Hard sayings in Hebrews

[user1234]

I dont know that kind of preaching. In Holland it's stiff reformed dont do nothing on sunday new Judaism or evangelical. I like holiness preachers like Steve Hill and those old revival preachers. Rest I don't know. Catholicism in Holland as far as I know is far from legalistic, unless you want to call that they celebrate carnival legalistic.

Interesting. I know RomanCatholicism in America is pretty much the same across the board, as far as official teaching that comes from headquarters. I thought it was like that in Europe and the rest of the world, too.
Like, for instance, they have specific teachings, doctrines and practices that everyone must follow if they're to be obedient to the denomination (legalism).
A holy day of obligation holds binding to all the RC members thruout America (I believe its considered a sin if you dont obey it). And a whole lot of other rules (laws) that must be kept, not just for daily/weekly routines, but FOR SALVATION...And thats what I mean about legalism/works-righteousness.

There may be some variations on secondary practices in different communities.....maybe some have beef n beers, some may frown upon it, ... But for doctrine and practice, (what must be believed and acted upon), in order to be saved, or avoid excommunication, or some other disciplinary action, there are certain things that apply across the board for RomanCatholics, at least in America, and I thought they applied around the world, too.
I will look further into it, as I dont want to over-generalize if those things dont apply in other countries. Thx for the heads up. :thumbsup:

 

[MoreCoffee]

I've been wondering why people who are not Catholic mention alleged Catholic teaching in so many of their posts in a thread about Hebrews 6:4-6 and now I know. They have nothing much to say about the passage but a whole lot of untruthful comments to make about the Catholic Church. Remember the commandment from the old testament - maybe to doesn't apply to folk here - You shall not give false testimony against your neighbour. (NIV) if it matters to you then stop and think before you post ask is this really true have I checked the fact and do they really bear the interpretation I am putting on them.

 

[user1234]

Instead of smearing other ppl here, why dont you just point out the specific alleged lies you accuse ppl of telling about the RomanCatholic denomination so they can be addressed and discussed like men, not more of your childish snarky little comments...or is it that there arent any, in which case its actually YOU who is bearing false witness, and btw, its thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor....how would exposing the false teachings of a religious denomination be in violation of that commandment?
Sometimes you seem to read threads much the same way the RomanCatholic hierarchy reads scripture, a snip here, a skip over there, a misrepresentation there .....

3 verses isolated out of Hebrews? Its been discussed. What's the point?

 

[MoreCoffee]

...

3 verses isolated out of Hebrews? Its been discussed. What's the point?

Yes, what is the point?

 

[user1234]

Yes, what is the point?[/QUOTE]
~~The point has been to try to help ppl see the light a little better...the truth of salvation being a free (to us) gift of Gods grace, and how some of the teachings and practices of the RomanCatholic denomination (as well as other religious institutions) actually block ppl from that.
And to elaborate on the OP.....Heres the passage in context, straight thru, with our great salvation being the point.

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, what is the point?

~~The point has been to try to help ppl see the light a little better...the truth of salvation being a free (to us) gift of Gods grace, and how some of the teachings and practices of the RomanCatholic denomination (as well as other religious institutions) actually block ppl from that....

The Catholic Church teaches exactly that salvation is a free (to us) gift of Gods grace. This is what the CCC says.

Salvation is defined as the forgiveness of sins and restoration of friendship with God, which can be done by God alone. (glossary)

"Lord, Look Upon the Faith of Your Church"

168 It is the Church that believes first [SUP][The church is the body of Christ, those who believe and are saved by grace][/SUP], and so bears, nourishes and sustains my faith. Everywhere, it is the Church that first confesses the Lord: "Throughout the world the holy Church acclaims you", as we sing in the hymn Te Deum; with her and in her, we are won over and brought to confess: "I believe", "We believe". It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by Baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: "What do you ask of God's Church?" and the answer is: "Faith." "What does faith offer you?" "Eternal life."

169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation." Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.​

 

[user1234]

The Catholic Church teaches exactly that salvation is a free (to us) gift of Gods grace. This is what the CCC says.

Salvation is defined as the forgiveness of sins and restoration of friendship with God, which can be done by God alone. (glossary)

"Lord, Look Upon the Faith of Your Church"

168 It is the Church that believes first [SUP][The church is the body of Christ, those who believe and are saved by grace][/SUP], and so bears, nourishes and sustains my faith. Everywhere, it is the Church that first confesses the Lord: "Throughout the world the holy Church acclaims you", as we sing in the hymn Te Deum; with her and in her, we are won over and brought to confess: "I believe", "We believe". It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by Baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: "What do you ask of God's Church?" and the answer is: "Faith." "What does faith offer you?" "Eternal life."

169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation." Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.​

That is apparantly the RomanCatholic denominations words? The CCC? Whats that?
The church? The RCd. Is the mother? Of our new birth? SHE? Is our (whos our) teacher? In the faith? Which faith? Surely not biblical faith in Jesus. Surely not faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.

You can dress up the wording any way you like, the RomanCatholic denomination, by its requirements it puts on its members, does not teach salvation by grace alone thru faith in the finished work of Jesus. There isnt even any assurance of salvation within its own denominational practices, let alone for anyone outside of it.

Its list of rules and works that MUST be kept dont bring peace and assurance....no member can say for certain they have salvation/eternal life/entry into Gods Kingdom, because they never know if they've done enough.....thus, the need for the false teaching of purgatory, and asking an RC member a few questions yields much the same answers.

They're relying on their water-baptism, their ingesting of Jesus at communion, their RC confirmation, their confessions to a priest, and asking 'Mary' to pray for them right up to the hour of death and they STILL dont know!
The Mormons have their own Book. The JWs have their Watchtower. The RCs have their CCC.
But God gave us His Word, The Bible. Whats wrong with that, why not read that?

 

[hedrick]

Hebrews 6:4-6 says this
4 "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."

Who are these who have once been enlightened? Does that mean the same thing as saved?

What do you think fallen away means? Who qualifies for that?

Do you think this teaches that a person can lose their salvation? If they lose it then is it somehow based on works?

The most likely original meaning was that there was no second chance for someone who committed apostasy. By apostasy I mean rejection of the faith. For that reason, this passage doesn't really bear on some of what you ask. Apostasy includes a loss of faith. So it's not a works issue.

It also doesn't bear on normal Christian experience. It doesn't either assert or deny that there are mortal sins.

It does make it clear that the author thought it was possible to lose salvation. You can't avoid that without unlikely exegesis.

This passage presents a danger, because lots of Christians worry that they've fallen into a situation from which there is no escape. But this doesn't refer to anything that would be possible for a Christian, since real apostasy means you're no longer concerned about Christ.

Where it would apply is someone who had been at one time a Christian, abandoned their faith, and later in life became interested in Christianity. Most Christians would tell such a person that this passage doesn't apply to them. I think the author considered this situation impossible. He was clearly concerned about the consequence of apostasy. For him, if you abandon Christ, you abandon the basis for forgiveness of sin. But whatever his intent, what he actually said was something that I think few Christians would try to apply. Would you really tell someone who became interested in returning to Christianity that it was hopeless? I doubt it.

Incidentally, Hebrews was a book whose canonical status was disputed. This passage is one of the reasons. There was a widespread belief in the early Church that sins after baptism couldn't be forgiven. This passage was considered to favor that view. I think that interpretation is wrong, because I think he was referring only to apostasy. But it's interesting to know how he was understood. That wasn't the only issue, of course. There was also widespread doubt in the West that Paul was the author. It appears that it was finally accepted into the canon because the West agreed that it was by Paul. That's almost certainly wrong, and in of course it doesns't claim to be.

 

[Imalive]

The most likely original meaning was that there was no second chance for someone who committed apostasy. By apostasy I mean rejection of the faith. For that reason, this passage doesn't really bear on some of what you ask. Apostasy includes a loss of faith. So it's not a works issue.

It also doesn't bear on normal Christian experience. It doesn't either assert or deny that there are mortal sins.

It does make it clear that the author thought it was possible to lose salvation. You can't avoid that without unlikely exegesis.

This passage presents a danger, because lots of Christians worry that they've fallen into a situation from which there is no escape. But this doesn't refer to anything that would be possible for a Christian, since real apostasy means you're no longer concerned about Christ.

Where it would apply is someone who had been at one time a Christian, abandoned their faith, and later in life became interested in Christianity. Most Christians would tell such a person that this passage doesn't apply to them. I think the author considered this situation impossible. He was clearly concerned about the consequence of apostasy. For him, if you abandon Christ, you abandon the basis for forgiveness of sin. But whatever his intent, what he actually said was something that I think few Christians would try to apply. Would you really tell someone who became interested in returning to Christianity that it was hopeless? I doubt it.

Incidentally, Hebrews was a book whose canonical status was disputed. This passage is one of the reasons. There was a widespread belief in the early Church that sins after baptism couldn't be forgiven. This passage was considered to favor that view. I think that interpretation is wrong, because I think he was referring only to apostasy. But it's interesting to know how he was understood.

Oh a former born again now atheist said to me it was impossible to go back because of this text. I said: oh how many dead did you raise then? Tasted the powers of the future. Can't compare that to a baby christian falling away now cuz he gets false teaching I think.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The most likely original meaning was that there was no second chance for someone who committed apostasy. By apostasy I mean rejection of the faith. For that reason, this passage doesn't really bear on some of what you ask. Apostasy includes a loss of faith. So it's not a works issue.

It also doesn't bear on normal Christian experience. It doesn't either assert or deny that there are mortal sins.

It does make it clear that the author thought it was possible to lose salvation. You can't avoid that without unlikely exegesis.

This passage presents a danger, because lots of Christians worry that they've fallen into a situation from which there is no escape. But this doesn't refer to anything that would be possible for a Christian, since real apostasy means you're no longer concerned about Christ.

Where it would apply is someone who had been at one time a Christian, abandoned their faith, and later in life became interested in Christianity. Most Christians would tell such a person that this passage doesn't apply to them. I think the author considered this situation impossible. He was clearly concerned about the consequence of apostasy. For him, if you abandon Christ, you abandon the basis for forgiveness of sin. But whatever his intent, what he actually said was something that I think few Christians would try to apply. Would you really tell someone who became interested in returning to Christianity that it was hopeless? I doubt it.

Incidentally, Hebrews was a book whose canonical status was disputed. This passage is one of the reasons. There was a widespread belief in the early Church that sins after baptism couldn't be forgiven. This passage was considered to favor that view. I think that interpretation is wrong, because I think he was referring only to apostasy. But it's interesting to know how he was understood. That wasn't the only issue, of course. There was also widespread doubt in the West that Paul was the author. It appears that it was finally accepted into the canon because the West agreed that it was by Paul. That's almost certainly wrong, and in of course it doesns't claim to be.

It seems obvious in retrospect that an apostate who repents is an exception to the strictures in the passage. I think that Albert Barnes was right that when the passage says "renew again unto repentance" it really can't mean anything other than that the person was once "renewed" and now is not. But it is not very profitable to debate the passage. I think I'll just say "It's a mystery" and smile.

 

[hedrick]

It seems obvious in retrospect that an apostate who repents is an exception to the strictures in the passage. I think that Albert Barnes was right that when the passage says "renew again unto repentance" it really can't mean anything other than that the person was once "renewed" and now is not. But it is not very profitable to debate the passage. I think I'll just say "It's a mystery" and smile.

This would be a typical response. I claim that most understandings of the passage effectively reject what the author was trying to say. That's conceivable for me. I don't believe in inerrancy. But a lot of our participants do.

 

[Imalive]

Their lamps had gone out. Foolish virgins. The foolish man looks in the mirror and forgets immediately what he looks like. Hear and not do.
There will be a falling away first, then the man of lawlesness is revealed. Lawlesness. It's so obvious.
Say Lord Lord and don't do what I say. I never knew you.
Was it Finney who said eternal security is obedience.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This would be a typical response. I claim that most understandings of the passage effectively reject what the author was trying to say. That's conceivable for me. I don't believe in inerrancy. But a lot of our participants do.

Nobody really believes in inerrancy as the fundamentalists define it.

 

[NewCreation435]

The most likely original meaning was that there was no second chance for someone who committed apostasy. By apostasy I mean rejection of the faith. For that reason, this passage doesn't really bear on some of what you ask. Apostasy includes a loss of faith. So it's not a works issue.

It also doesn't bear on normal Christian experience. It doesn't either assert or deny that there are mortal sins.

It does make it clear that the author thought it was possible to lose salvation. You can't avoid that without unlikely exegesis.

This passage presents a danger, because lots of Christians worry that they've fallen into a situation from which there is no escape. But this doesn't refer to anything that would be possible for a Christian, since real apostasy means you're no longer concerned about Christ.

Where it would apply is someone who had been at one time a Christian, abandoned their faith, and later in life became interested in Christianity. Most Christians would tell such a person that this passage doesn't apply to them. I think the author considered this situation impossible. He was clearly concerned about the consequence of apostasy. For him, if you abandon Christ, you abandon the basis for forgiveness of sin. But whatever his intent, what he actually said was something that I think few Christians would try to apply. Would you really tell someone who became interested in returning to Christianity that it was hopeless? I doubt it.

Incidentally, Hebrews was a book whose canonical status was disputed. This passage is one of the reasons. There was a widespread belief in the early Church that sins after baptism couldn't be forgiven. This passage was considered to favor that view. I think that interpretation is wrong, because I think he was referring only to apostasy. But it's interesting to know how he was understood. That wasn't the only issue, of course. There was also widespread doubt in the West that Paul was the author. It appears that it was finally accepted into the canon because the West agreed that it was by Paul. That's almost certainly wrong, and in of course it doesns't claim to be.

That's true that it doesn't say it was from Paul. It appears to be from someone who had a strong knowledge of the law and Old Testament practices, possibly someone of Jewish descendants or perhaps someone who had traveled with Paul. Passages like this I think are good in that the serve as a warning that the grace of God is not to be taken lightly. That you can come to a point where it is impossible to be renewed again. It sounds very much like the author believed it was possible for a person to lose their salvation. I don't know how you can take the words any other way than to say this is a person who was saved and enlightened and then fell away from their faith. This does happen sometimes when a person claims to be a believer and then something happens and they stop believing or then say they are a atheist or agnostic and they don't believe anymore

 

[MennoSota]

CH Spurgeon on this passage...

In the previous chapter, Paul was writing to some who ought to have been teachers, but who needed still to be taught the first principles of the gospel; they were such babes in grace that they needed the milk of the Word, —the very simplest elements of gospel truth, — and not the strong meat of solid doctrine. The apostle, however, desires that the Hebrew believers should understand the sublimer doctrines of the gospel, and so be like men of full age who can eat strong meat. In this chapter he exhorts them to seek to attain to this standard.
Hebrews 6:1. Therefore leaving the principles —

The rudiments, the elementary truths, —
Hebrews 6:1. Of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; —

Let us go from the school to the university, let us have done with our first spelling-books, and advance into the higher classics of the kingdom.
Hebrews 6:1. Not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Let us make sure that the foundation is laid, but let us not have continually to lay it again. Let us go on believing and repenting, as we have done; but let us not have to begin believing and begin repenting, let us go on to something beyond that stage of experience.
Hebrews 6:2. Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Let us take these things for granted, and never dispute about them any more, but go on to still higher matters.
Hebrews 6:3. And this will we do, if God permit.

We must keep on going forward; there is no such thing in the Christian life as standing still, and we dare not turn back.
Hebrews 6:4-6. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, —

Note that Paul does not say, “If they shall fall;” but, “If they shall fall away,” — if the religion which they have professed shall cease to have any power over them, — then, it shall be impossible —
Hebrews 6:6. To renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

If all the processes of grace fail in the case of any professors, what is to be done with them? If the grace of God does not enable them to overcome the world, — if the blood of Christ does not purge them from sin, what more can be done? Upon this supposition, God’s utmost has been tried, and has failed. Mark that Paul does not say that all this could ever happen; but that, if it could, the person concerned would be like apiece of ground which brought forth nothing but thorns and briers.
Hebrews 6:7-8. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: but that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

If, after having ploughed this ground, and sown it, and after it has been watered by the dew and rain of heaven, no good harvest ever comes of it, every wise man would leave off tilling it. He would say, “My labour is all thrown away on such a plot of ground as this, nothing more can be done with it, for after having done my utmost nothing but weeds is produced, so now it must be left to itself.” You see, my dear hearers, if it were possible for the work of grace in your souls to be of no avail, nothing more could be done for you. You have had God’s utmost effort expended upon your behalf, and there remains no other method of salvation for you. I believe that there have been some professors, such as Judas and Simon Magus, who have come very near to this condition, and others who are said, after a certain sort, to have believed, to have received the Holy Spirit in miraculous gifts, and to have been specially enlightened so as to have been able to teach others; but the work of grace did not affect their hearts, it did not renew their natures, it did not transform their spirits, and so it was impossible to renew them to repentance. How notice what Paul says: —
Hebrews 6:9. But, beloved, we are persuaded better thing of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.

Harsh as the apostle’s words may seem, they are not meant for you who are really believers in Christ, and in whom the Holy Spirit has wrought a complete change of heart and life; Paul is not speaking of such as you.
Hebrews 6:10. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

If you have proved by your works that the grace of God is within you, God will not forget you; he will not leave you, he will not cast you away. You know the contrast in the speech between different persons concerning this doctrine. One will wickedly say, “If I am a child of God, I may live as I like.” That is damnable doctrine. Another will say, “If I am a child of God, I shall not want to live as I like, but as God likes, and I shall be led by the grace of God into the path of holiness, and through divine grace I shall persevere in that way of holiness right to the end.” That is quite another doctrine, and it is the true teaching of the Word of God.

 

[user1234]

Im so glad Jesus set me free from the bondage of religious mumbo-jumbo,
although reading some of what I read on here is making me want to start a new one:
Boodism ..... as in BOOOOOOOO!!!

A couple ppl tried to explain this passage, some dont want to listen.
We point things out but they get ignored, maybe the 'experts' have no comeback, so they skip right over key points or whole posts, and go right back to isolated, religious or denominationalist views.

I mentioned osas a couple of times, either to be ignored or told to start a different thread.
Well, this thread is ABSOLUTELY talking about eternal security/osas, but it seems the only views accepted are those that are either works-righteousness based or that once you have salvation you can still lose salvation (which is like ... Afterworks?)... Saved by grace, kept by works?

I'll try again, see if there's
1: any guts
2: any brotherly love

Hebrews 6:4-6 isolated is whats causing alot the confusion and bad doctrines.
I dont know how many times ppl have said in these threads, that if you're gonna insist on scriptorture, taking bits and pieces of text out of context and try to fly, you're gonna land in a ditch somewhere you dont want to be. Like uh-oh, lost after being saved?

Verse 4 starts with the word 'FOR' . Its based on something previously written.
Go back to verse 1 ... OOPS, That starts with 'THEREFORE' ! Gotta back up a little more. You COULD go to 5:12...even tho it too starts with 'FOR', it at least gives context to what follows into Chapter 6. (Maybe start at 5:11?)

And again (he sighed), why stop at such a bad place like verse 6? WHY STOP THERE?!
Read the rest of the chapter to see the glory of God and the security of the believer. osas.

But this was covered before, and totally overlooked, there are some who just refuse to come to Jesus for salvation, and are intent on establishing their own righteousness. Romans10:3 is to Israel, yes, but perhaps it can apply not only to Israel, but individuals and denominations as well?
"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God."

Once ppl stop trying to get there by their own efforts, and simply allow Jesus to be the one Saviour, they'll see He not only saves, but keeps. Always. He said I'll never leave you or forsake you.

There would be a lot more Hallelujahs if we got together on the salvation train.
But where's the unity? We chop 3 verses out of a larger passage to try to prove how we can LOSE salvation, (which is a lie, and the verses arent even directed at saved believers to begin with), instead of looking at the whole passage which says we wont (in agreement with the bible and the goodness of our God and Saviour.)

Maybe ppl should get off the childish ignore/report silliness, and actually read posts and discuss them, especially from fellow brothers/sisters in Christ, instead of pre-judging, pushing aside, or ignoring them?

 

[MoreCoffee]

... The CCC? Whats that?
...

The CCC is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/files/assets/basic-html/page-I.html#

 

[MennoSota]

The CCC is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/files/assets/basic-html/page-I.html#

I thought it was the Commonwealth Coast Conference...
http://www.cccathletics.com/sports/mice/index

 

[user1234]

The CCC is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/files/assets/basic-html/page-I.html#

Ja, you butchered another one of my posts, I see...
I know what the CCC is, the Q was really rhetorical ....
The full Q properly re-quoted, was:

That is apparantly the RomanCatholic denominations words? The CCC? Whats that?

The church? The RCd. Is the mother? Of our new birth? SHE? Is our (whos our) teacher? In the faith? Which faith? Surely not biblical faith in Jesus. Surely not faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.

The CCC? Whats that? Meaning Who? So? Im not really interested in the RCdenominations book of rules, anymore than Im interested in the book of mormon or the watchtower bible, except to see what deceptions might be in them, in the hopes of helping someone get out from under them.
Look, Im coming across harsher lately bc of past antagonisms, goadings and confrontations, and Im getting a little weary of them.
You stated in another thread that we shouldnt presume on God (then used James to back it up) (its seeming to be the RCs favorite book...maybe bc they think it supports their works for salvation position, idk)
But the presumption is not my idea. We're called to be Bereans, not just assume everybody is a christian and everything they teach is biblical christianity.
But unfortunately the websites rules evidently want us to do just that. I think they insist on it.

 

[Imalive]

When I interviewed a saint who had been discipled by the old time Pentecostals, from the 1920s and 30s, I was told that seekers after the Spirit of God were taught in the following manner:
You must not seek for the fullness unless you are very, very serious. Hebrews 6:4-8 tells us that entering into the fullness of God is a one way trip. Those who later backslide out of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost put themselves in deadly jeopardy of being eternally lost. Determined backsliding out of the fullness is to divorce the Holy Spirit. Such a break terribly grieves the Spirit of God. The Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a spiritual marriage between God's Spirit and our spirits. Jesus said that there is no forgiveness for sinning against the Holy Spirit. [See Matthew 12:31] Since the Holy Spirit is the carrier of all the graces to the believer, grieving the Spirit by divorcing the Holy Spirit can be fatal. It is like burning the only bridge across a great river. And so for that reason the old-timers counseled seekers to be very, very sure and very serious about receiving the fullness of the Spirit. That is another reason why tarrying for the Spirit of God is important. Those who tarry will discover if they are truly willing and truly ready to die out to the world, the flesh, and the sinful nature.