Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

>> It’s a good thing that we are saved by grace, and not through any dead sacrament from the Romans, who think salvation can be bought with a gesture, a properly timed bow, a chant to a dead Christian, and, finally, with their very own stomachs. <<

Can anyone be so unfamiliar with the sacrament of confession? It is no gesture, bow or chant. It is a declaration of a contrite heart, and a statement of the desire to convert (which means to “turn away from”) sin, and has no effect if it is not sincere. You will most definitely find in the bible an insistence that sinners must have a contrite heart and must confess their sins. The bible also says that the Christian communities must not admit amongst themselves one who persists in grace sin. That is the priest’s role in the sacrament: God forgives sin, but the priest re-admits the contrite. For minor sins, it is not necessary, only spiritually beneficial, that confession involve a priest. For grave sins, a priest must hear the confession. But insincerely confessing only to gain readmittance only heaps more sin upon one’s soul; insincere confessions are ineffective, so they in no way resemble the empty rituals of the pagans.


51 posted on 03/22/2013 10:13:08 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: dangus

“Can anyone be so unfamiliar with the sacrament of confession?”


You are wonderfully good at missing the point to focus on some irrelevant matter. I didn’t mention the sacrament of confession. Though, there is no such thing in the Bible, if you wish to speak of it. At least, so far as confessing to a Priest is involved. I was refuting the very basis of Romanist means of salvation, which they argue is an act of man, won through formulas, rituals, and eating wafers.

Respond to that, and my evidences for it. Don’t waste my time with irrelevant commentary about Roman traditions.

“The Commentary on the Book of Kings IS THE SAME WORK as the Commentary on the Book of Baruch.”


It is irrelevant, since Baruch uncanons itself. But, I still say you are confused over what books we are even talking about, and what preface to what. I’m not sure why we’re talking about it in this thread now, either.


52 posted on 03/22/2013 10:50:31 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

To: dangus

Oops, after going through my history, I guess this was the thread where Apocrypha came up. I’m having multiple debates with multiple people on the same subject, and confused myself.


53 posted on 03/22/2013 10:56:53 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson