Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
Yeah, I would think so. I feel sorry for the guy who has to answer all the mail. "YES WE KNOW, YES WE KNOW" :)
Excellent point, I stand corrected.
You have been most kind to me when I require disabusing of a previously held idea.
But the requirements are. There is a transition between the sinful temporal existance and the pure heavenly one. Purgatory is what the transition is called. What would you call it?
It speaks of reward in 1 Cor 3, not punishment. It speaks of ministry, not salvation or ‘temporal punishment’ for forgiven sins...a contradiction if I ever saw one. Forgiven, but needing punishment...odd.
Purgatory is not about punishment. Even odder.
And it IS explicitly speaking of reward: “14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
Could it be salvation?
“There is a transition between the sinful temporal existance and the pure heavenly one.”
????????????????????????????????
“Purgatory is not about punishment. Even odder.”
“Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions. “
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
Let us go directly to the Catechism.
III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY
1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611
.......
The purification of the individual is based upon the Scriptural declaration that nothing that is not pure will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, the sinful who are Judged to Salvation will have to undergo some sort of purification in order to become pure.
just a question here...don’t the Catholics also use the term “Communion” for the Lord’s Supper???
Please tell me Mia is a horse...
______
Special shout out to you Petronski for that one, I had a good lol.
I have read this whole thread, it takes up most of my time when I come home from the gym. It’s like a novel, or like a a movie. Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes to mind, with a few posters playing the unwitting role of the Black Knight. “It’s only a flesh wound, come back here I’ll bite your leg off”
How can you snatch yourself? You can just walk.
I was just using language to fit the verse, but the idea is identical. When Jesus says no one can snatch them out of His (or the Father's) hands He means they cannot get away, by snatching, walking or any other method. The elect are God's to keep and give (Father to Son). There is no stated or implied "walking away" exception.
And what is a seal in your theological position? The seal of Biblical times is a wax blob imprinted with the signet (signature) ring of the ruler or writer of a letter. That ensures that the letter as written was genuine when given to the recipient.
That's right, the letter (or sometimes property) was genuinely OWNED by the sealer. It was an inviolate declaration to the world, and could not "legally" be broken by someone unauthorized. (I'm sure a messenger who broke a sealed document from one king to another was in HUGE trouble.)
I am saying the seal of God works the same way. The indwelling Holy Spirit serves as proof and notice that the property sealed (the believer) is owned by God, i.e. is one of God's children. This seal cannot be broken by one unauthorized, i.e. anyone other than God. The one sealed is not free to break the seal on himself. He is simply the property that IS sealed. He gets no say in the matter.
We'll convert you to Catholicism yet, my friend...
Well, as far as any announcements go, I already promised Hannity that I'd do it on his show. :)
In 8,563 Judith Anne did. Note the usage marked as Archaic. That is the one we are interested in.
Here's the Greek etymology:
I. anything that befals one, a suffering, calamity, misfortune, Soph., Thuc.: mostly in pl., Hdt., attic; proverb., τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε my sufferings have been my lessons, Hdt.II. a passive emotion or condition, Xen., Plat.III. in pl. incidents, occurrences, Plat.1 pa/^qhma, atos, to/,
Catechism: “1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.”
Scripture:
“14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” - Hebrews 10
“6For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” - Phil 1
“17By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.” - 1 John 4
“4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus...” - Ephesians 2
Heaven isn’t in the future. It starts now.
When are you sanctified? Now? Are you currently pure enough (sinless) to enter the Kingdom?
“6For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” - Phil 1
When is the day of Christ Jesus? We see it as the day of Salvation. What is the process of perfection?
“17By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.” - 1 John 4
Purgatory is not punishment.
“4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus...” - Ephesians 2
The process of transition between transgression and purity is referred to as Purgatory.
>My point is that in order to show that Jesus is part of the Triune God, it is necessary to show it, not to show that he is not a David or Moses or Elijah.<
My compilation does that Jesus must be, of necessity, God. You can’t be called God, including having have His unique titles ascribed to you, and manifest attributes that are His, and receive universal worship along with God, (Rev. 5:13,14) and not be God. It not only excludes super Davids, but affirms that the Word was God, and not “a god.”
>Everlasting meant to the people of the time to be forever - that is, within time. God exists out of time and therefore does not come into contention here. Therefore, if Jesus existed from the beginning of Time to the end of Time, it is still not proof of His Divinity.<
And then just how would God convey that His was eternal? And if He does, and He does, why make a distinction when the same is declared of Christ, “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting”, showing, before He was born, that He existed out of time? Mission impossible. Perhaps you think that Jesus was not inferring Deity when stated “I AM, and that John was not doing the same when He said that again,and so “they went backward, and fell to the ground.” Will you make Jesus simply “a mighty god,” and place him in competition with God, who says, there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any” (Is. 44:8) as referring to nature, while Rev. 1:8 calls Him Almighty, Is He an angel, even though Holy Spirit applies Ps. 102:25-27 and other texts which are ascribed to God? Jn. 12:34ff with Is. 6:1-10 declares that Jesus was the Lord God that Isaiah saw, when he uttered the prophet which John reiterate, in it completed sense. And so forth.
>The very contention that Jesus is the (a) son of God is strong evidence that He was Created by God the Father.<
Calling God ones father was not how the Jews addressed God, and a search of the 111 times “my father” occurs in the Bible will show this was to be future means of address, , (P. 89:26; Jer. 3:19) and not one they used before Jesus, and its use by him was that of His very own father denoting ontological oneness, making himself equal with God. Alla kai patera idion elege ton theon - “His own” (idion) - in a sense not true of others. (RWP). For in-deed, “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered him up for us all” (Rm. 8:32) Strange how the guardians of the Scriptures, as well as John, understood that, but today’s so-called Jews are blind.
>All the sons of God identified before or since were identified as creations of God.,
The 4 times the word is used in the O.T. refers to angels, but never is one called “the son of God”, nor is that term ever used of anyone except Jesus, and 45 times as such, and no angel ever called God his father, nor had part in creating things, etc. Rather, “let all the angels of God worship him.” (Heb. 1:6)
>Okay. Stop. I do not reject John; you are missing my point entirely. My point is that without the Gospel of John, the Trinity is not defensible as a doctrine.<
So why use it as an argument?
>>it was because the Scriptures best warrant the doctrine of the Trinity that is has so universally “stuck”, the exceptions usually being among those who look to a supreme teaching magisterium such as the WTS or LDS, etc.<<
>How many Protestants are there who believe in subordinationalism at the best, and a Duality or Oneness at the worst?<
Lets deal here also with semantics. A key aspect of the Reformation was that no authority is above the Bible, and as the basic tenants of the faith, as articulated in the apostles creed, were proved thereby, so they were upheld, and this was understood to affirm the Trinity. Thus by classical definition, those who deny it, and the supremacy of Scripture, as the WTS, LDS, etc, etc., do, are not properly called Protestant. The major evang. denoms, such as the S. Baptists, AoG, etc, are orthodox in this.
As for subordinationalism, as i understand it there are 2 types:
1. An ontological hierarchy in which the Son and Spirit are ontologically inferior to the Father (condemn at Nicea).
2. A relational hierarchy in which the Son is relationally subordinate to the Father but ontologically identical with Him - some kind of lesser God but they are all equal in attributes and diety.
I will try to me address this, with God’s help, for about the first time. Jesus is, and will be, subject to the Father, but clearly has to be Deity, having the same nature as the Father. how he could not know some time on early can be reconciled with His humbling Himself at that time. Also, the Trinity is basically incomprehensible, if “demandable”, and here i see the most critical thing being recognizing the Deity of all three persons. But i can allow that some sincere souls can hold some misunderstanding about it, in that, unlike some WTS souls, that some simple oneness Pentecostals are saved, as long as they trust Christ to save them by Biblical faith, which itself is attributing Deity to Him, and as Jesus is the express person of the Father, so He that seeth Him, seeth the Father, and He that trusts in Jesus, trusts in the Father,eve if they cannot see the distinction.
But in trying to reconcile the incomprehensible they accede to modualism, as did some early fathers. They will usually be off on other areas though as well, due to their leaders, who should know better, and are more accountable, and any believers therein they need to get out into sound churches, but the closer to basic orthodoxy then the more likely you will find some born again souls in an aberrant body.
What i am saying here in my fatigue is that an ontological hierarchy as well as modualism are the lesser aberrations, but denying the deity of the Father, Son and Spirit is the domain of cults, and if you truly deny the Christ - as those who trust in any means of salvation do - you certainly deny the Father and the Spirit.
But I really think you are playing Mr. impossible to convince, and dismissing the massive weight of evidence, due to your need to prove to the need for an infallible magisterium, yet it is such evidence which brought victory to the Trinitarians.
That is the one -——we-—— are interested in.
##########
I don’t recall voting on THAT! LOL.
And by what construction on reality did
Y’all decide that THAT was the only meaning that fit in this discussion?
I think I could roll with even that construction on reality but I fail to see the need to or even the ‘fittingness’ to do so.
You have to be born again Mark to have eternal life, which is by the gift of god. (Rm. 6:23), but rewards are earned, by laboring according the grace given:
(Mat 25:23) “His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.”
(1 Cor 3:8) “Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.”
(2 John 1:8) “Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a FULL reward.”
(Rev 22:12) “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.”
(Rev 11:18) “And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.”
Yes maam, but you might want to follow the thread with that Md Dawg and me. He tried to bite me more than once.
Actually, this is the one i had in mind: U.S. Religious landscape survey http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons Extensive.
Two sources on IFBC. http://wayoflife.org/
http://www.swordofthelord.com/
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.