Posted on 06/29/2018 12:32:50 PM PDT by fishtank
And He did not send them to purgatory to finish suffering either
Answer: According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, an indulgence is “the remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sin whose guilt has already been forgiven. A properly disposed member of the Christian faithful can obtain an indulgence under prescribed conditions through the help of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. An indulgence is partial if it removes part of the temporal punishment due to sin, or plenary if it removes all punishment.”
Understanding the Catholic definitions is very important in understanding this issue: Eternal Punishment: “the penalty for unrepented mortal sin, separating the sinner from communion with God for all eternity; the condemnation of the unrepentant sinner to hell.” Temporal Punishment: “purification of the unhealthy attachment to creatures, which is a consequence of sin that perdures even after death. We must be purified either during our earthly life through prayer and a conversion which comes from fervent charity, or after death in purgatory.” Purgatory: “a state of final purification after death and before entrance into heaven for those who died in God’s friendship, but were only imperfectly purified; a final cleansing of human imperfection before one is able to enter the joy of heaven.”
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that sin has a double consequence. For a member of the Catholic Church, committing a mortal sin causes “eternal punishment,” involving eternal separation from God and suffering in hell. (The Catholic Church also teaches that under normal circumstances those who have not been baptized by either the Roman Catholic Church or another church teaching baptismal regeneration are also condemned to hell because the stain of original sin remains upon their souls.) Venial (minor) sin, in contrast, does not cause “eternal punishment” but does cause “temporal punishment.” Roman Catholic teachings sometimes refer to these “temporal punishments” given by God as a means of purifying His children (either in this life or in Purgatory). But the Roman Catholic Church also sees venial sins as creating a debt to God’s justice that must be atoned for in a way that is distinct from Christ’s atonement for eternal punishment. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that because of the unity of the Body of Christ (the Communion of the Saints, including living believers, believers in heaven, Roman Catholic saints in heaven, Christ, Mary, and the imperfect believers in Purgatory), it is possible for the merit generated by the good works, prayers, almsgiving, sufferings, etc., of one or more of these members of the Body to be applied to the temporal debt of another. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the combined merit of Christ, the saints, and godly believers is stored in a place referred to as the Treasury of Merit (it is also sometimes called the Treasury of Satisfaction, the Church’s Treasury, or the Thesaurus Ecclesiae). And through apostolic succession from Peter, it is the Roman Catholic Church alone that has the authority to withdraw merit from this treasury and dispense it to believers in this life or in Purgatory to atone for some or all of their venial sin. This it does through the granting of Catholic indulgences.
Again, indulgences pertain only to temporal, not eternal, punishment and can only be distributed through a Roman Catholic Church leader to someone who is either in Purgatory or is still living and whose soul is in the state of sanctifying grace (i.e., he/she would go to Purgatory, not hell, if he/she were to die at that moment). An indulgence can be obtained through a good deed done, a Mass being offered on behalf of someone, prayer, abstinence, giving to the poor, or some other meritorious act performed in accordance with requirements set by a Pope or bishop having jurisdiction over that individual. The offering of a Mass for someone is seen as one of the most effective means of reducing the temporal punishment of that person in Purgatory. A partial indulgence will reduce the temporal punishment a person has. A plenary indulgence will remove all temporal punishment.
Is the concept of Catholic indulgences biblical?
Various Roman Catholic Church doctrines are derived from tradition rather than from Scripture. And as the Roman Catholic Church sees their tradition as consistent with Scripture and equal to Scripture in authority, this is not an issue with them. But to most other Christian groups, the Bible alone is the source of authority and is more than sufficient in supplying Christians with all the resources they need to know and serve Christ as God intended (2 Timothy 3:15-17; Acts 20:32). But because the Roman Catholic Church states that its doctrines are not contradictory to Scripture and accepts Scripture as part of its authority, it is appropriate for both groups to ask, “Are indulgences biblical?”
An examination of the passages the Roman Catholic Church uses to support such doctrines as temporal punishment, vicarious atonement by fellow believers and saints, and Purgatory illustrates the Catholic reliance on tradition above and beyond Scripture. Other doctrines, such as the Treasury of Merit, the “pristine and unfathomable merit of Mary,” the “superabundant merit of the saints,” and the existence of indulgences, are foreign to Scripture altogether! Is the doctrine of indulgences scriptural? A consistent and contextual interpretation of Scripture will neither support the teaching of indulgences nor the doctrines it is built upon.
Indulgences and Purgatory
The Roman Catholic Church cites a few passages for their scriptural support of Purgatory. In addition to a passage from the apocryphal 2 Maccabees, 1 Corinthians 3:10-15; Matthew 5:26; and Matthew 12:32 are also given as scriptural support. Matthew 5:26 is part of a parable on the issue of forgiveness. Matthew 12:32 is addressing the issue of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Neither passage focuses upon what happens after death nor gives a clear teaching of what takes place after death. It is a principle of hermeneutics (the study of how to rightly interpret Scripture) that one should interpret “unclear” passages that merely touch on an issue by passages that focus on that issue or are clear about that issue. To interpret these verses as teaching that there is a place of further atoning and purifying in Purgatory after death flies in the face of many clear statements in the Bible that there are only two places that one will end up in after death: either in heaven with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:21-23; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18) or in hell in torment (Luke 16:23-24; Revelation. 20:10-15). The Bible does not say that after death comes "further purification"; it says, "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:28). See the GotQuestions.org article on What does the Bible say about Purgatory? for a further discussion on this issue.
Indulgences and Penance
Catholics speak of “doing penance” for their sins. At the end of confession to a priest, the confessor is given certain things to do (such as certain prayers to pray) that are a part of “doing penance.” Part of the purpose of this penance is to bring about a returning of one’s disposition away from sin and back toward God. But another purpose mentioned repeatedly in Roman Catholic literature is that of paying or atoning for one’s sins. This is not the same as making restitution to those hurt by one’s sin, but rather involves making a payment toward the temporal punishment to satisfy God’s justice. This latter purpose is closely tied to the idea of indulgences and is not mentioned in Scripture. The Bible does speak of repentance, referring to a “change of mind about one’s sin that results in a change in behavior.” John the Baptist’s ministry and teaching is summarized in Luke 3:3-18. He told those that were baptized by him (their baptism being a sign of their repentance) to show by their deeds that their repentance was real. But never is there the message of “you must pay or atone for your sins by doing some good deed or by abstinence,” or by anything else. By this call to good works, John was essentially saying, “Show me your repentance is genuine by your works” (cf. James 2:18). But again, the idea of “doing penance” as an atoning for our sins or a repaying of a temporal debt to God’s justice is never mentioned in Scripture!
Catholic Indulgences and the Treasury of Merit
The doctrine of the “Treasury of the Church” was first officially expressed in 1343 by Pope Clement VI. He describes this treasury as not only consisting of the merits of Christ’s atonement but also “the merits (atonements) of Mary, the Mother of God, and of all the chosen, from the greatest to the least of the just, contribute to the increase of the treasure from which the Church draws in order to secure remission of temporal punishment.”
The Bible never once refers to anything like the “Treasury of Merit,” and never is there the thought that atonement can be made by one believer for the sake of another’s sin. Paul expresses that, if it were possible, he would sincerely be willing to be accursed, if that would mean the redemption of his fellow Israelites in Romans 9 and 10. But that is not possible because Paul and the other writers of Scripture state that, for a believer, the just Judge was satisfied when Jesus Christ became the atonement (propitiation) for our sins and that apart from Him there is no atonement (Isaiah 53:6; Romans 5:10-11; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 John 2:2; Hebrews 10:1-18). Never is there any hint of the idea of vicarious atonement by believers, either alive or dead, for the sake of their fellow believers. The Roman Catholic Church may make a distinction between atoning for people’s eternal punishment and their temporal punishment, but the idea of anyone other than Christ atoning for anyone’s sin and its corresponding punishment is never found in Scripture. Never is there any teaching about the “superabundant satisfactions of the Saints” or that the prayers and good works of Mary “are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God.” In Scripture, there is only the unfathomable and infinite value of Christ’s atonement…period.
Catholic Indulgences and Temporal punishment
The Catholic Catechism speaks of temporal punishment as being a purification process. But elsewhere, throughout Roman Catholic official teachings, it speaks of it as a spiritual debt that needs to be atoned for, either by the individual who sinned or by someone else vicariously. Again, the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between eternal punishment for “major” sin and temporal punishment for “minor” sin.
It is clear that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a forensic or “legal” nature to temporal punishment; i.e., that it involves the need to satisfy the justice of a just Judge and that if that justice is not satisfied by atonement in this life, it must be atoned for in the next in Purgatory. It is that forensic or “payment to satisfy justice” aspect that is unscriptural. Scripture does teach that indeed one’s sins can be forgiven in the eternal sense (with the sinner no longer being condemned to hell) or even in an earthly sense (in not having the penalty laid down by the Mosaic Law inflicted upon the sinner, 2 Samuel 12:13). Sin changes things in this life and how God interacts with us in this life. It has to for a number of reasons given in Scripture:
1) This is a real world where real actions have real consequences. If we plant barley in the spring, we don’t harvest wheat in the fall. If we plant sin, we eventually reap turmoil, hardship, destruction, and death (Galatians 6:7; Romans 3:16; James 1:15).
2) Our sin and God’s response to it affect how we and other people view our God. If we sinned and there were no obvious effects to it, we would see sin as something that is “no big deal” to God, and thus His holy character would be blasphemed. This is one of the reasons God cited for the death of the child conceived by David in adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:13-14)—if there were no earthly consequences to David’s murder of Uriah and his adultery, then God would be viewed as One who condoned such sinful actions.
3) Others “looking on” would be encouraged to sin. First Corinthians 10:1-12 states that all of the punishments imposed by God upon the Israelites for their disbelief, idolatry, lust, etc., were recorded for our admonition so that we could learn from their mistakes. Proverbs says that others are encouraged to sin when punishment upon sin is delayed (i.e., if we see someone else “get away with it,” we are also encouraged to repeat their sin). So, an earthly punishment is either imposed by God or the natural consequences of sin are allowed to come to maturity so that others may learn not to sin.
4) God disciplines us for our benefit so that we may enjoy the fruit of righteousness that He intended for us. When a person places his faith in Christ, God ceases to be his Judge and becomes his Father (John 1:12). We will stand before Him as a Judge of our works done after salvation (2 Corinthians 5:10-11; 1 Corinthians 3:10-15), but now we have peace with God (Romans 5:1-10) and there is no more condemnation (Romans 8:1). But as a loving father disciplines his children for their good, so God disciplines us for ours (Hebrews 12:3-11). But when you look at the description of this heavenly discipline given in Hebrews 12, you find no thought of punishment as in the sense of one being required to pay or atone for a crime!
So, one does find that God either imposes earthly consequences or allows the natural consequences as a result of sin, but in no passage does it say that these consequences are imposed so that His temporal justice may be satisfied!
In conclusion, having discussed the lack of scriptural support for some of the foundational doctrines necessary for the existence of indulgences, it must also be stated that there is not a single scriptural example of, or teaching about, an apostle or church leader doling out an “indulgence” to a fellow believer. Not one! From its foundation to its summit, the whole structure of the doctrine of indulgences is unfounded biblically.
It is our prayer that as the apostle Paul saw many converted to Christ because they compared his teachings to Scripture (Acts 17:10-12), so those who read this summary would read the inerrant and infallible Word of God for themselves and simply ask, “Are the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church found in what I have read? Do they ‘fit’ both the immediate context of any given passage and the context of the New Testament as a whole? Is the ‘system’ of the Roman Catholic Church found in the New Testament?” It is our prayer that all those who claim the name of Christ would turn to the simplicity of trusting Christ alone and desire to live for Him out of gratitude for all He has done for them (Romans 3-12).
https://www.gotquestions.org/plenary-indulgences.html
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.
Except in Roman Catholicism where the Roman Catholic has to "pay" for their sin in some manner.
Yes, the repentant sinner's sins are completely forgiven.
Nobody has denied that.
But how can anyone deny that a completely forgiven sin can still have temporal consequences?
Luke 23:40-43
But the other [crucified criminal] rebuked [the other criminal], saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.”
Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
This man, who was being crucified, said he deserved it because of his deeds, and Jesus did not contradict him. This man, even after being forgiven, continued to suffer the pains of his just punishment. Jesus did not get him down from his cross.
Yet Jesus could have done that. But He didn't.
The man was suffering temporal punishment, and both he and Jesus accepted that this temporal punishment was just. Dismas (as some call him) was saved, forgiven, entirely washed clean, and promised to enter heaven that very day, yet he had to suffer temporal punishment. It was just: it was what he deserved for his sins.
No, they don’t.
To carry your argument further....Jesus could allow everyone of us to live on this earth eternally by saying the penalty of sin, death, is revoked.
That is what you're arguing with your example.
That is not a biblical position.
One of four pages on indulgences. Check it out for the truth.
http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=indulgences&xsubmit=Search&s=SS
So, If God forgives a sin, there is some residual payment or debt that a man is required to pay? And that works out to be a money gift or something else of human value to some other human(s)?
In the case of restitution for theft, fine. An apology where due. Criminal /civil penalties before society only pertain to mans burden within society.
Before God, either one is forgiven (and those sins and transgressions are absolutely remembered no more) and Christ’s righteousness is attributed to them or they are guilty and condemned for not believing on Christs once for all payment before the Father.
Yes, they do.
Here’s another example. God made a distinction in the Hebrew Scriptures between the guilt of sin (an eternal debt), and the temporal debt or consequence that was still owed even after the guilt was forgiven. Consider David (2 Sam. 11 & 12),who committed adultery with Bathsheba and murder. Though God forgave the repentant David, the child born of their adulterous union died -— and as Nathan said, in further punishment, though David was forgiven, the sword “never departed from David’s house.”
“Weren’t they implemented during the Middle Ages to get money for the Catholic church (who were in control during that time).”
Yes; they were. A revenue generating scheme, of which there are many things in the organization.
And, yes; indulgences deny the Gospel. Complete blasphemy.
Well, yes they do contradict the Bible.
Some examples of indulgences per Roman Catholicism will illustrate this. Emphasis mine.
Church will offer Catholics plenary indulgence for attending 2018 March for Life
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/plenary-indulgence-available-to-catholics-attending-the-2018-march-for-life
*****************************
Having fulfilled the necessary conditions in nn. 3-4, the faithful may gain the Jubilee indulgence by performing one of the following works[Rome admits what many of us have said about this....these are works] , listed here below in three categories:
8. Works of piety or religion
[Again note the word works]
— Either make a pious pilgrimage to a Jubilee shrine or place (for Rome: one of the four Patriarchal Basilicas — St Peter, St John Lateran, St Mary Major, St Paul —, or to the Basilica of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, the Basilica of St Laurence in Campo Verano, the Shrine of Our Lady of Divine Love or one of the Christian Catacombs, and participate there in Holy Mass or another liturgical celebration (Lauds or Vespers) or some pious exercise (the Stations of the Cross, the Rosary, the recitation of the Akathistos Hymn, etc.);
— or make a pious visit, as a group or individually, to one of these same Jubilee places, and there spend some time in Eucharistic adoration and pious meditations, ending with the "Our Father", the profession of faith in any approved form and prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary[Again, Rome admits what we have said that Roman Catholics pray TO Mary].
9. Works of mercy or charity
— Either visit for a suitable time their brothers or sisters in need or in difficulty (the sick, the imprisoned, the elderly living alone, the handicapped, etc.), as if making a pilgrimage to Christ present in them;
— or support by a significant contribution works of a religious or social nature (for the benefit of abandoned children, young people in trouble, the elderly in need, foreigners in various countries seeking better living conditions);
— or devote a suitable part of personal free time to activities benefiting the community or other similar forms of personal sacrifice.
10. Acts of penance
For at least one whole day
— Either abstain from unnecessary consumption (smoking, alcohol, etc.);[but necessary consumption is allowed????]
— or fast,
— or abstain from meat (or other food according to the specific norms of the Bishops' Conferences), and donate a proportionate sum of money to the poor.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/tribunals/apost_penit/documents/rc_trib_appen_pro_20000129_indulgence_en.html
Well not so much blasphemy IMHO but a scam perpetrated on the ignorant peasants and also some folks who were quite well off. They were coerced into giving up their wealth to the “Church” to ensure their passage into Heaven. That’s how the “Church” became so wealth themselves.
Is this according to your YOPIOS authority?
Or are you quoting some other authority?
Or do you even have a source?
Or are you just repeating falsehoods from protestantism that you have been told?
7Nathan then said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel, ‘It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8‘I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these! 9‘Why have you despised the word of the LORD by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon. 10‘Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ 11“Thus says the LORD, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12‘Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.’” 13Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. 14“However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.” 15So Nathan went to his house. 2 Samuel 12:7-15 NASB
Nathan outlines the reason why the child had to die and the ensuing problems David encountered in his kingship.
However, this is the OT and involves the activities of David.
We are discussing the New Testament treatment of sin.
Christ forgives and covers our sin. He has paid the debt we owe. He bore the burden of our sins.
There is no amount of Hail Mary's you can say that will come remotely close to atoning for your sins.
I bet boatbums is citing the Bible as THE only authoritative source.
What are you relying upon??? A doctrine not witnessed in the New Testament? That developed over time?
That believes that saying 50 Hail Mary's atones for your "temporal" guilt??
All true.
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/indulgences
I. WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS NOT.
—To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer’s salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.
II. WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS.
—An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. Regarding this definition, the following points are to be noted: (I) In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory (q.v.). An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth. (2) Some writs of indulgence—none of them, however, issued by any pope or council (Pesch, Tr. Dogm., VII, 196, §464)—contain the expression, “indulgentia a culpa et a paena”, i.e. release from guilt and from punishment; and this has occasioned considerable misunderstanding (cf. Lea, “History” etc. III, 54 sqq.). The real meaning of the formula is that, indulgences presupposing the Sacrament of Penance, the penitent, after receiving sacramental absolution from the guilt of sin, is afterwards freed from the temporal penalty by the indulgence (Bellarmine, “De Indulg”., I, 7). In other words, sin is fully pardoned, i.e. its effects entirely obliterated, only when complete reparation, and consequently release from penalty as well as from guilt, has been made. Hence Clement V (1305-1314) condemned the practice of those purveyors of indulgences who pretended to absolve “a culpa et a poena” (Clement, I, v, tit. 9, c. ii); the Council of Constance (1418) revoked (Sess. XLII, n. 14) all indulgences containing the said formula; Benedict XIV (1740-1758) treats them as spurious indulgences granted in this form, which he ascribes to the illicit practices of the “quaestores” or purveyors (De Syn. diceces., VIII, viii. 7). (3) The satisfaction, usually called the “penance”, imposed by the confessor when he gives absolution is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance; an indulgence is extra-sacramental; it presupposes the effects obtained by confession, contrition, and sacramental satisfaction. It differs also from the penitential works undertaken of his own accord by the repentant sinner—prayer, fasting, alms-giving in that these are personal and get their value from the merit of him who performs them, whereas an indulgence places at the penitent’s disposal the merits of Christ and of the saints, which form the “Treasury” of the Church. (4) An indulgence is valid both in the tribunal of the Church and in the tribunal of God. This means that it not only releases the penitent from his indebtedness to the Church or from the obligation of performing canonical penance, but also from the temporal punishment which he has incurred in the sight of God and which, without the indulgence, he would have to undergo in order to satisfy Divine justice. This, however, does not imply that the Church pretends to set aside the claim of God’s justice or that she allows the sinner to repudiate his debt. As St. Thomas says (Suppl., xxv. a. 1 ad Dim), “ He who gains indulgences is not thereby released outright from what he owes as penalty, but is provided with the means of paying it.” The Church therefore neither leaves the penitent helplessly in debt nor ac-quits him of all further accounting; she enables him to meet his obligations. (5) In granting an indulgence, the grantor (pope or bishop) does not offer his personal merits in lieu of what God demands from the sinner. He acts in his official capacity as having jurisdiction in the Church, from whose spiritual treasury he draws the means wherewith payment is to be made. The Church herself is not the absolute owner, but simply the administratrix, of the superabundant merits which that treasury contains. In applying them, she keeps in view both the design of God’s mercy and the demands of God’s justice. She therefore determines the amount of each concession, as well as the conditions which the penitent must fulfill if he would gain the indulgence.
A very interesting debate. Biblical preaching vs Tradition
Yes. That's temporal punishment. Let's put this in the bigger context of justice.
God's justice is allied with --- not the opposite of --- His mercy. Scripture says (Psalm 85:10) "Mercy and truth have met each other: justice and peace have kissed." And (Psalm 89:14) "Justice and judgment are the foundation of His throne."
For instance --- and this is just one example --- if you commit a crime, this justice is generally carried out by the secular authority. This passage from Romans 13:1-5 explains that this is not "merely" secular: this prince or judge or earthly authority (when it is legitimate) is in fact meting out God's justice:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities;
for there is no authority except from God,
and those authorities that exist
have been instituted by God.
Therefore whoever resists authority
resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct,
but to bad.
Do you wish to have no fear of the authority?
Then do what is good,
and you will receive its approval;
for it is God’s servant for your good.
But if you do what is wrong,
you should be afraid,
for the authority does not bear the sword in vain!
It is the servant of God
to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be subject,
not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.
Since this secular authority is enacting justice via temporal punishment, would any Christian say that all criminals should be released from prison, their fines remitted, etc. upon declaration of repentance?
I don't think you'd say that.
So temporal punishment continues to be just, even if the criminal's soul is now clear of sin because of his repentance and God's totally sufficient forgiveness.
That's Part One of the argument: even with repentance unto God and forgiveness from Him, temporal punishment remains just.
If not, then shall we say that all criminals should have their criminal records erased and their sentences dropped upon profession of Christian faith? God's Justice (enacted by the God-appointed prince, the "authority") should just disappear?
You wrote: "Before God, either one is forgiven (and those sins and transgressions are absolutely remembered no more) and Christ’s righteousness is attributed to them or they are guilty and condemned for not believing on Christs once for all payment before the Father."
This certainly holds for eternal punishment. But this does not even address temporal punishment, which is an entirely different matter.
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.