| 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.
I’m ok with that.
Because I think you are.
Your defensiveness makes me think it’s true all the more as well.
And I have good memories of you rageposting at me.
Phil, your theology is from a false prophet. False prophets by definition do not speak for God. You follow a literally damnable theology, and your Biblical analysis is worse than worthless.
You’re convincing no one except yourself.
Yeah, me.
You can be or not; I don’t know your inner thought. But is this really serving the cause of the Gospel?
I’d rather you be at peace with each other, as much as possible.
EGW does not trump the bible and never will. Sola Scriptura is what I believe. (Not fake spirit theology like MHG)
You’re convincing no one except yourself.
And you know that how exactly?
Honestly, I'm fascinated with how much you presume. Everyone has a framework from which they interpret scripture. There were points being made that don't fit the current framework of many. My experience is people will immediately reject whatever doesn't fit their framework.
The idea that the Jerusalem Council had an expectation that gentiles would learn about the Torah in the local synagogues goes against the framework from which the typical Christian works. That framework says being a new creation in Messiah is COMPLETELY incompatible with the works of the Torah, no matter what is the motivation. Yet if, in fact, the Council did have that expectation, then it would indicate something entirely different. It makes them feel uncomfortable. That verse must say something else. It doesn't agree with their framework or how they interpret the preceding verses.
Many Christians claim some of the Torah is still effective, if it were ratified by our Messiah in the Apostolic scriptures. Many say the Ten Commandments are still effective, but most of the Torah is no longer. Yet, the Torah also contains the details of the Commandments. It becomes even more interesting when people say only some of the Commandments are still effective, choosing to obey some and ignore others.
We have people at each other's throat over whether the Sabbath is the first or seventh day. In this very forum, we have people bearing false witness, using words such as cult in the same manner and for the same reason as the left uses racism and racist. We have people so angry, they may have, at least temporarily, crossed over the line into hate, which Messiah equates to murder.
Scripture says hearts of stone will be circumcised and replaced with hearts of flesh, upon which God will write His Torah. This is a regenerative act completely under His sovereign control and completely outside of ours, impossible to accomplish on our own. He bestows this upon whom He chooses. He causes one to seek His son, to entrust oneself to His son, to have faith, and to desire to imitate His son, our High Priest and Mediator.
For myself, I take great joy that I have an effective High Priest and Mediator. Although it's a daily struggle, I desire to be an imitator of Messiah, to be conformed to His likeness, to walk in His ways.
I presume many here feel the same.
Baruch haba b'shem YHWH (Psalm 118:26)
LOL
Phil, your interpretation of Scripture comes from a false prophet.
It is by definition, a damned theology.
Even the devil can quote Scripture for his own ends, as SDA’s false prophet did.
I do not care in the slightest what Scripture you post, because the end result will be, as defined by the Scriptural definition of a false prophet, a false theology that leads to eternal death.
Stop being an SDA and maybe I’ll be willing to talk with you, but as long as you parrot their theology it’s not worth wasting time on.
And you know that how exactly?
***
Welllll...
The Catholics on this thread hold to a theology that says that you’re condemned to Hell because you’re not Catholic, so I doubt you’re convincing them.
The Christians on this thread know that you’re preaching from the theology of a false prophet, so I doubt you’re convincing them either.
And any SDAs on this board already believe the same thing as you.
Is there any reason I should disbelieve what people teach and confess in their own words?
Even the devil can quote Scripture for his own ends, as SDA’s false prophet did.
Same for Andy Woods, et al. (Robert Breaker literally makes me laugh)
2 Peter 3: 3 knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
Welllll...
I suppose we should wait until everything plays out before deciding if I will have convinced anyone? In the meantime I’ll keep at it.
BTW, have you heard back from everyone who has ever visited the site and read through any of the conversations of which you reference, whether they left posts or not? Let me know when you have.
Which is why I’m sticking around to counter your false teaching.
So you admit that false prophets exist? Good for you.
—> In the meantime I’ll keep at it.
I knew another cultist who preached to traffic during rush hour. Same result, but I guess you get some sort of merits added to your worthiness and dedication or something.
You’d better tell your fellow Catholics then ‘cause they keep telling me I’m going to Hell for exactly the reason I stated.
Don’t blame me for trusting that they’re being truthful about what they believe.
That is not correct. Very clearly, the book is addressed to ALL Hebrews, but most particularly those who were going through the era of those living through the transition from God's termination of the mosaic/Davidic Covenan to the New one announced at the "Last Supper" and fully instituted on the next day of Pentecost.
If your three years of study was not taking that unpresumptuous view, then your study was not worthy of the time spent on it. However, you did NOT answer my question. What is your problem?
As a matter of fact, the purpose for which you attempted to hijack the course of exchange between Philsworld and myself is not of interest to me at this point.
Your dodging the answers to my question is of import, a very core issue to the whole epistle. Ignore that, and your "scholarship" has little value. Combing through Post #867 shows little response to what I tested you with. I don't have the time nor the inclination to wrangle with you any further.
Except for his immediate family, do you know of anyone else that listened to Noah? Nope. He just might have been regarded as a cultist in his day. I’m sure he was called all sorts of names and laughed at, over those 120 years of preaching/building. What were his results? Nothing has changed.
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.