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.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Seems there’s no perfect result no matter your choice!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Thanks bro!

Still have no idea what to choose.

[Elsie]

I sure would NOT choose to go back to my old, natural lenses!

[MHGinTN]

I also have macular degeneration, probably from too much time in the bright sunshine (tennis then golf). My eyes are not even close tot he same. One is in need of mega magnification and the other has developed ‘wrinkles’ in the macula. It drives the testers crazy trying to get that flip flop mechanism to level out.

[MHGinTN]

I alhave astigmatism in one eye that is more severe than the other. The glasses made for me to wear for far vision actually make focus harder with the correction to my astigmatism since I actually use eccentric vision because of the macular blaqnk spot at the center of my view ... I look slightly to the side of what I want to focus upon.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

That’s encouraging!

My bride chose mutifocus lenses. Far is very good. Near has been a problem.

I’m starting to ask everyone I know about their choice and experiences.

So thanks to you both.

[imardmd1]

Give us the whole sentence, Els, not merely part of it.

". . . other than his^(own) disciples."

[imardmd1]

The baptism commanded by Jesus was not that of John the Baptizer, as Paul well knew (Acts 19:3-5). So, for Jesus' baptism, who was the first person doing it, and who was the first baptized, eh? Who baptized the twelve followers that He particularly chose to accompany Him and learn from Him?

Did not He, as John 3:22 and 4:2 tell us? Jesus did baptize, if only the twelve. But it was not John's bapstism, was it. So if not, what was the purpose and result of His baptism at Aenon?

[Elsie]

ouch!

[Elsie]

Give us the whole sentence, Els, not merely part of it.

". . . other than his^(own) disciples."

 

Ok; if that'll make you happier...

 

 

Actually Jesus DID baptize the twelve men that He recruited for His inner circle of students.

"When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but* his disciples,) he left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee" (Jn. 4:1-3 AV)
--------
* ἀλλά = but; an exception according to Thayer, properly rendered "other than" contextually (Acts 26:22, 2 Cor. 1:13 typically)

 

I must assume that you did NOT click on the link found here:

 

To: MHGinTN

The passage tells you He baptized his twelve but not others.

HMMMmmm...

That's what I get for having Hoosier as my first language.

Plain American English eludes me from time-to-time.

---

Perhaps these guys can explain it better.

---

(I assume that AV really means King James Version)

1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

3 He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.

434 posted on 3/18/2022, 8:21:34 PM by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

 

 

 

[Elsie]

Your understanding of what the KJV states is a bit different than what these translations say.
Your argument is with THEM, not Me.

 

 

 

John 4:2

 

New International Version
although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.

 

New Living Translation
(though Jesus himself didn’t baptize them—his disciples did).

 

New American Standard Bible
(although Jesus Himself was not baptizing; rather, His disciples were),

 

NASB 1995
(although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),

 

NASB 1977
(although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),

 

Amplified Bible
(although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),

 

Christian Standard Bible
(though Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were),

 

Holman Christian Standard Bible
(though Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),

 

Contemporary English Version
But Jesus' disciples were really the ones doing the baptizing, and not Jesus himself.

 

Good News Translation
Actually, Jesus himself did not baptize anyone; only his disciples did.)

 

GOD'S WORD® Translation
(Actually, Jesus was not baptizing people. His disciples were.)

 

International Standard Version
although it was not Jesus who did the baptizing but his disciples—

 

NET Bible
(although Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were),

 

Weymouth New Testament
though Jesus Himself did not baptize them, but His disciples did--

 

 

Your mileage may vary: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=did+jesus+baptize+anyone&ia=web

 

 

 

[Elsie]

So if not, what was the purpose and result of His baptism at Aenon?

The Book says " to fulfil all righteousness" - whatever THAT means.

---

John 3:22-30

²² After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. ²³ Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were coming and being baptized. ²⁴ (This was before John was put in prison.) ²⁵ An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. ²⁶ They came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.”

²⁷ To this John replied, “A person can receive only what is given them from heaven. ²⁸ You yourselves can testify that I said, ‘I am not the Messiah but am sent ahead of him.’ 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. ³⁰ He must become greater; I must become less.”^[h]

---

Matthew 3:13-15 KJV

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Wet Placemarker… but not a wet baby to be found in Scripture.

……….

[Doctrine of Infant Baptism on This FR Thread:

“It was reported that some people thought surely there must’ve been a baby in a household somewhere, since it happened sometimes, and surely that baby could’ve gotten wet, if it existed, and they sometimes did exist, according to the custom of the time, when a household could’ve included an infant, and it could’ve been wet, and because we always did it that way - well for a pretty long time anyway - and anyway, we can imagine clearly that we hear the assumed cries of an assumed infant, that we assume was wet...]

[Philsworld]

“What is the penalty for unrepentant sin?” There is no penalty for the believer. This has been paid at the cross before the sin was ever committed.

------------------------------------------------------------

You said in another that your PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE sins were forgiven by God's grace (salvation through faith). That IS your doctrine of OSAS. Paul says otherwise...

Romans 3:23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

The Penalty for unrepentant sin is DEATH. God's grace covers PAST unrepentant sin. After grace, REPENTANT sin is covered. 00666 Ravi (license to sin unrepentantly) is not covered by grace (if in fact he was unrepentant). We are expected to ABIDE IN HIS LOVE, and that means keeping his commandments in OBEDIENCE. We are under an even HIGHER duty to obey after being saved by grace, for what Christ did for us on the cross.

Romans 6:1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Ah, come on man, none of that matters. Everyone that believes gets a free pass. Obedience after grace doesn't matter. FR guys told me that. We are the saints that will inherit the kingdom of God. Obedience to God's law is for the suckers that are lost, like Phil and his SDA organization. See you in the clouds, Yippee!

Ummm, no.

Revelation 14:12Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Revelation 22:12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Eccl:13Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

We will ALL be judged.

1 Corinthians 5:10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 11Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

Romans 2:11For there is no respect of persons with God. 12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

God's saints are commandment keepers, and they obey. Unrepentant OSAS false doctrine sinners will not be in heaven.

[Philsworld]

The faith of Jesus and the keeping of the commandments represent two important aspects of Christian living. The commandments of God are a transcript of the character of God. They set forth the divine standard of righteousness that God would have man attain but which in his unregenerate state he cannot attain to. “The carnal mind … is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7). Despite his best attempts, man continually comes short of the glory of God (see on Rom. 3:23). But Jesus came to enable men to be restored to the divine image. He came to show men what the Father is like, and in this sense amplified the moral law. Through His power men are enabled to keep the divine requirements (see on Rom. 8:3, 4) and thus reflect the divine image. The remnant church thus honors the commandments of God, and observes them, not in any legalistic sense but as a revelation of the character of God and of Christ, who dwells in the heart of the true believer (Gal. 2:20).

SDA Bible Commentary on Rev 14:12

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Unfortunately, you are back to your usual "see & say" words in Scripture without context, or understanding of the totality of Scripture. No insult intended. It would be impossible to do otherwise for someone in your situation.

As the Greek translation says of a person who is yet to be saved...

"But the unregenerate man of the highest intellectual attainments does not grant access to the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are folly, and he is not able to come to know them because they are investigated in a spiritual realm.

But the spiritual man investigates indeed all things, but he himself is not being probed by anyone. For who has come to know experientially the Lord’s mind, he who will instruct Him? But as for us, Christ’s mind we have."

Wuest (1 Co 2:14–16)

Because the things I would write to explain the passages you quoted wouldn't be understood, I will pass. What you can and should grasp is the Gospel of Grace that can lead to your salvation apart from works.

I truly wish that for you.

[Philsworld]

I truly wish that for you.

---

Whether that’s true or not doesn’t matter. Your advice will (and may already have) cause/caused Christians to lose their salvation, believing that God’s grace covers past, current, and future sins and REPENTANCE doesn’t even figure into any of it. OSAS is a false sense of security, plain and simple. You and the the rest of your OSAS band thumb your nose at obedience. Why would you need to repent for anything? You are already guaranteed salvation and entrance into heaven and God’s commandments are for suckers.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Again, Phil, there isn't anything you can say about Scripture that anyone should believe, given your rejection of the Gospel.

Your advice will (and may already have) cause/caused Christians to lose their salvation

That is a pretty good summary of Falseworld.

But I wish salvation for you and I understand that it will have to be God who opens your eyes and heart, as he did for Paul and did for me. I don't believe anyone can be "argued into the kingdom"...

I do recommend you trust Him now without being struck by lightening!

[Philsworld]

Again, Phil, there isn’t anything you can say about Scripture that anyone should believe, given your rejection of the Gospel.

---

No, you claim I reject the Gospel, because it doesn’t agree with YOUR false interpretation.

A license to sin is a false interpretation of the gospel, even in your perfect world. God forbid that you teach others to break God’s commandments (that’s what OSAS in effect does).

[Philsworld]

Wuest

---

Kenneth Wuest, who taught at the Moody Bible Institute?