| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/24/2022 5:40:39 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childishness |
Posted on 03/06/2022 11:16:06 AM PST by CharlesOConnell
A man commits a serious crime, then he gets released. He has "paid his debt to society". But wait a minute, he's only ready for the half-way house. He's unlikely to get a prestigious job in his new prison suit coat, or any job at all; he has civil impediments, he can't vote or hold certain offices. His crime was serious enough that he won't be presumed to have been completely rehabilitated until he performs a notable service to society, or at least spends many years on the straight and narrow, so that his crime can be truly overlooked or forgotten.
In Catholic faith, your "debt to society" is paid by Jesus Christ on Calvary. It's called "eternal punishment", without Christ it keeps you from going to heaven. Supposing that you do take advantage of His sacrifice, you're truly sorry, have a firm purpose of amendment, if you relapse, you go again for forgiveness (to the Sacrament of Confession).
But your sin leaves a strong trace at another layer of impurity called "temporal punishment due to sin", like the civil impediments facing the half-way house prisoner. Because "nothing impure can enter heaven", there is a place or a state, a condition of purification to render you fit for heaven after Christ has finally saved you from hell. The Catholic Church calls it purgatory.
(Where is it in the bible? Where is the word Trinity in the bible? Where does it say that you only need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? Many valid principles aren't stated explicitly in the bible, but it does say to "hold fast to the traditions you have learned, whether by word or by letter", because much of the Gospel wasn't written down, as Jesus only wrote in the sand, the majority of the Gospel was taught from word to ear to people who couldn't afford expensive books, the exceptions were what tended to get written down. But the implication that there is a purgatory, is contained in the bible--see the comments.)
The ex-con can receive a pardon or commutation of his probation from a Governor, if he performs some heroic deed, saving numerous lives, or, like Chuck Colson, performs a long-lasting, valuable community service helping numerous people who can't help themselves.
In the Catholic Church there are 2 ways for the residual, temporal effects due to sin to be expiated: suffering in this life, or after life, undergoing purifying suffering along with other people who will finally be saved, but have to suffer for long without the vision of God--that is what causes them their pain.
Their suffering isn't meritorious enough to grant their release, the saints in heaven and those on earth suffering and practicing virtue can pray for the suffering souls in purgatory. In no way is their release by slow transfer of suffering or practice of virtue, "buying heaven". It's a long, excruciating process.
How the misunderstanding arose that Catholics think they can buy their way into heaven, is involved with history more than 500 years old. For a millennium of Christendom between roughly 410 and 1410, there was a Medieval civilization with harmony between faith and government.
Many small farmers would cluster around the manor house of a military lord who would protect them, in exchange for a certain fixed obligation of labor and agricultural produce. In most cases, those "serfs" had much more leisure than factory workers of the industrial revolution; there were a large number of holy days without work, and except for planting and harvesting, there were long stretches of idle time.
Another large sector of the economy surrounded monasteries, where the monks developed most of the farming practices that stabilized the serfs and their manorial lords. The monks who worked those monastic lands were sworn to poverty, so that monasteries built up large accumulations of economic value over decades and centuries of labor.
At the beginning, when lands were being cleared and put into production there weren't prominent town fairs ruled by merchants and bankers. Money wasn't used for sustenance, not even much barter occurred, life was mostly agrarian.
Charity was woven into the economy of monasteries. It was estimated that you only need travel 12 miles in medieval England between monasteries, where you could get a meal and minimal lodging for free, based on need. And the charity was also spiritual, including the ancient Catholic principle of prayer for the dead, which is biblical. (See "prayer for the dead" in the original King James Bible in the comment.)
There were foundations and benefices for praying for the dead, that allowed a person of means to support monasteries' charitable works, and in proportional response the monks would pray for the souls of the donors.
It happened at the close of the middle ages, that militarily strong nobles cast their eyes on the labor value accumulated by the poverty-sworn monks of the monasteries, which those nobles perceived as monetary wealth, especially where gold and jewels had been donated by the devout to adorn churches.
(Protestant writer William Cobbett wrote in his 1824 "A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland", an anecdote, that an incredibly valuable, hand illustrated bible was stripped of it's bejeweled, gold cover, the much more valuable hand-illumined manuscript, thrown in the mud and trampled by horses hooves by raiders suppressing the monasteries in Henry VIII's England.)
A new religion growing up around this seizure of monastic lands and valuables, that sought to discredit the Catholic Church, spread the black legend that the "sale of indulgences" was abusive. But this was very exceptional. Today the stipend of a Mass said for the dead is $10.
"Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in whichPaul's epistles are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearnedαμαθεις = undiscipled and unstableαστηρικτοι = vacillating, inconsistent wresttwist, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness" (2 Peter 3:14-17 AV)This does seen to me to describe your handling of the Bible rather exactly, if I do say so. What are you going to do about it, Philsworld? Maybe a stint at Chafer Theological Seminary, strong in hermeneutics, might help you to understand what the Bible says and from that correct interpretation skill lead to your salvation.
Obviously, you haven't read Romans 6 in a long time. My old man was crucified with Him on the cross, and died there. What about your guilty old man, eh? Have you not become aware of what the good news of Jesus' Gospel (not Ellen G. White's gospel) means to the person burdened by sin from birth and not yet freed of it? My sins were judged at the cross, and paid for by the Savior.
The lie they keep spreading is that since we have security in our salvation, we think it gives us a license to sin without consequence.
And no matter how many times we correct that false accusation, they just double down on repeating it.
It finally occurred to me that they do this because they are projecting. They are thinking of what they would do if they were in our place, and cannot conceive what the born from above spirit actually feels about sin because they love it too much.
Just because one does not agree with Rome's interpretation and addition to scripture does not necessarily make him a great sinner, nor you righteous.
Good insight.
—> “ It finally occurred to me that they do this because they are projecting. They are thinking of what they would do if they were in our place, and cannot conceive what the born from above spirit actually feels about sin because they love it too much.”
I think you are correct.
You can’t teach someone who isn’t seeking truth.
Unfortunately for one like that, his glass is already so full of cultic falsehoods, there is no room for truth. You pour it in the top and it spills over the edge of the glass.
Even worse, anger is released as his life experience is invalidated. All he is left with is to hold more tightly to the falsehood and rage post the same things.
Truth scares a soul like this for that reason.
Only God opens the eyes of the blind, as it has always been.
But for the grace and indescribable Gift of God, I would be the same.
Would be the same? We were the same. Thank God, he removed the Catholic blinders from our eyes. I was 21 when I left the Catholic Church, and got off the Roman hamster wheel of guilt. OSAS dittos.
But in your Post #1283 reply to my #1268 you contradict what I said, and in your total lack of perspicacity called forth Romans 10:10-11, thinking that it supported your interpretation of the Matthew 16:16, that Simon was speaking from his heart.
In fact, the Romans 10:6-11 proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that at that time, Simon was not saved, not speaking what he believed in his heart, because we can see from Matthew 16:20-21 that he not only rejected Jesus' disclosure that He would be killed, then raised from the dead, but remonstrated with the Satanic impulse in his heart that should NOT happen to Jesus. Simon was rebuking Jesus for His prediction, trying to dissuade Him from going down that path, which is exactly what he, Satan, would urge Simon to do. The last thing ever that Satan wanted was for Jesus, the innocent Lamb of God, by His substitutionary Cross-death to take away the sin of the world.
Apparently you have no studied skill in applying hermeneutics--the science of interpretation--and here in your Post #1403 you are again denying the thesis of my interpretation (which is in agreement with the Romans 10 passage, that Peter did profess what The Father put on his lips, but did NOT believe that Jesus was giving them prophetic truth that He was to be raised from the dead. In his remonstration of the /master, Simon was essentially calling Jesus a liar, that such an event was NOT to take place.
For you in your naive lack of even any foresight on what the consequences would be by the introduction of the Romans passage to see that the whole of it shows your opinion to be false and mine correct, that has caused you to stumble logically and fall in your undeserved negative criticism of what it took me a lot of time to research, get lined up with Biblical doctrine, and post.
You need to take more pains to check out the sense of your illogical opinions, my FRiend. That is, if you want anyone to think that your comments are credible, not merely hare-brained as is your post here in #1403.
Blessed is the one
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the one
whose sin the LORD does not count against them
and in whose spirit is no deceit. — Psalm 32:1-2
1 John 1: …8If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar, and His word is not in us.…
Saying that sin will not affect the salvation of a “born-againer” means the exact same thing.
NO NO NO NO NO...
What do you think Ravi thought it meant, you know, as a OSAS believer?
I wonder, should we explain the consequences of sin in the life of a born again member of the Body of Christ Believers?
I don’t know why you would need to. You have REPETEDLY made it exceedingly clear that sin will not affect your salvation in any way (or Ravi’s), OSAS. That’s the bottom line, right?
Not even in the ballpark. I John 1:8-10 are about maintaining fellowship with God.
In fact, this passage falls within the section (1:8–2:29) that deals with 4 conditions for living in the light with God.
Each also has an internal template of how it is presented.
This is principle # 2.
What is not found in this passage is loss of salvation.
Actually, that is false, by virtue of ignoring everything posted to you about how the consequencesof sin does terribly affect the believer.
Which is why dear MHGinTN raised the issue of trying to explain it to you.
It seems clear from your posts, including this one, that you don't understand - perhaps willfull ignorance.
... but your posts also seem to reflect someone who isn't interested in learning truth, so there's that...
In any case, I wish you well.
——>And no matter how many times we correct that false accusation, they just double down on repeating it.
By all accounts it appears that Ravi felt he had a 00666 license to sin. As a OSAS/already judged after the moment of grace, he knew that future sin had no bearing on his salvation. He was going to heaven, no matter how much he sinned, no matter how many women he raped, no matter how many times he committed fornication, no matter how many times he committed adultery on his wife. Maybe he’s have a few less jewels in his crown, or maybe God will put him in the furthest corner of the New Jerusalem in a small condo, BUT AT LEAST HE’S GOING TO BE THERE. Ain’t OSAS/already judged after the moment of grace, terrific?
-—>and cannot conceive what the born from above spirit actually feels about sin because they love it too much.
Too bad the “born-againer” doesn’t realize that obedience to God’s law is mandatory after grace. But, Satan says Nahhhh, you’re fine.
-—>Saying that sin will not affect the salvation of a “born-againer” means the exact same thing.
Not even in the ballpark. I John 1:8-10 are about maintaining fellowship with God.
I’m in Dodger Stadium. You’re in Ballpark Franks Stadium, on a shelf, in Publix or Piggly Wiggly. (LOL)
——>Actually, that is false, by virtue of ignoring everything posted to you about how the consequencesof sin does terribly affect the believer.
But it doesn’t affect the SALVATION of a “born-againer”, now does it.
And while you are on a roll, will you PLEASE tell me the PENALTY for UNREPENTANT sin that everyone keeps telling me they told me, but didn’t?
There are reason that the phrase once saved always saved is a reflection of what GOD does honoring The Work of Jesus on our behalf, and that knowledge by God of all of our life when He responds to our act of the will in believing Him and believing in Whom He sent for our redemption, our spiritual redempion is but one of them.
IF God is acknowledging the work of Jesus on the cross for all of us, why would He, GOD, apply the righteousness of Christ for us then leave us to do works of righteousness to retain what only GOD could do for us?
When I first believed God knew what the rest of my life was going to be by merely looking at my future, which He can do so easily since He is, as Te Father Almighty, outside of time seeing all of time like a giant ball of -to quote Dr Who- all of timey whimey.
When God tells us in Paul's lwetter to the Hebrews that He, GOD, will remember nop more our sins with HIS new covenant, I take Him at His word because God cannot and will not lie or miss lead us. How can He remember my sins no more? By once and forever applying the righteous blood of Christ to redeem me. He redeems without changing His mind. Once you believe, it is God Who remembers your sin no more because He honors the work of Jesus, past, present, and future.
If we sin after being born again it grieves the abiding Holy Spirit Who is within our born again spirit, but he does not leave us to perhaps return if a proper ritual is invoked. He says He is with us always, even tot he end of the Earth. I take HIM at HIS WOrd. Cults? Not so much
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.