Posted on 11/02/2012 4:50:22 AM PDT by NYer
! But all will know, and which is still a tragic thought, which ought to makes us diligent to cleave to the Lord and work while it is still day.
Thank God for your appreciation and encouragement.
Actually, while infallible decreeing she is infallible is not Scriptural, nor is needed for writings to be established as Scripture and truth to be preserved (as that was a reality before there was a church in Rome), she does not say that she needs no Scriptural basis for her teachings, only that they cannot contradict Scripture.
But which is according to her interpretation, and thus the real basis for assurance that Rome is the OTC (etc.) is that Rome said so herself.
As for the Bereans, they did treat Scripture as the supreme authority by which truth claims were tested, while as far as a Scriptural basis is concerned, Rome is left seeking seeking to extrapolate support for her claim to supremacy (over Scripture and all on earth) out of the church being the pillar and ground of the truth and other texts which do not teach that.
But as far as “Turn off your brain and swallow whatever you’re told,” those days when RCs were exhorted to implicitly submit to Rome extensively are overall gone, though they typically trust in her presumed power for salvation, but Rome treats the most nominal as members in life and in death, and in any case most of what RCs believe and practice is open to some interpretation, including which and how many things are not open to interpretation.
I know that they’ll know then, when it’s too late.
Jesus said, “It is FINISHED”.
There is some bizarre twist in human nature that just seems to compel us to feel that we have to do something ourselves, that somehow we have to make restitution for wrongs done.
That’s what makes faith alone so hard for some people and yet Scripture is so very clear that it’s by grace, through faith in Christ and that is ALL.
Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.
God doesn’t need our *good works* but it is an honor to ANYONE to be taken at their word and I don’t doubt that it pleases God immensely that people simply believe Him and trust Him. The Pharisees were full of good works and kept the Law flawlessly and what good did it do them? Jesus had some pretty harsh condemnation for them. Whitewashed tombs, I believe was the phrase.
Actually, the word used does not mean finished, it means consummated.
Although there is room for conjecture and disagreement, it occurred to me during a Seder that since it followed Jesus receiving the sour wine on the Hysop reed in was in fulfillment of Mark 14:25. It was the announcement of the "Nirtzah", the Fourth Cup of the Seder, the Cup of Acceptance and the conclusion of the Seder.
Peace be with you
The Church condemns no one and obedience is nothing more than to freely act in faith.
Glad to help. Also see http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#15
And as for restitution, repentance does requires works which correspond to it, (Acts 26:20) and yet God can count the intent as the act even in RC theology, while the postmortem consequences for sin is that of 1Cor. 3 dealt with in post 55, while I think some saints will shine more than others, though all will be joy in the end because it glorifies God.
Actually, no, it doesn't mean "consummated", except, ironically, in the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible. The Greek word is teleÅ, and it means:
1) to bring to a close, to finish, to end
2) to perform, execute, complete, fulfil, (so that the thing done corresponds to what has been said, the order, command etc.)
b) with reference also to the form, to do just as commanded, and generally involving the notion of time, to perform the last act which completes a process, to accomplish, fulfil
3) to pay
In John 19:30 the word means, "It is finished." Christ satisfied God's justice by dying for all to pay for the sins of the elect. These sins can never be punished again since that would violate God's justice. Sins can only be punished once, either by a substitute or by yourself.
That is why we CAN know that the ONLY place of purgation is the cross of Christ, He alone is who cleanses us, His blood is the propitiation for ALL our sins and once we die, if we have received Christ's gift of eternal life, we will be with Him in heaven - no need for a stop or stay at a cleaning station.
For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:14)
And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:10)
Then why did the various Bulls and Councils specifically state that those who were not in subjection to the Pope and submissive to whatever is deemed de fide could not be saved? Why does the Catechism still state: "When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed, and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."? Sorry, but it does not sound like someone "freely acts in faith".
On this subject of Purgatory, the magesterium developed the dogma over centuries taking the musings of various theologians and "fathers" and then went snippet hunting to try to find Scriptures to pass it off as something that is part of the Christian faith. The whole idea would not have passed had the Apostles ever considered it because it flies against the very notion of "absent from the body, present with the Lord" (II Cor. 5:8) as well as the blood of Christ being the propitiation for all sin (I John 2:2; I John 4:10; Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17). That word, propitiation, refers back to the Mercy Seat of the Holy of Holies, where the blood was poured for the sins of the people on the Day of Atonement. Back before Christ died, that sacrifice was for a covering of sin (expiation) but Christ's blood made complete and final atonement for sin and it is not covered but removed completely. Sin that has been atoned for does not need any more done for it.
I understand the Catholic viewpoint having to do with "temporal" punishments due for sins we have committed and the idea of consequences for harm we do to others. But as far as God is concerned, the payment for sin is death - blood - and Christ made that payment in our place. The value of making it up to those we have wronged is only helpful in this life - and we SHOULD seek forgiveness from others we have sinned against and make restitution, if possible. But it has no place in life after death for those who are God's. We have no need for cleaning up our souls through some kind of half-way house before we can be allowed into heaven. Through faith in Christ we have been justified and sanctified and we are found IN CHRIST - not having our own righteousness, but GOD'S righteousness THROUGH Christ. (Phil. 3:9)
I'm not trying to be argumentative just for the heck of it, this topic has eternal consequences and it is critical for the sake of the clarity of the Gospel that it not be ignored or allowed to go unchallenged. I would think that after all these years, after all the times this subject has been put out there as a Religion Forum thread and all the follow-up discussions that have gone on, that it should not be any surprise that people will voice their views about it.
The Church only states the truth that God permits you to condemn yourself. Further, you appear to not understand the meaning of obedience and faith.
Peace be with you
So what do you think consummated means?
Seriously, NL, that's the best you can do, presume I don't understand something? Your church states things IT thinks is the truth - sometimes God doesn't have anything to do with it.
There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1)
You were the one who insisted Metmom was wrong and that "finished" really meant "consummated" and that they were two different meanings, so you tell me why you think Jesus said "it is consummated" and not "it is finished".
7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
Salvation has ALWAYS been by faith. Abraham was justified by faith before the Law was given.
The Pharisees were great at keeping the Law, Jesus never argued that, that they weren't, and yet they were clearly not saved according to Jesus own words, because their hearts were not right.
Religion does NOT save. Faith does.
No church saves, nor baptism, nor church membership, nor communion, nor last rites, nor ANY works that man would deign to replace the Law with. Jesus does.
If the Law given by God Himself from Mt. Sinai cannot save, then no replacement works dreamed up by man can save either.
Essentially, any religion which claims any of the above activities is necessary for salvation is saying that Jesus' death on the cross was not sufficient to save us, that our sin corrupted human effort must be added to the divinely carried out atonement.
What chutzpah. What a spitting in the face of God Himself, telling Him that the death of Jesus isn't good enough when He says it is. Clearly those saying so do not have trust in God as they think they must do something to help.
Galatians 2:20-21 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
I am already dead to sin and if Christ lives in me, then sending me to purgatory to be cleansed from my sin, would be sending Christ to suffer for my sin all over again.
Besides, the inconvenient fact keeps escaping Catholic's attention that *SUFFERING* does NOT cleanse us from sin. Only death, the shedding of blood, can do that, so suffering for unconfessed sin, is an exercise in futility. Teaching that suffering atones for sin is in complete contradiction to Scripture, no matter how much someone wants to rationalize it.
I do not believe Purgatory is fully doctrinal, but I do understand a line of reasoning, which may be doctrinal, supporting it.
Our salvation is indeed by faith and once received, God then regenerates the human spirit in us. Righteousness is imputed to us and the sanctified human spirit is now joined with our body and soul forming the new man.
Our souls, though, remain scarred from the old sin nature and from our past memories.
We have a mechanism, through faith in Christ, whereby we are continually sanctified, by study if His Word, with God the Holy Spirit continuing to bring doctrine into our spirit, then to our mind in our soul, and ultimately our heart, slowly growing us through Him.
When we suffer the first death, though, our souls are still partially sanctified, but were still scarred from past sin, though forgiven by the work of Christ on the Cross.
While we are not judged for those past sins, through faith in Christ, our soul is still scarred from them. Our memories may be recalled, where we have a habitual sinful process in our thinking,...how we react to certain situations, temptations which we haven’t yet been sanctified from overcoming, but slip out of fellowship whenever we are so tempted, because we haven’t yet grown in faith in Him on some fine point.
Now we know that God the Father does not have to endure the presence of unrighteousness eternally in His abode, and at the Judgment, those who are not found in the Book of Life or Works, will be cast out and face the same location as the fallen angels in the Lake of Fire.
I have no doubt our righteousness in Him will have eternal security, but those parts of my soul not yet sanctified at the Judgment,...what becomes of them? Are we not to be tested as gold, with the dross being burnt off, leaving the purified gold for Him?
I know that at that time, such memories would only serve to shame me eternally for past actions. Is that considered good for nothingness, hence to be removed from us? If Purgatory has any basis in doctrine, it would appear to me to be the process of our cleansing which doesn’t receive eternal rewards, but prepares us for the Wedding Feast.
If there is no Purgatory, how are those portions of our soul which are not yet sanctified, purged from His presence.
There's a couple hundred of bible committees over the years who seem to disagree with you...
Seriously, no. In response to your assertion that Catholics are mindless and do not know or desire to know God and the truth I merely suggested that it might be because you do not understand Catholicism. In light of your indignant response I am more convinced than ever that I was right. Perhaps you might understand better if you spent more time trying to know and understand God and less time trying to prove the Church wrong.
Peace be with you
That is a falsehood. I did not assert that "finished" really meant "consummated", I stated that "tetelestai" meant consummated. Although there is some definitional overlap finished and consummated are two different words. I asked what you thought consummated really meant. And, by the way, I never got an answer.
It is positively Orwellian to participate in a discussion in which linguistic and definitional nuance is rejected outright and my statements are manipulated to fit a similar preconceived conclusion. It is double-plus-ungood. The old maxim that the best defense is a good offense does not apply to these discussions and I have no desire to engage in a mud wrestling match. When you want to participate in an honest discussion get back to me. Until then, have a wonderful life.
And yet each differs from every other one in matters of canon, translation and definition. How do you pick the winner?
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.