sin and rebellion (see cited sources above).

Once again we can see that the Lord Jesus contradicts what you said:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (Jn.6:37).​

I am sure that you will not believe what the Lord Jesus said there because your final authority is not the Scriptures but instead it is Rome.
 

Cruciform

New member
"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (Jn.10:28).
Other biblical texts indicate that, though the righteous are divinely protected while they remain in a state of grace ("neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand"), one may choose to abandon and forfeit the state of grace through grave sin and rebellion. In simple terms, while no man can take me away from God against my will, I am nevertheless free to walk away from God of my own volition. Big difference there.

This is in no way a contradiction of Jesus' words, since Jesus Christ himself taught that one could forfeit the state of grace through grave sin and rebellion.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

DAN P

Well-known member
solascriptura.jpg


Hi and just where did Jesus say THAT Extra bibical are Inspired and to be Fulfilled ?

Jesus di say that Moses spoke of Him , but not the RCC , DON'T YOU SEE !!

DAN P
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Other biblical texts indicate that, though the righteous are divinely protected while they remain in a state of grace ("neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand"), one may choose to abandon and forfeit the state of grace through grave sin and rebellion. In simple terms, while no man can take me away from God against my will, I am nevertheless free to walk away from God of my own volition. Big difference there.

This is in no way a contradiction of Jesus' words, since Jesus Christ himself taught that one could forfeit the state of grace through grave sin and rebellion.


Where does the Lord Jesus say that those to whom He gives eternal life can perish?
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Already answered in Post #444 [HERE].

Those answers are meant for six year olds. For example, let us look at the answer given by Rome to these words of the Lord Jesus:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (Jn.6:37).​

This is an UNCONDITIONAL STATEMENT. Since Rome has no logical answer to this verse they simply add a condition to this unconditional statement:

John 6:37 - those who continue to come to Jesus He won't cast out. But it's a continuous, ongoing action. We can leave Jesus and He will allow this because He respects our freewill.

That perverted type of exegesis will only be believed by a six year old and those like you whose schooling ended before you studied the difference between a conditional statement and one which is unconditional.

You are just plain ignorant and have no business posting on this forum. Go back to school!
 

Cruciform

New member
Those answers are meant for six year olds.
...and yet you have no actual refutation to offer, only your bare denial based upon the entirely non-authoritative assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

You have already been effectively answered in Posts #438, #442, #444 above. The fact that you prefer the dictates of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect to the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church is noted.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

everready

New member
...and yet you have no actual refutation to offer, only your bare denial based upon the entirely non-authoritative assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

You have already been effectively answered in Posts #438, #442, #444 above. The fact that you prefer the dictates of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect to the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church is noted.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Its historic alright.

Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

The following quotes show just how far the churches of today have strayed from the wisdom of their founding fathers.

Martin Luther
(1483-1546) (Lutheran)

"We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist...personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers," Vol. 2, pg. 121 by Froom.

John Calvin
(1509-1564) (Presbyterian)

"Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt...I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." Taken from "Institutes" by John Calvin.

Cotton Mather
(1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian)

"The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church; and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from "The Fall of Babylon" by Cotton Mather in Froom's book "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers," Vol. 3, pg. 113.

John Knox
(1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian)

Knox wrote to abolish "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church" and that the pope should be recognized as "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks." Taken from "The Zurich Letters" pg. 199 by John Knox.

Thomas Cranmer
(1489-1556) (Anglican)

"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Taken from "Works" by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.

John Wesley
(1703-1791) (Methodist)

Speaking of the Papacy he said, "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers...He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped...claiming the highest power, and highest honor...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." Taken from "Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms" by John Wesley, pg. 110.

Roger William
(1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America)

He spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vessals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to changed times and laws: but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2)." Taken from "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers" by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.

Quoted from GREAT PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE by Woodrow.


everready
 

Cruciform

New member
Its historic alright.

Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
Yes, it is. Try again.

The following quotes show just how far the churches of today have strayed from the wisdom of their founding fathers.
All of these recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects separated themselves from Christ's one historic Catholic Church a mere five centuries ago or less. Their opinions carry no doctrinal authority whatsoever. They are nothing more than the corrupt traditions of men, and cannot even agree among themselves regarding what constitutes the defining theological content of the Christian faith. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
...and yet you have no actual refutation to offer, only your bare denial based upon the entirely non-authoritative assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.


Again, Rome has not offered up anything that answers what the Lord Jesus said here in bold:

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (Jn.10:28).​

Since Rome has no answer to those words of the Lord Jesus which teach eternal security Rome pretends that she has addressed this verse by only addressing the second part of the verse:

John 10:27-28 - when Jesus says, "no one shall snatch them out of my hands," He does not mean we can't leave His hands. We can choose to walk away from Him.

Why did Rome only address the second part of the verse? Can you quote an interpretation to the first part of this verse by someone in the church at Rome who has some authority?

If not, then we must believe that Rome runs and hides from verses which contradicts her teaching.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Post #450

I have already quoted what is said on your site about John 10:28.

And the first part of the verse was not answered. Evidently both you and Rome are willing to run and hide from any verse which contradicts the teaching of Rome.

Who can take either of you seriously?
 

everready

New member
PAGAN SUN WORSHIP AND CATHOLICISM

PAGAN SUN WORSHIP AND CATHOLICISM

work_183.jpg


THE PAGAN SUN WHEEL, THE OBELISK AND BAAL

Here you see a view of the piazza or plaza at the Vatican, also known as St. Peter's square. The papal palace is on the right edge of the photo. The large eight-rayed sun wheel design, symbolic of Ishtar, is immediately noticeable. Look closely in the center of the wheel. What you see there is an obelisk, a genuine Egyptian obelisk shipped from Heliopolis to Rome by the Roman emperor Caligula. The obelisk is, of course, a phallic symbol,* but it also was used in sun worship. Click on the image to view a larger version of the same image.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/wheel.htm

i see the pages of the Revelation here


everready
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Post #450

That post says nothing about the difference between an "unconditional" statement and a "conditional" statement.

Did someone tell you that Rome has been given the right to edit the Scriptures by turning "unconditional" statements into "conditional" ones?

This is just one more example of Rome's unmitigated gall! And you are just as guilty as Rome because you defend Rome's teaching.
 
Last edited:

Cruciform

New member
That post says nothing about the difference between an "unconditional" statement and a "conditional" statement.Did someone tell you that Rome has been given the right to edit the Scriptures by turning "unconditional" statements into "conditional" ones?This is just one more example of Rome's unmitigated gall! And you are just as guilty as Rome because you defend Rome's teaching.
Post #450
 
Top