Posted on 11/05/2018 6:07:05 PM PST by Gamecock
When Nathan told David that his sin was forgiven, was he lying?
CARM hasn’t gotten any smarter in the last 20 years.
And so is the Bible...
Which came first? The Catholic Church? Or, the Catholic Holy Bible?
Who was the Church of Christ Jesus, but for passing on His oral teaching and established tradition, prevalent centuries before there was a Holy Bible?
Who developed the canon of the Holy Bible? The Catholic Church?
Or, Luther? Or, maybe Henry the VIII?
How many Books came up missing from the Holy Bible, under the hand of dissident Catholics protestants?
Where in the Holy and inspired Word of God does it say to despise Tradition and worship only Sacred Scripture, or to know nothing more of the Apostolic Fathers and the Early Fathers who followed?
What does the Sacred Scripture say of itself, but that it does *not” contain *ALL* that Jesus said and did? So what was that? Rather, scripture says of itself that it may be used for teaching and admonishment. Not for worshipping.
The Church was always Catholic and fairly wrote the Holy Bible. The Church developed the canons of the Holy Bible and fears nothing in it, certainly.
Faith is a gift, and humbling. Like love, it is not boastful and arrogant and obnoxious. Catholics must not be baited by these kinds of threads.
Purgatory is not a hospital and was never taught as much.
Jesus blood is sufficient to cleanse our sins, and by His stripes we are healed.
So again, even if your claim is true, then it also negates the whole work of atonement in healing as well as forgiveness.
No matter how you try to get around it, the doctrine of purgatory teaches that the work of Jesus, His suffering and death, is insufficient for our needs.
And aside from the fact that purgatory does not exist and the concept is never taught or alluded to in Scripture, your understanding of "Protestant" teaching is out to lunch.
Paul tells us that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
No room for purgatory there.
That can happen here on earth.
Fi4rst, assurance of salvation is the sin of Presumption according to your FRoman com-patriots.
You're not supposed to have it.
GOD tells us in Scripture, His God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired word that HE gave us, that the blood of Jesus IS sufficient to cleanse us from ALL sin.
"All" means "all", as in each and every one.
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Cleansing us from ALL unrighteousness also negates the need you claim to have for purgatory.
James 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.
And yet Catholics continually neglect to include that verse when they address the faith vs faith plus works issue.
It's not that faith plus works save.
It's that faith that saves produces works, which is how you know you have saving faith.
Works are the evidence that saving faith exists. They don't *complete* it. They announce it.
Enumerate please.
You have hit upon a very common Orthodox belief (not mandatory, but a pious belief). The concept of toll houses.
Yes, Christ’s sacrifice was all that we need to enter the kingdom of Heaven. It is sufficient. The real question being ignored is whether we are sufficient.
Our sins are forgiven by the blood of our Savior. This is indisputable. Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.
Is our propensity to sin (our desire to continue to do so) even with forgiveness acceptable in the presence of God? This would just seem wrong. This desire has to go away. After we pass from this world, if we are to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Christ’s blood has opened the door), we must be pure of heart, not just of sin.
A pious believe of the Orthodox is Toll Houses on the way to Heaven. We spend time at each one that deal with our propensity to sin, until the desire is gone and we move on. This is roughly the same belief I see expressed by the more conservative Catholics on this site about purgatory.
If I’m not mistaken, the Catholic belief comes from the book of Maccabees. Where some of the warriors were found with amulets that represented other gods. They were instructed to pray for forgiveness of the fallen. This unfortunately seems like a very weak justification and I can understand Protestants having trouble with it. From an Orthodox point of view it seems pulled out of a very weak verse and I wish I saw Catholics making a stronger argument from Biblical sources or the Saints themselves. (Catholics please feel free to correct me if I have misrepresented you - it was not deliberate)
Yes. That's exactly what it does which is why the Scriptures make no mention of it, the Apostles never taught it, it was unheard of in the first centuries of the Christian churches, it evolved from pagan religions and is why the Orthodox never accepted it.
Agree - If anyone’s Word is His Bond, it’s God...
“Purgatory does not exist.”
I have been a follower of Dr. Charles Stanley for many years. Every once in awhile, during one of his sermons, he denies the existence of Purgatory and says either Heaven or Hell is the end of the road.
“I have been a follower of Dr. Charles Stanley for many years. Every once in awhile, during one of his sermons, he denies the existence of Purgatory and says either Heaven or Hell is the end of the road.”
The nerve of Dr. Stanley! Preaching from the Bible! Why, I never ...!
Not forgiving oneself after Jesus paid the price for all is called self-righteousness and is the worst insult to the perfect Blood shed for you.
If God, the Creator, can forgive you via Jesus perfect Blood, how can you disagree and say, “no, actually I’m going to beat myself up because I don’t really believe that Jesus payment is enough”? In this case, guilt before God is sin.
Think of the petulant boy pulling out his hair after being disciplined by a loving parent, saying “I’m no good, I hate myself” etc when the parent, like the Father in the parable of the Prodigal, wrapped his arms around him and restored him to everything he wasted? The parent wants the child to move on, not focus on the past indiscipline.
Life more abundantly, and free from guilt as if we have never sinned. All paid for, past present and future, now go walk out your salvation, do good and walk blamelessly before God ( if you fall down, get back up).
As He is, so are we in this world.
No. The son simply wanted a better quality of life. He said “even my Father’s servants have bread and enough, I could get hired on and live better than I am”. The son only wanted to return for selfish motives. The father demonstrated the moral of the story- He is the main character, the son, well, he is just like everyone who wants a better situation. The Father provided all of the assets, mainly love and complete forgiveness; if he was a poor man, he would have given the son the same, minus the wealth. God is not poor, but mainly he loves even the unrepentant ( repent means to change one’s mind) and bestow on us all of His treasures as well.
If you are saved by the Blood of the Lamb, (washes whiter than snow) then you are clean, A saved person wears the robe of Righteousness given to him by the Father, who sees only the perfectness of His Son by virtue of the free gift of salvation.
As long as you are focused on yourself, you are of no or little use to the Father. Whom the Son sets free is free indeed.
Your statement includes an awful lot of “I’s” in it. Get off that self focus and look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our salvation.
What yo must do is accept full the free gift, it s not of works lest any man boast....
Exactly historically correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.