Posted on 10/22/2011 1:21:35 PM PDT by NYer
What's up with that? Don't you believe the words of Jesus Himself that we are saved for good? He says it right here. Or do you think He's lying?
John 10:22-30 22At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. 24So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." 25Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one."
Were it in fact God breathed then this whole life and universe is an unnecessary Divine Kubuki Theater and Hitler would have been forgiven his sins had he received Grace as a young man.
And that from a Catholic whose church says once a Catholic, always a Catholic?
That's FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s not the clergy going through purgatory. The chapter is talking about whether the “people” of the church will last or will they be burned by the fires of trials. It’s the members of the church that will either be found to be wood, hay, stubble or gold, silver, precious stones. Those who the pastors only fed with the milk of the word will be the wood, hay and stubble. Those who are fed with the meat of the word will be the gold, silver, and precious stones. If the pastor fed with meat and made strong Christians who last through the fires of temptation the pastor will be rewarded. If the pastor fed with milk only and all the people they taught fall away he will still be saved but will receive a lesser reward.
There is no specific incantation to reject Salvation, but there are conscious choices that negate it and regain it No one is completely cut of from Salvation, nor confident of it until the moment of their death. Your admission is that "Always" doesn't always mean always, though.
On again, off again salvation.
You can have it.
God promises us in Scripture that we're secure, that He gave us the Holy Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing what is to come.
If they think once we belong to the “body of Christ” and Jesus says that no one can snatch them out of the Fathers hand who do they think is stronger then the Father? Maybe they don’t really think they belong to the “body of Christ” in the first place?
Amen too that. Most mysteries I believe for our sakes until GOD's plan is complete His reasons are hidden from us. How far the world was actually advanced at The Flood we really don't know. Yet the technology existed for Noah to construct a craft to weather the sea of seas. Babel as well was a definite point where Divine intervention halted or rather set back mans knowledge and progress.
What man has done in his vain nature was supplant the Gospel of Truth with "another gospel". Now those who believe in this "other gospel" in their minds they're not wrong. The Apostle Paul warned us about this "other gospel" as he so clearly defines when speaking to the Galatians:
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Paul is saying there is really only one Gospel but men began causing confusion by perverting it
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Paul mentions this twice
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
In other words, he did not receive this teaching in a seminary
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
As we all should receive through the Holy Spirit
So through Doctrines of men being perpetrated against those worshipping in Truth and Spirit carries on thereby convincing followers they are correct , "in another gospel"
I don't see why it's so hard to understand that if you say a person is saved by grace but "kept" saved by their works (like abstaining from sinning) it is no different than saying a person is saved by their works (being good, not sinning, etc.). Grace means undeserved, unmerited favor and, by definition, whatever is offered by grace cannot then be merited or deserved. Over and over we are told in Scripture that God saves us by his mercy and grace so who are we to come along and shove his gift back in his face insisting that we CAN earn, merit or deserve it?
This has nothing to do with our goodness because, compared to the holiness and righteousness of God, all we can muster up is comparable to filthy rags. We are saved by grace because it HAD to be grace. No amount of good works, deeds, efforts can pay the penalty of sin because God said "blood makes an atonement for the soul" (Lev. 17:11). He made us and he made the rules. It's his way or hell - and that ain't the highway!
I've seen some persons fall who spend years coming back too The Lord. Most cases did not involve a simple I want to go out and be wild type of thinking but rather a hurt in their life they could not handle and turned to things like booze.
Would they be lost in that state? I don't think so but they would be miserable though living through it.
7Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." 9So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
I find your candid statement rare, and i basically concur in principle, in the sense that i do not see an assuredly infallible magisterium as being necessary for truth to be preserved. But God raises up men from without the formal magisterium if needed, to reprove such leaders who depart from the faith and cause souls to err. (Is. 9:16) And which i have often commented on, and i have a headache from weak glasses and its too late to add much more.
Well, i think other objections are quite weighty: http://faculty.cua.edu/gignac/nab-incl.txt
http://www.bible-researcher.com/nab.douglass.html
And as you assert that the Catholic authority is the Catechism then are you saying it cannot contain errors, or be in need of correction? How do you interpret it being a “sure norm for teaching the faith?"
not commentaries to bad translations by Catholic quislings, whose name is legion.
What you are teaching is that according to you, in certain cases RC Bishops who grant the stamps are in league with the enemy, and that what constitutes official Roman Catholic doctrine is open to interpretations.
Many Catholics invoke the Nihil Obstat ("nothing stands in the way" for dissemination) and Imprimatur (“let it be printed") as providing assurance that such does not contradicts Catholic doctrine, that is contrary to the Faith, but is free of doctrinal or moral error, as part of their promotion of Rome as providing surety of doctrine in a comprehensive manner. Others call it a rubber stamp, at least when it contradicts them, and we often need to find out from Roman Catholics what their interpretation is as to what constituents official Roman Catholic doctrine (and often its meaning).
As is typically explained,
The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.”
This latter part is interpreted that,
While at first glance this statement might seem contradictory, an example might be that of a Roman Catholic work that offered parenting advice — the advice may not be morally wrong or contradict Roman Catholic doctrine, but it might not reflect the views on parenting of the censor or bishop.) Imprimaturs are not automatically transferrable to later versions of a work. Any new edition also requires a new imprimatur to be obtained. The imprimatur can be revoked if, upon further examination, any doctrinal or moral error is found to be contained in the work. http://aquietmoment.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/imprimi-potest-nihil-obstat-imprimatur/
In any case, your own Catechism places significant weight on such approval:
The Church, given teaching authority by Christ and as the conduit for fullness of Truth on this earth, has the obligation to preserve Her sheep from deviations from the Truth and to to guarantee them the “objective possibility of professing the true faith without error” (Catechism, No. 890). Because of this, the Bishops will look at books published by Catholics on Catholic matters in their dioceses, giving them their “okay” if nothing therein is found to be contrary to the Faith (relevant Canon Law: “Title IV: The Means of Social Communication,” ¶ 822-832)
Cannot law also states, “Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.” 9 825 §1) — http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2Q.HTM
The fact that canon law requires that this and other certain categories of writings must receive the bishop’s authorization to be published does not allow this to be relegated to be a rubber stamp, or for it to often approve works which are in error, without sowing confusion and impugning on apologetical claims of perspicuity and consistency.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church cites 1 Cor. 3 as biblical support for the purgatory.
the tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire. 605 Cf. ⇒ 1 Cor 3:15; ⇒ 1 Pet 1:7.
This can be understood as only invoking it insofar as fire being purifying, just as the use of 2 Macc 12:46 need not mean this directly supports purgatory and making atonement for men who died because of idolatry, which is what the text teaches (and I know the special pleading responses). The New Catholic Answers Bible states, 12, 42-46: “This is the earliest statement of the doctrine that prayers (v 42) and sacrifices (v 43) for the dead are beneficial. The statement is made here, however, only for the purpose of proving that Judas believed in the resurrection of the just (2 Mc 7,9. 14. 23. 36)....His belief was similar to, but not quite the same, as the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.”
Zachary J. Hayes, retired teacher of theology at the Catholic Theological Union states, "Since the text seems to be more concerned with helping the fallen soldiers to participate in the resurrection of the dead, it is not a direct statement of the later doctrine of purgatory" (Zachary J. Hayes, Four Views On Hell (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1996) p. 105).
Unless you can prove that every reference in the CCC means they are interpreting said verse as supporting the entire doctrine, versus an aspect of it, then Catholics must allow the interpretation of their brethren and cease to contend that Rome sees 1Cor. 3 as directly referring to purgatory. .
In support of this only being used to support the aspect of fire being purgative, the second reference is to 1 Pet 1:7: “That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ.” And the subject here is present afflictions “accomplished in your brethren that are in the world” But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you, (1Pt. 5:9,10) unto praise and honor and glory in the day of Christ. And which is always associated with the realization of conformity to Christ for NT believers, (1Jn. 3:2) not a perfection through a postmortem process, but instead the postmortem condition for believers is most clearly that of being in paradise, (Lk. 24:43) with Christ, (Phil. 1:23) with the Lord. (2Cor. 5:7; 1Thes. 4:17)
In any case, i only referenced your sources in condescending to Catholic and as revealing the teaching of the magisterium on one level, while my supreme authority must be Scripture, and which your CCC authority only weakly attempts to support purgatory by.
As I pointed out, it consents with the Catechism; it is an interpretation on which the consensus exists at least in the Western Church. Again, 1 Cor 3 is the answer to the question "where is purgatory taught"?
You do not show it is only consenting in one aspect, while the “consensus,” for what it is worth, i have not seen. And in any case, whoever believes 1Cor. 3 directly refers to Rome's purgatory is in exegetical error.
>your interpretation [does not] have the required “unanimous consent of the fathers.”<
When I see you converting to authentic Christianity, Eastern or Western we can discuss the patristics on the purgatory as brothers
It is your church which you promote that requires this, but as it can autocratically define non-unanimous to be the“unanimous consent” of the fathers, as well as history, etc. as supporting her as needed, then we must rely upon the only established transcendent material source which is perpetually infallibility, the Scriptures.
>(2Tim. 2:19) and there is no waiting for getting into Heaven now,<
If it ws written to refute something the Church teaches, kindly try again.
What is was being refuted was your belief that “The judgment here is at the time of the return of Christ's return” would mean that people will suffer the purgatorial fire then, and being is contrary to the particular judgment of everyone immediately upon one's death, and thus going into purgatory (though this is waived for the canonized as per Rome). My response, as was my argument, was that there is no wait to enter Heaven now, but to die or be caught up is to be present with the Lord, to await the time of the dead and giving of reward unto God's servants, (Rv. 11:18) which 1Cor. 3 and other texts conflate with
Since the Church does not style all church goers as saints,
Since Scripture does
but rather sees in sanctification a life long process,..
Also.
You see a difference because you don't understand Catohlic anthropology.
It is because the use of saint, or sanctified one, is a exhortation and an encouragement to live out what practically what they are positionally; “ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.“ (1Cor. 6:11) Not that you deny this in a real sense, but along with other texts which most clearly speak of the postmortem state of believers without distinction, Scripture shows that the faith by which the Corinthians were saints, and accepted in the Beloved., (Eph. 1:6) is what gains one entrance into Heaven at death, versus the need for an actualized practical perfection, although true saving faith is one that effects holiness, and necessary things which accompany salvation.
The Corinthians, as many as were believers, were washed, sanctified and justified, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified,” (Heb. 10:14) and likewise spiritually were placed in Heaven, and while they were not perfectly conformed to Christ in character, yet Paul made no distinction between them and himself as to whom he would be with upon death, (“we” 2Cor. 5:5-18) and as said, the 1st century believers would have been with the Lord immediately if the Lord had returned in their lifetime. (1Thes. 4:17) One either has saving faith at death or he does not. Salvation by grace through faith is not that one by grace becomes morally practically perfect in heart holiness in order to be accepted by and be with God, but is accepted in the Beloved by faith which justifies the unGodly, (Rm., 4:5) though it is a faith that will work righteousness in seeking to live out what he is in Christ, and which faith endures in this world.
The Church is the mother of all Christians.
RCAs seem compelled to assert Rome to be the Church ©, and you interpret Lumen Gentium as meaning one must truly be a Catholic at death to be saved, and you sanction Rome's killing men like Tyndale, but your assertions do not makes it so, or appealing, and does not convince us former faithful Catholics who know both sides.
No becase "every man" is called to be a building himself, which building is tested...St. Paul writes to more than one person, but he says that "if any man build upon this foundation" and then "every man's work", so the building might be a common one, but it is the person of the builder that is tested.
In context there is a distinction between the building and builders and their works, these being converts, true or false. And while these will be tried by fire in some way, this only reveals what “sort” they are, but the subject is loss or gain of rewards, and it is the second party who is rewarded based upon whether his converts, the 3rd party, have been found to be true, or they lose rewards if they were found false. This is counted as loss, and not a loss that gains him heaven, but he is saved despite losing converts. And if it was souls in purgatory who were being purified, then it would have to include lost souls.
It is true that every good work build the Church, and every Protestant effort at exegesis aims to destroy it. This is why one should not collaborate with the Protestants in matters of faith.
I agree with the latter, but because as is increasingly manifest, it is the wrested extrapolated efforts at exegesis by souls bound to defend Rome at any cost of credibility and reason that works to destroy it, and such are actually arguments against Rome.
The purgatorial suffering is for those who for various reasons died while their purification in this life was not complete.
In Scripture, the place of purification is in this world which is set forth as the place of testing, and in which one is tempted to give into the lust of pleasure, possession and power, prestige, as tempted by their “old man” and the devil, and “the corruption that is in the world through lust,” (2Pt. 1:4) But death is used as signifying a cessation from sin, “he that is dead is freed from sin,” (Rm. 6:1-7) to be with the Lord, even if one has not already attained to full practical perfection. And believers are to follow Christ, who in this world was “made perfect through sufferings” (Heb. 2:10; 5:9) — as “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15) — as it is this world that believers groan, and desire to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.
Too late for more.
If the child CHOOSES to disown his own family and chooses to cut off all contact with them, that's then his choice, but I doubt there are many families who would not welcome that child back with open arms if that child came to his senses and came back to them.
Come to think of it, that would make a great parable. Maybe Jesus should have thought something up like that to illustrate God's great love and mercy for us.
Oh, wait a minute.......
Psalm 103 6The LORD works righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed. 7He made known his ways to Moses, his acts to the people of Israel.
8The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. 9 He will not always chide, nor will he keep his anger forever.
10He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities. 11For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him; 12as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.
13As a father shows compassion to his children, so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him. 14For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust.
Praise God.
Paul wrote the letter of Galatians to the believers in churches at Galatia - a province of Rome - that he, himself, founded. The epistle was written around 57-58 A.D. What I find interesting is that false doctrines were already starting to infiltrate the early church. From the following site:
The churches of Galatia were founded by Paul himself (Acts 16:6; Gal. 1:8; 4:13, 19). They seem to have been composed mainly of converts from heathenism (4:8), but partly also of Jewish converts, who probably, under the influence of Judaizing teachers, sought to incorporate the rites of Judaism with Christianity, and by their active zeal had succeeded in inducing the majority of the churches to adopt their views (1:6; 3:1). This epistle was written for the purpose of counteracting this Judaizing tendency, and of recalling the Galatians to the simplicity of the gospel, and at the same time also of vindicating Paul's claim to be a divinely-commissioned apostle.
The great question discussed is, Was the Jewish law binding on Christians? The epistle is designed to prove against the Jews that men are justified by faith without the works of the law of Moses.
The Epistle to the Galatians and that to the Romans taken together “form a complete proof that justification is not to be obtained meritoriously either by works of morality or by rites and ceremonies, though of divine appointment; but that it is a free gift, proceeding entirely from the mercy of God, to those who receive it by faith in Jesus our Lord.”
Just like the early church, we see that the exact same perversion of the gospel is still alive within the faith. Only by listening with our hearts to the Holy Spirit through the teachings he revealed in the Holy Bible can we know for sure what the real, true gospel is and it has never changed from being by grace through faith in Christ Jesus.
Well that certainly explains your apparent license to be as uncivil and un-Christian as anyone on Free republic. I'm sure that somewhere Jesus is smiling at your behavior.....not!
Just a simple question; did you leave the Catholic Church or were you asked to leave?
Yes they would most certainly welcome them back IF they came too their senses. That is the keyword REPENTANCE.
Hey, NL, I read about another Halloween costume you can try if the Darth Vader one doesn't work out. You go around with a handheld mirror and when anyone ask you who you are trying to be, you hold up the mirror so they can see their own reflection and you say, "You! I'm being you."
But then why would +Paul write in 2 Cor 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. -- is renewed day by day. This continues from 2 Cor 4:1 as we have received mercy -- the grace is received, yet we are renewed day by day.
And this is the 2nd letter. In the first +Paul emphasises that 50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 1 Cor 15:50-51 --> in flesh and blood we cannot inherit and corruption (sin) cannot enter heaven, we shall be changed.
I agree with you that we are no longer under condemnation BUT, that does not mean we are completely purified at that point of all sin by the Grace of our God (note of course that we are only purified, sanctified by Him alone)
I respectfully think that that interpretation of Matt 3:11 is slightly off -- yes, we receive the Baptism from the Holy Spirit and we are no longer under condemnation unless we willfully reject it, but God's process of sanctifying us continues -- hence the statements that we WILL be saved and to the point, Christ's own words state that Matt 24:13 "13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."
==============
As I said before, we cannot overcome our sins alone -- sanctification/purgatory is sanctification by GOD's grace alone.
Take it this way -- after baptism by the Holy Spirit we are not condemned, but most of us still sin in small ways, yet we are on God's process of sanctification by the sacrifice of Christ as in Heaven there is no sin.
you are correct that Christ has already FORGIVEN the sin, yet we continue to receive His grace of forgiveness, hence the refrain "we have been saved, we are being saved, we will be saved by the blood of the Lamb"
Of course -- and that "completed when we..." is the final sanctification/purgatory. hence your statement expresses a belief in purgatory/final sanctification/completing of the sanctification. -- congratulations, your post expresses a belief in purgatory/final sanctification
As I, sayuncle and MadDawg have repeated over and over again Catholic belief is that we cannot sanctify ourselves -- we cannot save ourselves, all the grace, all the saving is from God. We are saved by grace alone. -- your posts are false.
your post made the false statement about MD and now it is repeating more falsehoods. Stop it.
We in orthodoxy believe, as MD and I have stated that we are saved, are being saved and will be saved by the blood of the lamb. By the grace of God we are in the process of sanctification ending in the final sanctification/purgatory/seeing the face of the Lord -- as your very post above agreed,
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.