Posted on 06/13/2015 12:57:46 PM PDT by RnMomof7
In 897 AD, Pope Stephen VII had Pope Formosus’ body exhumed and put on trial at the infamous Cadaver Synod, during which the corpse was found guilty, and stripped of his papal vestments. Pope Theodore II later convened a synod and overturned Pope Stephen’s findings, as did Pope John IX after him. But later, Pope Sergius III overturned the rulings of Theodore II and John IX, and reaffirmed the conviction of Formosus. Perhaps Formosus’ corpse will find some little comfort in the knowledge that it is still—at least for now—listed on Rome’s “unbroken line of popes” currently on display at the Vatican.
We find a papal corpse a particularly fitting background image for this post on infallibility’s fatal flaw. The Roman Pontiff, in order that the Church may share in Christ’s infallibility, says the Catechism, “enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 891). But there is one problem: nobody knows when the Pope is speaking infallibly, nobody knows how often a pope has spoken infallibly, and nobody knows what the criteria are for when a pope is speaking infallibly. It is indeed a fleeting comfort to be assured that your teacher is teaching infallibly only at times when he is teaching infallibly, but that there is no way to know what those times are.
To give you an idea of how severe this problem is, we invite you to consider Keenan’s 1860 Catechism of the Catholic Church, published ten years before Vatican Council I declared that the Roman Pontiff enjoys the charism of infallibility. This is what Keenan’s Catechism said of the ancient and historical gift bestowed by Christ on “His” Roman Catholic Church since Peter:
(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
(A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.
(Q.) What dogma was defined in this Council?
(A.) The dogma of Papal Infallibility; that the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals, is possessed of that infallibility with which our Redeemer endowed the church.
Of course, the problem for Roman Catholics does not end there. I highlighted this issue in the late 1990s in an article called Quid Pro Canon. The details are worked out more fully there, but to illustrate the problem, different Roman Catholic apologists believe differently about how many times a Pope has spoken infallibly:
Scott Hahn: two
Tim Staples: at least four
Adam Miller: eleven
Leslie Rumble: eighteen
To complicate matters, Rumble held that two of the eighteen are “of the utmost authority, [but] still fall short of technical requirements” for infallibility, and another two “very probably comply with the requirements” for infallibility.
Perhaps if there were an infallible list of infallible statements, this would be simpler, and the Roman apologists could come to an agreement. But it gets worse: there is no “official” list of criteria with which it may be determined that a papal statement is infallible. The different Roman Catholic sources indicate the severity of the problem:
Fr. William Most: two criteria
Apologist Scott Butler: three criteria
Catholic Encyclopedia: four criteria
Roman apologists do not even agree on the occasions that would induce a Pope to exercise the charism of infallibility. Apologist Karl Keating says the Pope only exercises it to resolve doctrinal disputes. Apologist Scott Hahn says the exact opposite:
Now, many people think that this ex cathedra, this official papal pronouncement defining dogma, is sort of like the ultimate way in which the pope resolves doctrinal controversies. That is the opposite of the truth. The pope is not an umpire. (emphasis added)
In sum, Roman apologists themselves, as eagerly as they defend Papal Infallibility, do not know how many times he has exercised it, do not agree on why he exercises it, and do not know how to determine whether a pope has exercised it. All they know is that he has it.
We admire the tenacity of those who still want to argue for Papal Infallibility, and we especially appreciate how they make our argument for us. A few years back, “The Catholic Voyager,” in a blog post called Fallacies on Infallibility, attempted to rebut Quid Pro Canon by demonstrating the ease with which a Roman Catholic can identify infallible teachings. For example, he wrote, “a reasonable Catholic,” using criteria that he does not explicitly identify, should be able to read Munificentissimus Deus and determine on his own that it is infallible. Further, in Sacerdotii Nostri Primoridia, Pope John XXIII said that Ineffabilis Deus was infallible. “The Voyager” writes,
These examples are enough to demonstrate that infallibility can be identified in the Church whether or not one theologian or another may believe some other doctrine was not “technically” defined infallibly.
Voyager makes our point for us. He appeals to Sacerdotii Nostri Primoridia, which was not an infallible proclamation, as evidence that Ineffabilis Deus was proclaimed infallibly. If it is so easy to identify infallibility in the Church, why does “one theologian or another” disagree on whether some doctrine was “technically” defined infallibly? If a “reasonable Catholic” can determine it on his own, why did Rumble include two proclamations that probably are, and two that might not be, infallible? Why not just say they are, or they are not, infallible? As evidence of how difficult this is for practicing Catholics, most of whom probably consider themselves “reasonable,” consider the debate at US Catholic about whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was defined infallibly by John Paul II:
When John Paul II ruled out the ordination of women in Ordinatio sacerdotalis, he used the expression “definitive,” but did not use the formula that would signal an infallible teaching; in fact the word “infallible” doesn’t appear anywhere in the document. … Cardinal Ratzinger, as prefect for the Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith, argued in a response to a question about Ordinatio sacerdotalis that the teaching was part of the “deposit of faith” and therefore an infallible teaching of the “ordinary and universal magisterium”—although he knows full well that’s not how infalliblility works; something can’t be declared infallible by a Vatican office.
We are reminded here of Fr. William Most’s appeal to an unofficially published decree from the Holy Office in order to prove that it had been the intent of multiple popes and councils to declare a doctrine to be infallible, “for these texts show the intention to make it definitive by their repetition.” Of course, unofficially published decrees are not infallible. They are not even officially published! Perhaps “the Catholic Voyager” can offer the assistance of “a reasonable Catholic” to William Most and US Catholic, as well as to Hahn, Staples, Keating, Butler, Rumble, Miller and the Catholic Encyclopedia by providing a list of Infallible Papal statements, since it is so easy for “a reasonable Catholic” “to demonstrate that infallibility can be identified in the Church.”
The Voyager ultimately refuses to provide any infallible list of infallible papal statements, as must every honest Roman apologist. The list exists nowhere in the “deposit of faith,” of which Rome is ostensibly the guardian. Therefore, to produce such a list would require that a Roman Catholic believe in Sola Verbum Dei plus something that is not contained anywhere in the Verbum Dei—making Sola Verbum Dei self-defeating.
“The Voyager” simply states that Rome does not need to produce such an infallible list, because that would be “asking God to certify God.” Very well. Neither will Protestants bow to Rome’s requests to prove from the Scripture that the 66-book canon is the canon of Scripture. Since the Scripture as contained in the 66-book canon is the Word of God, that would be “asking God to certify God.” The Voyager thinks by this that he has caught us in the logical fallacy of tu quoque. Hardly. He has merely caught us measuring Rome by her own standards, and finding her wanting.
That’s what happens when the priesthood becomes a profession, how you earn your wage. You risk your career going against the collective orthodoxy of the age.
First, let me clarify that I am not a Protestant, so I am not here defending Protestantism - I find it wrong about Scripture almost as much as Roman Catholicism.
In regard to RC church infallibility, is it not curious that both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism make a claim for being the "Church", but can't see what Scripture actually says when it describes who the Church is? Both agree on this "tradition" (in fact, I doubt that anyone reading this thread disagrees with this "tradition"):
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
823 "The Church . . . is held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy. This is because Christ, the Son of God, who with the Father and the Spirit is hailed as 'alone holy,' loved the Church as his Bride, giving himself up for her so as to sanctify her; he joined her to himself as his body and endowed her with the gift of the Holy Spirit for the glory of God."
Wrong. The Church is NEVER described as the bride of Christ in the Scriptures. Indeed, the Church is ALWAYS described as masculine. From my ebook, MetaChristianity I - How to Unlock Bible Mysteries:
===
Ep.4.13 ...until we reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
The Church is called "mature" which equals "a complete man" (Greek).
---
Ph.3.3a For it is we who are the circumcision
The Church is identified with male circumcision.
---
1Pe.2.5a you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood
The Church is illustrated as a "priesthood". Priests are men.
---
1Pe.2.9a But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood
Again, priests are men.
---
2Th.2.7b till he is taken out of the way.
The Church is called "he".
---
Ga.4.29-31 At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. ...Therefore, brothers we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
The Church is identified as a "son".
---
Ph.1.27b I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel
The Church is likened to "one man".
---
Ep.2.15b-16 His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
Church = Israel + Gentiles = "one new man" = "one body"
---
Lk.15.11-32 The Prodigal Son = the Church
---
The Body of Christ:
Ro.12.5a so in Christ we who are many form one body
See also 1Co.10.17, 1Co.12.12,1 Co.12.27, Ep.1.22-23, Ep.3.6, Ep.4.4, Ep.4.12, Ep.4.15, Ep.4.25, Co.1.18, Co.1.24, Co.2.19, Co.3.15
Christ is a man.
---
It is almost unnecessary to point out the obvious conclusion from the above verses that the Church is over and over referred to as masculine in Scripture, but I am willing to bet this is "news" to you, because the traditional teaching totally ignores that the evidence of these verses even exist. So what does the contemporary Church teach? (And I mean every single denomination, sect and cult!) They tell us that the Church is feminine in gender - actually the "bride of Christ".
So, where does it talk about the bride of Christ?
Re.21.2 I saw the Holy City , the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
Re.21.9b-10 "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City , Jerusalem , coming down out of heaven from God.
These are the only two contemporary NT passages that directly identify the bride of Christ. Now, clearly neither of these verses even remotely refers to the Church. Revelation declares that the New Jerusalem will come down to earth from Heaven. The Church, on the other hand, is strictly an earth-based entity. Eventually all members of the Church are purported to be transported to the heavenly Jerusalem , but there is no reason to believe this equates them to be the same. Re.19.7-8 states that the linen of the bride stands for the righteous acts of the Saints. Which Saints? Only those of the Church? What of those prior to the Church? Those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life (Re.21.27), include the Saints of all ages who will live in the New Jerusalem.
He.12.22-24 But you have come to Mount Zion , to the heavenly Jerusalem , the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
The heavenly Jerusalem is listed separate from the Church. To argue that they are the same in this verse one would also have to include Angels in the Church, which is absurd, and even more absurd you would have to hold that God and the Church are equivalent.
So, where could the tradition of equating the Church with the "bride" originate? Church tradition erroneously connects four other passages to the two Revelation passages.
Yeast in the Dough
Mt.13.33 "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."
The contention is that the yeast equals the Gospel, the flour equals the world, and the woman is the Church. The problem with this is that yeast is considered very symbolic in Jewish culture throughout the Bible. It always represents evil, sin, impurity, etc., and never represents anything good.
Ex.12.19 For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And whoever eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel , whether he is an alien or native-born.
Yeast was untouchable during the Passover.
Le.2.11 Every grain offering you bring to the LORD must be made without yeast, for you are not to burn any yeast or honey in an offering made to the LORD by fire.
Grain offerings to the LORD must be without yeast.
Le.7.12-13 If he offers it as an expression of thankfulness, then along with this thank offering he is to offer cakes of bread made without yeast and mixed with oil, wafers made without yeast and spread with oil, and cakes of fine flour well-kneaded and mixed with oil. 13 Along with his fellowship offering of thanksgiving he is to present an offering with cakes of bread made with yeast.
The cakes and wafers without yeast are a type of Christ (undefiled). The cakes with yeast are a type of man (defiled).
Mt.16.6-12 "Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
Verse twelve defines yeast as...the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Lk.12.1 "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy."
The fact that the Pharisees don’t keep their own teaching makes the yeast equal to hypocrisy.
1Co.5.6-8 Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
Yeast equals malice and wickedness.
Ga.5.7-9 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough."
Paul equates yeast with keeping the Law.
Do not be fooled by the fact that the parable of the yeast in the dough is talking about the Kingdom of Heaven . As is indicated in the parable of the fishermen (Mt.13.47-48) there is good and evil in the Kingdom of Heaven . See also Mt.13.24-30.
So to view the woman as the Church one must also accept that the Church deliberately introduces evil (yeast) into the "kingdom of heaven". This makes no sense.
Forty Other Words
Ro.7.4 that ye should be married...to him (KJV)
The transliterated Greek word, here translated "belong to" (NIV), but translated "married to" in the KJV, is "ginomai". Strong's Concordance states that it can be "used with great latitude" and offers forty other substitutes that have nothing to do with marriage. So to establish this Scripture as definitive in relationship to the bride is unacceptable. Just because Rom. 7:1-3 uses a marriage between a husband and a wife as an example of a covenant relationship, this does not mean that the covenant between Christ and the Church is a marriage. If Paul was definitively trying to convey that Christ and the Church are in a "marriage" covenant he would certainly have used the Greek word "gameo" which can only mean "married to".
Work...in another man's territory
2Co.10.15-11.2 I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.
Paul is not here referring to the whole Church, but his own personal converts, (as opposed to "boasting of work done by others" [vs.15], and "work already done in another man's territory." [vs.16]), in which he was jealous over that he might present them to Christ. Paul says in verse one, "I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness." He is not making a doctrinal statement in verse two, but an illustration. He makes this point to his converts (that they are covenanted to Christ) because they have been easily persuaded otherwise by "those super-apostles" (vs.4 & 5). This presentation of verse two would have to happen in the heavenly Jerusalem (the bride). As far as being described as a virgin in verse two, in the parable of the ten virgins (MT.25) they represent all of mankind, not the bride, so there is nothing special about Paul's wish to present his converts as a "pure virgin". He was simply afraid they had been "led astray" from their "pure devotion to Christ" (vs.3).
Profound Mystery
This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church. Ep.5.23-33
The NIV translation of verses 25 to 27 includes the word "her" four times, alluding to the Church. This is a bias in the translation. The Greek is neuter, so the proper translation is the word "it". The comparison is not of the Church with the wife, but with the husband's body.
Ep.5.23-33 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her [it] 26 to make her [it] holy, cleansing her [it] by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her [it] to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church - 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
First and foremost, Paul is not here teaching a formal doctrine about the esoteric dimensions of Christ and the Church. This discourse is about every day living for men and their wives (it is preceded by a discourse on not getting drunk, singing hymns and submission to each other, and followed by a teaching for children to obey their parents).
[Read the following slowly and carefully.] Paul first compares the wife and the Church to "his body" in verses twenty three and twenty four, and if taken in isolation one might become confused about the comparison Paul is making. But Paul continues on to explain his comparison in detail, and it is then that we see that the first two verses were simply an elementary foundation to set the stage for the details of his explanation. The comparison in verse twenty three is just that, a comparison, not a doctrinal statement of equivalence. It say's "his" body, not "her" body. The comparison is that of husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church (vs.25), as in husbands loving "their own bodies" (vs.28), and Christ loving "his own body", the Church (vs.29-30). Paul actually already explained this principle. Remember this verse from earlier?
Ep.2.15b-16 His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
Church = Israel + Gentiles = "one new man" = "one body"
The "profound mystery" is that a husband and wife become "one flesh" (vs.31), but then Paul states, "but I am talking about Christ and the church" (vs.32). Why would Paul say this? Because the husband "also must love his wife as he loves himself" (vs. 33) just as Christ does the Church. The wife is to be included as though her body and his body are "one flesh" or "one body" as in Ep.2.15b-16. But the direct comparison is the husband's body with Christ's body; "we are members of his body" not her body.
John the Baptist
Jn.3.29 The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete.
John was not referring to the Church, but Israel . (John's ministry was strictly to Israel under the Law - this will be further expanded on later.) And applying the same nebulous symbolic linking of the above passages to the bride, John would be illustrating that the Christ was a bridegroom in the present tense. This would mean the bride would already have had to exist at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, so the Church could not be the bride because it would not yet exist at this point.
It is now clear that this tradition of equating the Church with the bride of Christ is completely false. There are a multitude of passages that show that the Church is referred to as masculine in Scripture, the bride is referred to by John the Baptist before the Church even exists, the virgins are depicted in the parable as all of mankind, and the four passages used as tenuous evidence to connect the Church with the bride of Christ are proven to be of no such consequence at all. So what is the true relationship between the Church and the heavenly Jerusalem ? Remember the question about the mother of the Church?
Ga.4.21-26 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem , because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
Is it not amazing how we (as in the whole Church over a span of many, many centuries) can read a verse over and over again that is so unmistakable in its statement, that the heavenly Jerusalem is our mother (beside being declared the bride in Revelation), and yet completely miss its truth every time? (Notice also that the Church is also the son of the free woman.) Surely, the delusion of Church traditions can be the only accounting for this. Is this not also an amazing example of how Church tradition can so completely conceal a truth, (that the Church is referred to as masculine in Scripture in over twenty different passages), while unanimously accepting four ambiguous interpretations of Scripture as definitive of a contrary doctrinal error? And what exactly is it that they would have you believe? Christ is the husband and the Church is the bride. But in order to believe this a number of other convoluted conclusions must be swallowed as well. The heavenly Jerusalem is also the bride and therefore must also be the Church, even though the Church is on earth and the heavenly Jerusalem is in, well, heaven. And even though the Church is supposedly the bride and the heavenly Jerusalem is also the bride, the heavenly Jerusalem is also the mother, but somehow they missed that this would also make the Church the mother of itself?!?
===
The RC church (and the Protestant church, for that matter) see Christ as some sort of perverted transvestite - a male head on a female body that is married to itself. But the Bible tells us that Christ's body is the representation of a masculine Church in over twenty passages, and the Church is never described as feminine or a bride. The New Jerusalem is the bride of Christ and the mother of the Church, her son.
I think that we can conclude that the RC church and the Protestant church are gender-confused.
So Petrosius, who is "at variance with the Scriptures"? Protestants? Roman Catholics? Or both? Is it not fascinating that the two largest bodies claiming to be the "Church" can't even figure out how Scripture actually describes the Church? Both the Protestant and RC churches are run on "traditions" (the latter more than the former, admittedly). The bride of Christ "tradition" that the Church is the bride of Christ illustrates that neither can be fully trusted with explaining Scripture. I am the only person that I know that can be. And I am pretty sure that not one of you reading this thread can be trusted either, because none of you know how to unlock Bible mysteries. Now, if you were to learn how to unlock Bible mysteries, then I might be able to trust you with teaching me what Scripture says (after verification, of course).
Where do you get your infallible doctrine from??
Actually, living in one of the most RC areas in the country ...and having been to many many RC wakes ..I can say that Catholics assume everyone of their RC family and friends will end up in heaven ..."they are in a better place". Even heard a priest at a funeral mass say the woman was already a saint in heaven and everyone should pray for her.
Purgatory is a false assurance that one can burn off their "small " sins and move on up..
That is a false hope.. unless their family or friend heard and believed the gospel..they burn in a very hot place cursing God for not honoring their good works and faith in his church ...
**Purgatory is a false assurance that one can burn off their “small “ sins and move on up.. **
The correct definition of Purgatory is the reparation of our sins that we did not do on earth. Like saying sorry when you know you hurt someone, but would rather let them stew over it.
When the soul has accomplished all these reparations, and are pure, then they can enter the Kingdom of heaven.
Those were my words, now for the actual definition.
PURGATORY
The place or condition in which the souls of the just are purified after death and before they can enter heaven. They may be purified of the guilt of their venial sins, as in this life, by an act of contrition deriving from charity and performed with the help of grace. This sorrow does not, however, affect the punishment for sins, because in the next world there is no longer any possibility of merit. The souls are certainly purified by atoning for the temporal punishments due to sin by their willing acceptance of suffering imposed by God. The sufferings in purgatory are not the same for all, but proportioned to each person’s degree of sinfulness. Moreover, these sufferings can be lessened in duration and intensity through the prayers and good works of the faithful on earth. Nor are the pains incompatible with great peace and joy, since the poor souls deeply love God and are sure they will reach heaven. As members of the Church Suffering, the souls in purgatory can intercede for the persons on earth, who are therefore encouraged to invoke their aid. Purgatory will not continue after the general judgment, but its duration for any particular souls continues until it is free from all guilt and punishment. Immediately on purification the soul is assumed into heaven. (Etym. Latin purgatio, cleansing, purifying.)
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
You are living under a performance based religion. God had given you a new covenant which is not performance based. Can you see that this notion of ‘purgatory’ is a subtle assertion of the performance based religion? When Jesus shed His blood and entered into the Holy Of Holies to spread HIS blood on the Mercy Seat, His blood was/is so efficacious that it need be done only once, for all, forever. In His act He fulfilled the law and took away the law as your schoolmaster. The notion of you atoning for your acts in life is anathema to what God tells us of this new covenant, which Jesus sealed with His own blood.
There is no reparation for something that God forgave.
And there’s nothing that can pay for sin but the shedding of blood.
Purgatory CANNOT pay for sin because sin is not atoned that way.
It’s becoming clearer by the day that Catholics have NO concept of what forgiveness really is. They seem to think that it’s feeling sorry and then working to pay off the debt.
Forgiveness is release from the debt owed NO STRINGS ATTACHED.
What the Catholics describe as their version of forgiveness is actually a description of justice, paying for sin themselves.
There’s no forgiveness in that. There’s no mercy in that.
Thanks. Where do these ideas come from? It is not Biblical,
Man is not perfect so where is that in the Bible?
First of all Ephesians 4:13 was not talking about the "church" but those who teach in it. But as to your contention that mature only refers to men.
Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
So you would claim Paul was talking only to the men?
Again, Paul was talking only about men?
>>The Church is identified with male circumcision.<<
Romans 15:8 For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers,
Would you claim that Jesus was only a servant to the men? Were women excluded from His ministry?
>>The Church is illustrated as a "priesthood". Priests are men.<<
Galatians 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
>>The Church is called "he".<<
The "church" is NOT the restrainer. The Holy Spirit is and He certainly is a He.
>>The Church is identified as a "son".<<
NO, it's not. Read the verse again.
Galatians 4:29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son (hyiós) of the freewoman.
Greek - hyiós - equally refers to female believers (Gal 3:28). [http://biblehub.com/greek/5207.htm]
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Revelation 21:7 "He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son (huios).
Again, would you purport that women are excluded in that?
>>Ph.1.27b I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel
The Church is likened to "one man".<<
A direct translation of that text from the Greek.
Phillipians 1:27 Only worthily of the good news of the Christ conduct ye yourselves, that, whether having come and seen you, whether being absent I may hear of the things concerning you, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one soul, striving together for the faith of the good news,
You should notice that there is NO Greek word in that text that can be interpreted "man". So you basically changed the words of scripture to bolster your contention. STOP IT ALREADY. If you have to change the words of scripture your views MUST be ignored.
>>So, where does it talk about the bride of Christ?<<
You referenced Revelation 21 where it says that the "New Jerusalem" is the bride of Christ. But who is part of that "New Jerusalem"?
Hebrews 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,
The "New Jerusalem" consists of "the general assembly and the church of the firstborn" which are the believers. That includes Old Testament believers because they were made part of the ekklesia (the "church") when Christ died and freed them. The ekklesia (church) is NOT earth bound.
Ephesians 2:6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
Your entire post is rife with error. It should be disregarded totally.
So much for “I will forgive them their sins and remember them no more” right?
One guess.....
That’s correct.
Man is NOT perfect. Even saved people are not perfect.
What they are is DECLARED perfect by God as He judicially pardons our sin since it was paid for by Jesus.
When we stand before God, we can point to Jesus and say, “He did it. He paid my penalty.” and God accepts that payment on our behalf and judicially pardons us from any further payment of the penalty ourselves.
Amen and Amen and Amen!!!
God forgives and forgets and relates to us as if we are as perfect and sinless as Jesus.
The one who continually throws our sin in our faces to torment us with guilt and condemnation is NOT the Holy Spirit, but rather Satan.
He wants us bound in that, not knowing the freedom and deliverance we have in Christ.
The believer who knows who he is and what he has in Christ and acts on it is the enemy’s worst nightmare.
The believer or unbeliever who is bound by guilt and condemnation, forever trying to work off a debt that he cannot work off and has already been paid in full, is the one Satan is going to be least threatened by.
The enemy does not want us to know the freedom from sin that we have. That’s why God goes to such lengths to tell us in Scripture.
And what did Jesus pay for on the cross?
Sal..God has said that when He forgives us He "sees the sin no more"(heb 8:6)..If God can not see our sin..how can He determine the stay in Purgatory ??
>>>You should notice that there is NO Greek word in that text that can be interpreted "man". So you basically changed the words of scripture to bolster your contention. STOP IT ALREADY. If you have to change the words of scripture your views MUST be ignored.<<<
Ph.1.27b I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel
Looking at the Greek I agree that soul is the right translation. I will remove it from my ebook. I quoted the NIV. My bad for trusting the NIV, something I don't normally do, however this was a study that I did twenty years ago when I was still developing good research habits. A simple Google search would have told you that I have not "changed the words of scripture". So by your logic, since I have not "changed the words of scripture", my views should not be ignored.
I explained He.12.22-24. So, in effect, my post has no errors except for trusting the NIV.
Over and over the Scriptures flat-out describe the Church as masculine. Yeast always represents evil in Scripture. Before even explaining in Ep.5.23-33 that husbands must love their own bodies just as does Christ His body (the Church), Paul states flat-out in Ep.2.15b-16 that:
Church = Israel + Gentiles = "one new man" = "one body"
Revelation then tells us flat-out that the heavenly Jerusalem is the bride and Galatians tells us flat-out that the heavenly Jerusalem is also our mother (of the Church).
But you can cling to your "tradition" if you like - most people do...
Yeah, well, Catholic ‘tradition’ tells devout Catholics to drink the blood of Jesus by a magical transubstantiation/transmogrifying, which is directly contrary to what God told Israel is forbidden for all their generations (which would include that of Jesus). So traditions can be in not only little errors but in gross anathema raising errors.
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.