Catholics Don't Believe You Can Earn Your Way to Heaven

Tradition | 03-06-2022 | CharlesOconnell

[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.

[Mark17]

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the law, because these things are pointless and worthless. Reject a divisive man after a first and second admonition, knowing that such a man is corrupt and sinful; he is self-condemned. (Titus 3:9-11)

I agree BB, but does it also apply to someone who has been admonished 47 million times, even though Elsie told me a billion times, not to exaggerate. 😀🤗

[Mark17]

Thanks bro. 👍😀😂

[boatbums]

The key words here are “foolish, pointless, and worthless” Discussing the false doctrine of OSAS is neither one of those descriptors. It actually will decide the salvation of countless Christians. Paul goes to great lengths to warn us against continued, willful sin AFTER GRACE. Christ, in Revelation, LITERALLY, brings up that doctrine, that of the Nicolaitans, in Rev 2. You and your friends teach this doctrine as Gospel.

Just stop! You are intentionally bearing false witness here. I know this has been hashed over and over with you on myriad threads - NO ONE is telling people they can freely live in sin because of God's grace! That actually was the Gnostic heresy - they didn't even believe Jesus had a physical body. You insist you believe in salvation by grace through faith but then you blow it all up by declaring unless a believer lives in perfect obedience to God's commandments, he will lose his salvation. How does one lose something he hasn't yet ultimately received? And if my salvation is dependent on how I live my life (works), how can it be by grace? It's either grace OR works. God says it's GRACE. Until you open your heart to the pure gospel of salvation by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God ALONE, any further arguing with you is pointless and a waste of time. If nothing else, you need to stop accusing us of teaching Gnostic heresy as "our" gospel. That is a LIE.

As I'm sure you will continue to try to drag this on and on, know that I am done discussing this with you.

[boatbums]

The key words here are “foolish, pointless, and worthless” Discussing the false doctrine of OSAS is neither one of those descriptors. It actually will decide the salvation of countless Christians. Paul goes to great lengths to warn us against continued, willful sin AFTER GRACE. Christ, in Revelation, LITERALLY, brings up that doctrine, that of the Nicolaitans, in Rev 2. You and your friends teach this doctrine as Gospel.

Just stop! You are intentionally bearing false witness here. I know this has been hashed over and over with you on myriad threads - NO ONE is telling people they can freely live in sin because of God's grace! That actually was the Gnostic heresy - they didn't even believe Jesus had a physical body. You insist you believe in salvation by grace through faith but then you blow it all up by declaring unless a believer lives in perfect obedience to God's commandments, he will lose his salvation. How does one lose something he hasn't yet ultimately received? And if my salvation is dependent on how I live my life (works), how can it be by grace? It's either grace OR works. God says it's GRACE. Until you open your heart to the pure gospel of salvation by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God ALONE, any further arguing with you is pointless and a waste of time. If nothing else, you need to stop accusing us of teaching Gnostic heresy as "our" gospel. That is a LIE.

As I'm sure you will continue to try to drag this on and on, know that I am done discussing this with you.

[boatbums]

He certainly ignored a lot of Scripture I posted in answer to his assertions.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

He certainly ignored a lot of Scripture I posted in answer to his assertions.

Even worse, in a day or two it starts over - one like this will circle back and tell you that you never answered his questions, nor addressed his points and demand you defend yourself.

Then if you make the error of posting again, one like this will give a pro-forma denial and begin to rage post about OSAS being satanic, about keeping the Sabbath, about keeping the law, and on and on.

I'm starting to think this is a robotic program...

[Philsworld]

——>perfect obedience to God’s commandments

No, that actually is bearing false witness against me, just like your friend Luircin said that I “outright confessed that I ignore Scripture that I don’t like...”

[Philsworld]

If nothing else, you need to stop accusing us of teaching Gnostic heresy as “our” gospel. That is a LIE.

---

Why would I do that? IT’S THE TRUTH (no matter how many times you say it isn’t).

[Luircin]

This could be so easily resolved if the cultist would simply say that it’s all about a point of view. From the temporal point of view, someone who claims to have faith may or may not.

But those whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life that he has promised he shall never blot out? Eternal security. It can’t not be, because God wrote the book.

But since God knows those names and we do not, we should nevertheless avoid sin not just for reasons we have listed, but because from a temporal POV, we might ruin potential salvation with unrepentance.

You could argue against that, but it took me all of 5 seconds to come up with, if a cultist was TRULY speaking in love.

But since the apparent motive is to strut around and boast about how much better he is than us because he (doesn’t actually) keep a Sabbath Commandment that was already fulfilled, this will not happen.

[Luircin]

You violated the Sabbath regulations against lighting a fire in your home with every keystroke you made yesterday. Don’t lecture me about sin, considering how eagerly you violate the Law. And for what? Internet points?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

… but then you aren’t emotionally unbalanced and under authoritarian control, like say a cultist would be.

The bottom line is that a cultist is gonna cult.

Because they are captured by the cult they can’t seek truth.
Because they have the joy sucked out of them, their remaining major emotion is anger against the joyful.
Because they are unaccepted by God and always a misstep away from hell, they are envious and in denial of those “accepted in the Beloved.”

It’s a trap. The best we can do is pray.

[Philsworld]

You sound like a Pharisee. Now, if I had gathered wood and built a fire, then somehow converted that into electricity for the sole purpose of witnessing to people on FR, then you just might have a point. But, you don’t. LOL. Pathetic.

[Elsie]

Hebrews 10:23-27

 

²³ Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)

²⁴ And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

²⁵ Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

²⁶ For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

²⁷ But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

 

 

[Philsworld]

You are wasting your breath/energy/time.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Hebrews 10:28–30 (TC):

“Taken cumulatively, the three clauses in v 29 define persistent sin (v 26a) as an attitude of contempt for the salvation secured through the priestly sacrifice of Christ. Nothing less than a complete rejection of the Christian faith satisfies the descriptive clauses in which the effects of the offense are sketched.”

“Willful rebels under the Old Covenant only lost their lives (cf. Deut. 17:2–7; 13:8), but willful rebels under the New Covenant lose an eternal reward. Not only so but God often begins to punish modern apostates in this life.

“It was commonly inferred [incorrectly] in the Early Church from this and other passages in the epistle that forgiveness for all kinds of post-baptismal sin, inadvertent as well as deliberate, was ruled out.”

10:30–31

“In Deuteronomy 32, which the writer quoted here twice (Deut. 32:35–36, 40–41), Moses warned the Israelites against apostatizing. That was this writer’s point here as well. It is a terrifying prospect for a believer who has renounced his or her faith to fall under God’s hand of chastisement. Note that the writer addressed this warning to believers, though many interpreters have applied it to unbelievers.

“Actually, Heb. 10:30, 31 forms a parallel reference to II Cor. 5:10, 11, and the preceding verses (vv. 26–29) provide additional information concerning that facet of the judgment seat associated with the ‘terror of the Lord.’”

[MHGinTN]

I wonder, perhaps Elsie believes he is powerful enough to wrest himself out of God’s hands? He and the cultists are in agreement on that count. More’s the pity ...

[Luircin]

You’re the one who’s screaming about the Law, Phil.

What’s the consequence for deliberate, unrepentant, willful, and repeated violation of the Law, Phil?

Aren’t you going to follow your own laws, Phil?

Or are you just a hypocrite, Phil?

[Philsworld]

——>I wonder, perhaps Elsie believes he is powerful enough to wrest himself out of God’s hands?

All he or anyone has to do is follow Ravi’s example. (Ravi chose the way of the Nicolaitans. Ravi chose poorly. But of course he only did what he knew and was taught in OSAS)

It is willful, unrepentant sin, that will keep you out of heaven. Paul gives us so many warnings.

[Philsworld]

——>Aren’t you going to follow your own laws, Phil?

What laws are those? I keep God’s 10 commandment, moral, and dietary laws. I’m not concerned with how many steps you take on the sabbath to get to Red Lobster.

[Luircin]

Isn’t that nice? Phil and ONLY Phil gets an exception.

It must be so nice to be special like Phil, because he gets to violate the Sabbath because of the fig leaf of “witness,” but no one else does.

I choose to worship on Sunday because it’s the best way to witness to those around me. Do I get an exception to the not-God’s-Law SDA code like Phil does? No, of course not, because Phil is special.

Behold, more SDA hypocrisy. Why would anyone want to be part of a religion that so easily violates its own tenants?