I was wondering who believes you can get unsaved.

You are so right. See my post where I give 22 scriptures from all over the New Testament that teach that a saved person can be lost.

Because I read your post.

Within the context of Christianity, no, as I already stated. Not in 30s years.

Regardless of your opinion when people refer to being saved as a Christian, its quite clear what is intended.

The Good Shepherd does not lose even a single one of His sheep.

the idol shepherd devours every one of his.

no sheep has two shepherds.

I get the feeling NONE of the OSAS believers read those verses.....

Why would God put them in the Bible then????

They have eyes but they do not see, and ears but they do not hear. The blind leading the blind…


🎂

The situation is a bit more nuanced than what you describe here. The Early Christian Church from the 3rd century forward was Catholic, there's not much we can do about that. It was a very different time theologically, and politically. Basically everything about that time was so unlike our present organized religious and political systems, that to paint with such a broad brush just doesn't seem fair. The three major branches of organized Christendom held enormous power, and particularly the Roman franchise, used that power in unforgivable ways. And still do, you won't get an argument from me there. But labeling ancient church fathers as some kind of heretics because they were Catholic, when everyone was Catholic. I'm sorry, I'm at a loss for words. And that doesn't happen often.

I’m surprised you would think the early church fathers were Catholic when the Catholic Church was not founded until the 6th century—590 AD when Greggory the 1 became the first “pope.” Anyone can claim anything and I am aware of the “claims” of the Catholic Church. They are the oldest denomination but NOT the oldest church. The church that Christ built in AD 33 was NOT the Catholic Church. You have only to examine the church in the New Testament and Jesus’s doctrine and teachings to see that the New Testament “Church of Christ” Romans 16:16 is not ANYTHING like the Catholic Church. Jesus taught that we should call no man Father (religiously), a title the Catholic Church uses; Jesus did not approve of idolatry or image worship, which is a major practice of Catholicism; Christ’s doctrine teaches us to pray to God, not Mary or any man (saint); He teaches us in Revelation that we should NOT BOW DOWN TO ANY MAN—only to God; Catholicism contradicts this.

2Thess. 2:3-12 describes the Catholic Church in not flattering terms: Paul says there will come a “FALLING AWAY” (from the true church of Christ/-the one that Jesus started). A man of SIN who EXALTS HIMSELF above all that is God; sits AS GOD in the temple of God, CLAIMING TO BE GOD. Paul says it is the WORK of SATAN. It is DECEPTION. And he says the “lawlessness” is already at work. Is this not a description of the “pope” of the Catholic Church? He claims to be “God on earth.” He exalts himself above everyone. He sits in his temple and claim to be God. He says he is deity and can forgive sins. He has people bow down to him and worship him and kiss his hand (ring). If the Catholic Church began in the New Testament, then this is it! But it is NOT THE CHURCH THAT CHRIST BUILT.

The early church fathers, like Clement of Rome (90-98), Ignatius (107-128), Polycarp (71-155), Justin Martyr (100-165), Tertullias (155-230), and Clement of Alexandria (150-215) were NOT CATHOLIC. How could they be when there WAS NO CATHOLIC CHURCH until the 6th century. That’s at least 400 years too late! Don’t be deceived.

The Good Shepherd does not lose even a single one of His sheep.

The situation is a bit more nuanced than what you describe here. The Early Christian Church from the 3rd century forward was Catholic, there's not much we can do about that. It was a very different time theologically, and politically. Basically everything about that time was so unlike our present organized religious and political systems, that to paint with such a broad brush just doesn't seem fair. The three major branches of organized Christendom held enormous power, and particularly the Roman franchise, used that power in unforgivable ways. And still do, you won't get an argument from me there. But labeling ancient church fathers as some kind of heretics because they were Catholic, when everyone was Catholic. I'm sorry, I'm at a loss for words. And that doesn't happen often.

You missed the point. RCC is totally UNTRUSTWORTHY like any cult.

I get the feeling NONE of the OSAS believers read those verses

You're preaching to the choir here man. I disagree with you about the beginnings of the Catholic church. While Constantine did not create what we know as the RCC today. He basically transformed the religious system into a political one overnight. The RCC grew into a beast, but Constantine birthed the beast. Additionally, the poster I was responding to was bagging Augustine of Hippo because he was Catholic. Augustine died in 430 if I am not mistaken. Nearly 200 years before the First Pope.

Constantine actually stayed out of religious decisions. It's precisely why he called the Nicene council, so that the leadership of the church itself would decide matters of orthodox doctrine.

the bishop of Rome didn't even attend.

it wasn't till later that the RCC became absolutely divorced from the rest of the church and transformed into a monster.

can we keep the arguing down?
I am also looking for biblical quotes. not convictions.
I fall firmly into believing that you can get unsaved, because I did choose not to accept christ. as a concious decision. like, i thought, i dont want it for myself. maybe someday. i believe it to be truth, but i do not accept the truth. I still care about others being and getting saved, but i myself do not want ti.
until I got saved, and truly believe his love now.

History, being what is, none of us can say with certainty what Constantine did or didn't do? But you have clearly looked into it deeper than myself. Are you of the opinion that Constantine was sincere or that he made a political decision. Looking into his recorded history, it does not seem to me to have been sincere. He went on in later years to build monuments depicting his self as greater than Apollo.

didn't Solomon make some poor decisions in his later years? and some of the things both did, they did because they were rulers and for political expediency, had to do. this is in itself another reason Christians should beware getting into worldly politics - the Bible never describes the church as if it should wield the sword of the government, in the same way the government should not rule the church. every time it has, it has been a disaster.

but yes i believe he was sincere. it's difficult to come to firm conclusions about his character from history, because what's written about him was written by people who were big fans of his. but we do have the records of the Nicene council, and tho he 'presided' and payed the way of all the representatives to come to it, there's no indication he imposed his will over anything that was decided there.

he did move the Roman empire away from paganism, and even if it was perhaps only in the interest of peace within his empire, he influenced as much of the church that was within the empire to come to terms with its internal disagreements and formally establish what was right doctrine and what was heresy. these were good things. i don't agree he created the RCC - there wasn't any such thing at the time, just one of several bishoprics, of which Jerusalem or Antioch was probably chief, but none of them thought themselves better than the others. all. Christians everywhere were part of the 'catholic' - meaning general - church.

but in fact part of the reason the church in Rome probably started moving towards claiming itself to be head was because Constantine had moved the capital of the empire away from there - so the city that was once great, once the center of power all over Europe and north Africa and the Levant etc, was now hardly important at all. Eventually the Empire would be so busy fighting Islamicists that it couldn't protect insignificant Rome way off to the west anymore, and it was sacked several times. It was in that time period, hundreds of years after Constantine, that the RCC became wholly separated from orthodoxy and divorced itself from the reality of the Bible and of history. They made themselves popes and politically ruled all of Italy because the actual Roman empire had more or less abandoned them.

that orthodoxy that the RCC divided itself from is now what's called the Eastern Orthodox church and has almost not changed at all since that time.

didn't Solomon make some poor decisions in his later years? and some of the things both did, they did because they were rulers and for political expediency, had to do. this is in itself another reason Christians should beware getting into worldly politics - the Bible never describes the church as if it should wield the sword of the government, in the same way the government should not rule the church. every time it has, it has been a disaster.

but yes i believe he was sincere. it's difficult to come to firm conclusions about his character from history, because what's written about him was written by people who were big fans of his. but we do have the records of the Nicene council, and tho he 'presided' and payed the way of all the representatives to come to it, there's no indication he imposed his will over anything that was decided there.

he did move the Roman empire away from paganism, and even if it was perhaps only in the interest of peace within his empire, he influenced as much of the church that was within the empire to come to terms with its internal disagreements and formally establish what was right doctrine and what was heresy. these were good things. i don't agree he created the RCC - there wasn't any such thing at the time, just one of several bishoprics, of which Jerusalem or Antioch was probably chief, but none of them thought themselves better than the others. all. Christians everywhere were part of the 'catholic' - meaning general - church.

but in fact part of the reason the church in Rome probably started moving towards claiming itself to be head was because Constantine had moved the capital of the empire away from there - so the city that was once great, once the center of power all over Europe and north Africa and the Levant etc, was now hardly important at all. Eventually the Empire would be so busy fighting Islamicists that it couldn't protect insignificant Rome way off to the west anymore, and it was sacked several times. It was in that time period, hundreds of years after Constantine, that the RCC became wholly separated from orthodoxy and divorced itself from the reality of the Bible and of history. They made themselves popes and politically ruled all of Italy because the actual Roman empire had more or less abandoned them.

that orthodoxy that the RCC divided itself from is now what's called the Eastern Orthodox church and has almost not changed at all since that time.

Informative, thanks. In regards to Solomon. I can only imagine that God allowed him to do the things he did for our benefit. But wow, the wisest guy that ever lived sure let it all hang out there. Ecclesiastes being one of my most treasured books of scripture, I'm glad he did.

The Good Shepherd does not lose even a single one of His sheep.

the idol shepherd devours every one of his.

no sheep has two shepherds.

Informative, thanks. In regards to Solomon. I can only imagine that God allowed him to do the things he did for our benefit. But wow, the wisest guy that ever lived sure let it all hang out there. Ecclesiastes being one of my most treasured books of scripture, I'm glad he did.

Ecclesiastes 1:17-18