Posted on 01/15/2012 10:10:29 PM PST by bibletruth
1 Timothy 2:5 ...one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
If there is a debate here then it must follow Bible Scriptures to advocate reproofs, corrections, and instructions on how God the Father has ordained and appointed someone other than HIS SON Christ Jesus as that mediator. In light of 1 Timothy 2:5 - there is no debate here since God's Word clearly points out that that mediator is is Christ Jesus, who has been appointed 2,000 years ago between God and men.
We are told that no imperfect being can enter the kingdom, and we are because of Adam’s fall, imperfect beings. It all depends on what is meant by being washed clean in the blood of the lamb.
“The only “unpardonable” sin is rejecting Christ, unbelief - that is sinning against the Holy Spirit who reveals Jesus. “</I> but what is a state of mortal since but a state of unbelief? Unbelief is a final rejection of Jesus, such as was what Judas did.
Of course not......
***roll eyes***
I'll tell you what though. There's a HUGE disparity between what FRoman Catholic state Catholicism should be all about and what it really IS all about to the average, Joe on the street lay Catholic.
Perhaps the FRoman Catholics should get out of their cloistered little groups and rub elbows with the unwashed and find out what they're really thinking.
The attitudes and actions I've had other Catholics admit to me are so common as to be about universal. Not only among the ones I've met and talked to in real life, but even the former Catholics who post here on FR and whom I've never met because we're from different areas of the country.
If FRoman Catholics think that what we've been relating is not representative of on the ground Catholicism, they are really, really disconnected from on the ground Catholicism.
Death is the penalty for ANY sin. Once that sin is committed, even if all you do is sin once in your life, you have broken God's commandments are die.
James 2:8-13 8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
Partiality is a sin. How many people have not shown partiality in their lives? And how many Catholics who say that you must repent of each and every sin otherwise God will not forgive it, have done this, not even realizing it at times?
And this business of grading sin into venial and mortal? Hogwash.
Sin is sin. Rebellion is rebellion. Law breaking is law breaking.
All sin results in death.
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Catholics believe in infused righteousness —God truly makes us holy by dwelling within us— rather than imputed righteousness —God declaring us holy— by “covering over” our sins with His atoning Sacrifice. The latter seems to me to contradict God’s Nature as Truth. Maybe I misunderstand the doctrine.
I’m better able to argue grace/worksfaith/salvation philosophically, but ill do my best to respond to these verses.
With regard to Romans 4:20-25, the Catholic Bible uses the word “credit” rather than “impute”:
http://www.usccb.org/bible/rom/4:3
* [4:2–5] Rom 4:2 corresponds to Rom 4:4, and Rom 4:3–5. The Greek term here rendered credited means “made an entry.” The context determines whether it is credit or debit. Rom 4:8 speaks of “recording sin” as a debit. Paul’s repeated use of accountants’ terminology in this and other passages can be traced both to the Old Testament texts he quotes and to his business activity as a tentmaker. The commercial term in Gn 15:6, “credited it to him,” reminds Paul in Rom 4:7–8 of Ps 32:2, in which the same term is used and applied to forgiveness of sins. Thus Paul is able to argue that Abraham’s faith involved receipt of forgiveness of sins and that all believers benefit as he did through faith.
* [4:3] Jas 2:24 appears to conflict with Paul’s statement. However, James combats the error of extremists who used the doctrine of justification through faith as a screen for moral self- determination. Paul discusses the subject of holiness in greater detail than does James and beginning with Rom 6 shows how justification through faith introduces one to the gift of a new life in Christ through the power of the holy Spirit.
Be we are reckoned perfect when we put our faith in Christ and His finished work on the cross.
His righteousness is credited to our account THROUGH FAITH.
It can only be through faith for two reasons. One is that we've already sinned, thereby making it IMPOSSIBLE for us to attain the Christlike righteousness and perfection necessary to be able to enter into heaven.
The other is that all our good works are as filthy rags to God. Adding our filthy rags to the pure spotless righteousness of Christ, represented are pure white linen, cannot make that righteousness any more righteous or pure. Ont he contrary, the contrast will only go to show how filthy our righteousness really is.
Offering God our filthy righteousness in exchange for His spotless, holy, pure, perfection is an affront to God. What chutzpah.
Made perfect and sinless. ALL sin atoned for.
The latter is Scriptural. Several passages have already been posted upthread to support that.
But without the imputed righteousness of Christ, His perfect, pure righteousness given to us by God, we cannot see God.
Nothing imperfect can enter heaven and stand in God's presence. The only thing that can make if is His perfection.
Since we can't attain it ourselves, by our own efforts, the only way we can get it is if someone gives it to us and the only one capable of giving us the holy, pure, righteousness required by God is God Himself.
The mechanism by which that holy, pure, righteousness can be transferred to us is by faith. We can't earn it by offering our filthy rags righteousness in payment for or exchange for it. It HAS to be a gift. Faith is the key that unlocks that and makes it available to us. That is the only mechanism by which the transaction can legally (in God's economy) occur.
Until people understand that Christ paid the price in total and has freely given the assurance of eternal life with Him they will never understand the promise of “Who the Son Has Set Free, Is Free Indeed”.
Your previous post from the Catechism describes the Catholic view that initial grace - the kind that begins the relationship with God - is a gift, —
Yes. Unmeritted. I think this is referring to “actual grace,” which is a God-initiated, internal prompting of the Spirit to turn toward Him, to “repent and believe.”
—but that continuing grace —
I believe this is referring to sanctifying grace, or the Holy Spirit dwelling within our souls...
—the kind necessary for ultimate salvation - is infused through works of righteousness—
.
A perfect act of charity, I.e., loving God for His sake -because of who he
is— and repentance for ones sins (one way in which the Holy Spirit is initially infused). The exact manner in which grace and free will work together in initial justification is unsettled. Generally, acts of charity are a reflection of sanctifying grace within us.
— and the sacraments.—
Another way the Holy Spirit is infused...
—This view also claims that all the grace gifted or infused through a life up to the point of death can be totally lost if there is even one “mortal” sin committed that is unconfessed and unpenanced. Is this also your view?—
Yes. Why? Because sin and the Holy Spirit cannot dwell together. Nothing unholy can enter heaven.
Meaning that you accept Luther’s solution to the connundrum in which he found himself as a monk who was disappoint in his decision to enter the religious life. he had taken vows to follow a rule, a rule that he expected to lead him to holiness, but did not. When the Church refused to accept his views, he repudiated not only his vows as an Augustine but his allegiance to the Roman Church and, of course, all the part of the Holy Tradition that did not serve his theory of salvation. What did serve his theory was a reliance on the Bible, which he could interpret in a way consistent with that theory.
What did serve his *theory* (for lack of better wording) is reliance on Christ and His finished work on the cross which paid for our sins and is capable of giving us the perfect, pure, holy, righteousness that God requires, without which it is impossible to see Him.
And it's not even a theory. It's a need. We NEED it to see God. We can't see God without it and there's no way for us to get it without God giving it to us. We CAN'T earn it.
We can't trade a pile of manure for a costly diamond and expect the transaction to go through.
Until Catholics really get it in their head and heart that there is NOTHING that we can do to attain the kind of sinless perfection that God requires, they will continue on in their bondage to works, forever trying in vain to be good enough for God to accept when they see Him face to face.
And by then it will be too late.
Hebrews 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,...
Conversations with you are difficult because you seem to presuppose others beliefs, without seeming to read what they actually write, unlike others on this thread, who are actually, respectfully, seeking understanding of the Catholic position.
All of your objections are addressed in #385.
Of course grace/salvation is a gift. Of course nothing unholy can enter heaven. So which makes more sense, that Christ infuses us with the Holy Spirit, making us truly holy and worthy of heaven, or that he “covers” our sins with his atoning sacrifice, and allows us entry into heaven?
At best, the latter seems to be in tension with Christ’s nature as Truth (and Justice and Holiness), and at worst, this doctrine is in contradiction with Christ’s nature.
Thank you for this post, written with clarity and charity.
You’ve presented it well and without length of words.
Surprisingly, Wikipedia has a great entry under “imputed righteousness”, which includes a an excellent comparison of “imputed, infused and imparted righteousness.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_righteousness
So Christ’s only got things started and we have to work to complete what He started? What blasphemy!
No matter how you cut it, the Catholic church teaches that Jesus isn’t good enough.
There is so much baggage added to the finished work of Christ on the cross, that they’ve lost sight of that as being sufficient.
Jesus isn’t good enough, so they have to add: baptism, confession, communion, confirmation, penance, the rosary, holy water, Mary, saints, their own good works, etc.....
It boggles the mind that some think and teach that the sacrifice of Jesus isn’t good enough. God thought so. Jesus said so on the cross with *It is finished*.
The Catholic Church is in the Salvation BUSINESS. They will NEVER declare your bill Paid In Full. The day they do that is the day they have to close their doors. And we know that's not going to happen. Until Christ closes their doors for good.
Well, a theory, because no one before Luther ever said anything like it. Anyway, it must have resonated with the monks, because virtually the whole Austin order followed him.
It seems to me that their theory is more legalistic. I like the image of Jesus the great emancipator: he frees us from the shackles of sin. We are now free to behave as men ought to behave, except that we tend to be like that dog returning to his vomit. Reminding me that in the Middle East, they are not sentimental about dogs. Hogs and dogs are street cleaners.
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.