***Mark, from your above I infer that you think that if someone did all those things that he would be barred from Heaven, is that right? But, what if someone did all those things and then really repented and asked the forgiveness of a priest after convincing him that he was sincere? Wouldn’t that person be just fine and saved in the Church’s eyes at that point? I mean, at least until he committed the least mortal sin after that? IOW, are you saying that there is a “sin threshold” (not involving the Spirit) after which one crosses he cannot be saved no matter what a priest does on his behalf? I’ve never heard of that.***
Ah, that is because I spoke incorrectly. Sinning without repentence bars one from Heaven (also a constant theme running the the NT). No man can save another, just as no man can damn another.
The priest does not save, nor does he damn. Only God judges; and He Judges by His Judgement on His rules.
***Irish, and Quix, and I are all saying that Christ died for all of our sins, past, present and future. That gives His death real meaning and worth.***
Christ died to destroy our soul’s death and rose again to restore our eternal life. That makes it possible for us to be saved. We could not otherwise.
In the Sermon on the Mount, we are instructed to do and are told what happens if we do not do - we are eternally punished in hell. The words of Jesus are plain and require little interpretation.
***Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners — of whom I am the worst.***
Yes. He came into the world to save sinners - to save all sinners - and there are going to be some that refuse to be saved.
If you say the Church teaches that, then OK. However, :) if a priest denies absolution to a confessor, then isn't that person "presumptively" still damned? The important part is that I would imagine that is exactly what the person would think. In his mind, his only job would be to do whatever it takes to convince the priest of his sincerity. I would counsel him to channel his thoughts in other directions (i.e. directly to God). :) This is the power angle I harp on all the time.
Christ died to destroy our soul’s death and rose again to restore our eternal life. That makes it possible for us to be saved. We could not otherwise.
AAARRRGGGHHHH!! :) Don't you see the internal inconsistency here? If Christ's resurrection ONLY made it POSSIBLE for us to be saved, THEN He did NOT rise to "restore our eternal life". He only rose to make that possible. This is an ABSOLUTE DAY AND NIGHT DIFFERENCE. :) It is one of the main differences between our respective faiths. These two concepts do not mix at all. If Christ ONLY set the stage for man to do it himself, then Christ actually accomplished NOTHING other than setting the stage for the real actors (deciders). This is why we think the Apostolic view SO degrades what we think Christ actually DID accomplish on the cross.
In the Sermon on the Mount, we are instructed to do and are told what happens if we do not do - we are eternally punished in hell. The words of Jesus are plain and require little interpretation.
Well, we agree that those who don't look like the Christian model we are given are very subject to being lost. However, we disagree on w(W)ho is in charge of the whole thing. With God in control, all of the statements in the Sermon are taken at face value and as a matter of fact, they describe a true believer and what he looks like. But, with man in control, those same statements look like a buffet of choices for any man to partake of. One could only hope that he makes the right number of each selection. So, we would both say the words are plain, but we have extremely different interpretations. :)
Yes. He came into the world to save sinners - to save all sinners - and there are going to be some that refuse to be saved.
Then, by definition, Christ is a failure. How does the Church reconcile that? We say Christ CAN'T fail because He is God.