Just happened to glance at a video that Michael Voris did on "once saved always saved" and how it's terribly wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00uUxWU9ADU
Michael Voris wrote:
once you accept Jesus as your personal saviour, that's it-- you're saved. Nothing you do can take you out of heaven at that point... well this creates a number of problems as you look through sacred scripture / common sense / how people live their lives. Is there scriptural support for the idea that once you're saved you're always saved, no there's not shred a scriptural support for that idea. As a matter of fact there are things in scripture that say exactly the opposite
There's not a SHRED huh? And not believing that salvation is permanent once you believe (forget the "accept Jesus" nonsense, Michael Voris doesn't understand salvation is by belief and regurgitating what he heard 'protestants' say doesn't help) causes contradictions?
The first problem when you disregard salvation is the fact that once you get the Holy Spirit through belief, it cannot be lost-- and in order to LOSE salvation you would also have to lose it.
Michael Voris wrote:
hello protestants *knock knock* anyone home? Catholic saints wrote the new testament: the gospel according to SAINT matthew, SAINT mark, SAINT luke, SAINT John... and the Catholic Church decided which books went into the new testament... how did we wind up with these four? the church decided. The church discovered which gospels were inspired... by the actual lived experience of the faith.
First problem: the four "gospels" never start out with the Gospel according to "saint (insert name here)". That's just a buzzphrase invented over the years.
Second problem: the Catholic Church added [more] books than what is considered cannon like the apocrypha, and there's a lot of phrases in the new testament (such as the ending of Mark 16) which are NOT original to the Bible. Well, if we're to accredit the Catholic Church for choosing what's cannon, there are blatant errors with the discovery of new manuscripts (some of which the Catholic Church has HINDERED in their discovery) which contradict decisions of Catholic Councils.
Third problem: Catholics instigated antisemitism with attempting to claim the vulgate was inspired
And actually Michael Voris starts getting into antisemitic territory:
Michael Voris wrote:
If Jesus is quoting the septuagint, that's good enough for me. And the church felt the same way. So, the septugaint became THE old testament scriptures that the church used and still continues to use 2000 years later until today
Wrong, the council of trent made the VULGATE the "official" version of the scripture blasting away all of the Greek (and Hebrew) manuscripts. Yes it's true Christ quotes the septuagint, but this was done since it was a widely available resource and due to the fact the new testament was to be in a different language (deliberately). Although like anything there are exceptions and Christ doesn't quote it 100% of the time.
Michael Voris wrote:
a number of Jewish leaders were upset that Christians were walking around were using what they considered to be their sacred texts to prove Jesus was the Messiah. So, they banded together... and decided they would remake the Jewish scriptures, and they threw out the septuagint, and went to a verion of the old testament scriptures where seven books are no longer present. And that new Jewish scripture is what they said 'well this is the new Jewish authentic scripture' but that doesn't happen until the year 100 A.D., meanwhile most of the new testament is all written now. And the bottom line was the christians said 'well that's fine Jews if you want to do that, but we're sticking with what the case with what was the case when Jesus was around. You don't believe Jesus is the Messiah so why should we believe your version of the old testament?... and for 1500 years that was the case.
And here we see Michael Voris' antisemitism. That's totally not the case and there are manuscripts which predate the septuagint. Furthermore the septugint has known errors. Honestly I really don't know what to say... you have to be terribly ignorant to Roman Catholic history and ancient manuscripts to subscribe to such erroneous beliefs. Almost everyone under the sun knows the Catholics enforced the Vulgate to override the Jewish manuscripts since they wanted to distance themselves
and go along with popular antisemitism-- which is utteraly satanic and evil. There's no excuse for that GARBAGE.
one pope and a number of councils all agreed this is the canon of scripture... the septuagint and these 27 books of scripture. And he says (Martin Luther) 'we're not going to use that version of the catholic of the bible, because that catholic version isn't what the Jews used, it isn't the authentic thing, his problem is that the septuagint has two books in it 1st and 2nd maccaabees, and 2nd maccabaees is scriptural proof that there is purgatory... so the Jews believed hundreds of years before Christ that there was an intermediary place
Well, anyone know knows the Bible well enough can understand that Maccabees isn't quoted anywhere and is bizarre as the book of Tobit. And why would "purgatory" only be referenced in some obscure book in the septuagint and not predominantly in the New Testament? If it was an essential part of salvation SURELY it would be referenced at least once... but it's not. I read many years ago of Catholics trying to use 1 Peter 3:19 to refer to purgatory, but that would require a SERIOUS misunderstanding of the verse since it was a literal prison with literal people. I'm assuming Michael Voris isn't that dumb to also use it.
Michael Voris' whole conspiracy premise is that Martin Luther didn't agree with purgatory so he had to remove Maccabees out of canon "like the Jews did" as a self-defensive mechanism. That's fairly ridiculous because as any good scholar knows, there are manuscripts that PREDATE the septuagint.
Michael Voris wrote:
A protestant Bible is an incomplete Bible. What does that have to do with once saved always saved? here's what it has to do with it. The catholic church is the sole guaranteed interpreter of sacred scripture, the catholic church put the Bible together. The new testament was written by saints of the catholic church, and only the catholic church has the opportunity or the command to interpret, has the power and authority to interpret sacred scripture. How stupid would it be if Michael (Coren?) was up here talking about his book, and I came up to him and said 'hey Michael I just read your book and thought it was really good, I know what you mean in chapter 12, here's what you mean' and if Michael said 'no that's wrong' and I said 'shut up I'm telling you what it means'... well that's what happens when protestants interpret sacred scripture in a manner that contradicts catholic teachings. They don't have the authority, they don't have the competence, they don't have the history.
Well then Michael Voris is EXTREMELY ignorant to the history of Bibles since the Russian Synodal Bible has extra books that the Catholics don't have like the Sirach Prolog. Catholics and Orthodox both omit the songs of solomon (which he never brought up), and, the 1611 authorized version (which is a "protestant Bible") DID include the aprocrypha and extra junk as King James felt even though they were not cannon, they had some interesting tidbits nonetheless. But I suppose Michael Voris never opened up an original 1611 Authorized Version. Oh well.
Michael's analogy falls flat on its face and contradicts what he is saying. GOD is the author of the Bible (not the catholic church) so we should talk and listen to GOD and let the Bible speak. Saying that the catholic church wrote the Bible is plagiarism. And saying that only the catholic church has the authority to interpret it means you're disabling other viewpoints. That's essentially no different from what the Jehovah's Witnesses do, isolate their believers and mandate only they can tell you what the Bible means.
Of course there was no papacy in Christ's day and the lineage done by the catholics to trace back to peter has many flaws. But the common catholic argument is that "there is no history for any other churches, the catholics were first". Well there's not supposed
to be a 'catholic church', Christ specified non-denominational believers (you won't find any mention of 'Roman Catholic' / 'Southern Baptist' / 'Jehovah's Witness' or 'Mormon' in the Bible). So anyone who is in a denomination is violating the Word. It's HUMAN NATURE to spin up a group that claims superiority-- that's WHY there are so many abrahamic religions and sub-groups. So how do we tell which one is right and which one is wrong? THEY'RE *ALL* WRONG! "Church" is a body of believers who are non-denominational and have BIBLE DOCTRINE in their head. Nothing else. Manipulating physical matter in rituals isn't worshiping the Father in Spirit.
And Michael Voris is also ignorant to the fact that there ARE a host of different catholic sub-groups: in fact, I often find it difficult to find consistency between what catholics believe since it's cobbled up with so much hearsay, traditional and neutrality. Most catholics are catholics just because of family tradition.
It doesn't matter anymore what you do, it doesn't matter what you say, doesn't matter how you act or don't act, you cannot be unsaved. You're saved. This creates a whole set of goofy problems: I talked to a baptist minister a good number of years ago, as I was trying to get my head around this because immediately I thought to myself, well that seems dumb. Really so you just say a little prayer and that's it. For the whole rest of your life you can do whatever and it doesn't matter-- well that's a religion sign me up. So I said to him: let me get this right, if you say you believe in Jesus and you're saved, you can become a serial killer and you still go to heaven -- 'yep!' I'm not sure how you can be breaking the 10 commandments and still go to heaven. Willfully breaking them. I was talking to another protestant minister who was saying all of this also on a radio show, and called him up on the show, and said, so if you're saved-- already saved-- what's the difference between you and St. Paul in heaven. He said there is no difference. Excuse me? Saint Paul, who at this very moment, is looking Jesus in the face, who is living in the life of the blessed trinity, you're telling me you're as holy as He is. Yep, he said, because I'm saved. Well you should start writing sacred scripture if you're that holy. There's no reason to move to the next step in holiness. There's no reason to grow deeper in love. If the race is over you don't keep racing. If you're horse is crossed the race line you don't keep galloping.
Paul states he shouldn't even be an apostle for he murdered believers:
NIV 1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
BGT 1 Corinthians 15:9 Ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι ὁ ἐλάχιστος τῶν ἀποστόλων ὃς οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς καλεῖσθαι ἀπόστολος, διότι ἐδίωξα τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ·
So if Paul was a murderer
and is in heaven, a serial killer who believed would also be saved. Duh. That seems fairly consistent to me. King David also murdered Bathsheba's husband, well gee... he shouldn't be saved then. But he is.
Onto the self percieved holiness, nobody is holy except God. That's the WHOLE POINT of Christ dying on the Chris, if WE had to do something of our own merit to 'be holy', we could just do that thing and bypass the cross entirely. But that's not the case so all of "our" righteousness is Christ's, and ALL have sinned and fallen short, so nobody is better than the other:
KJV Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
BGT Romans 3:22 δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή,
NIV Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
BGT Romans 3:23 πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ
You cannot subscribe to a belief that demands holiness from physical actions when we're all sinners.
Also you don't "say a prayer" to be saved since you CAN'T pray when you're unsaved-- you need to BELIEVE that Christ paid for your sins THEN you can pray.
For starters, the 10 commandments (and there's not just 10 of them and Roman Catholics deliberately butcher the one where it says not to worship idols so already Michael Voris is sidestepping hypocrisy) were for societal balance and respect for privacy: these were ALSO for the unbeliever and not just the believer. Of course not [all] of the points but most of them.
The reason for "the race" is Bible Doctrine. Studying the Bible and getting it in your head-- but of course the Catholics don't know anything about the royal priesthood / kingship, so they think they have to do physical actions and get spoon-fed contradictory
theological interpretations from men--and they quietly forget that no two priests will give you the same answer. Even the popes between themselves won't agree consistently. Why? THEY ARE MEN.
And then Michael Voris will have to COMPLETELY forget that we're all like a newborn attached to a dead mother waddling in our own blood:
Ezekiel 16:4 On the day you were born your umbilical cord was not cut (still attached to a dead mother), nor were you washed with water to make you clean, nor were you rubbed with salt or wrapped in cloths.
Ezekiel 16:4 וּמוֹלְדוֹתַ֗יִךְ בְּי֙וֹם הוּלֶּ֤דֶת אֹתָךְ֙ לֹֽא־כָרַּ֣ת שָׁרֵּ֔ךְ וּבְמַ֥יִם לֹֽא־רֻחַ֖צְתְּ לְמִשְׁעִ֑י וְהָמְלֵ֙חַ֙ לֹ֣א הֻמְלַ֔חַתְּ וְהָחְתֵּ֖ל לֹ֥א חֻתָּֽלְתְּ׃
Ezekiel 16:5 No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised.
Ezekiel 16:5 לֹא־חָ֙סָה עָלַ֜יִךְ עַ֗יִן לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת לָ֛ךְ אַחַ֥ת מֵאֵ֖לֶּה לְחֻמְלָ֣ה עָלָ֑יִךְ וַֽתֻּשְׁלְכִ֞י אֶל־פְּנֵ֤י הַשָּׂדֶה֙ בְּגֹ֣עַל נַפְשֵׁ֔ךְ בְּי֖וֹם הֻלֶּ֥דֶת אֹתָֽךְ׃
Ezekiel 16:6 "'Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, "Live!"
Ezekiel 16:6 וָאֶעֱבֹ֤ר עָלַ֙יִךְ֙ וָֽאֶרְאֵ֔ךְ מִתְבּוֹסֶ֖סֶת בְּדָמָ֑יִךְ וָאֹ֤מַר לָךְ֙ בְּדָמַ֣יִךְ חֲיִ֔י וָאֹ֥מַר לָ֖ךְ בְּדָמַ֥יִךְ חֲיִֽי׃
So you're telling me that we have to do something to consistently fulfill 'upkeep' for salvation?
I'm ending it here, I can't stomach watching the rest of the video.