Posted on 11/16/2014 1:42:01 PM PST by NYer
I repeat, you are free to believe what your particular denomination proclaims.
And I will continue to hold to my Catholic beliefs.
Amen! How anyone can think, much less teach, that the righteousness of Christ imputed to our account is somehow "imperfect" is ridiculous. We are not justified by our works, but by the blood of Jesus Christ which cleanses us from ALL sin. Jesus is our place of purgation, our place of cleansing from ALL sin. The law of Moses could never make us righteous, neither could the blood of bulls and goats offered upon the Mercy Seat in the Temple. BUT...
You are free to believe whatever you choose.
Sure everyone is.
The problem is, all the made up stuff of Catholicism isn’t going to do anyone a lick of good.
God revealed to us in Scripture what mankind needs for salvation. People certainly are free to exchange that for the doctrines of men, to the peril of their soul.
If you wish to put the catechism ahead of Scripture, it’s your prerogative.
But you can’t say you weren’t told.
Get back to me when some Catholics come to your church and try to force you to believe what we believe.
Was that St. Paul's answer when the jailkeeper asked:
The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
They replied, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be savedyou and your household. Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in Godhe and his whole household. (Acts 16:29-34
Because, of course, NO Catholic has ever done that, right? I'm glad we aren't living in the middle ages when that was EXACTLY what Catholics did. But, putting that aside, this thread was opened by a Catholic to mock and belittle those who preach we CAN know we are saved. Should nobody be allowed to rebut that assertion? Should we just shut up and let people say whatever they want about our faith and not have a chance to speak what we believe is the truth?
Did anyone FORCE you to read this thread?
First, I hold only to what the word plainly states, not to analysts that are not even likely to be among Yeshua’s elect.
Of course it was before the final judgment; the final judgment is 1000 years after the passage in question, which is described to be plainly at the first resurrection, the only resurrection unto life, according to Yeshua. This would then have to be right after the last trump, so at that time all of the elect are in heaven for sure, for the wedding feast.
When Yeshua speaks a parable, it would be foolhardy to assume that it is set in any particular time, unless that parable deals with the first resurrection, like for example the parable of the virgins.
Paul’s references are to consciousness, which could be at any time. It doesn’t mean that one is immediately in heaven, since especially that is denied in other scripture.
All of the scriptures are one! If an interpretation would make a contradiction, that interpretation has to be incorrect.
.
And what Protestants are coming to the Catholic church trying to force Catholics what to believe
Does Catholics telling me I'm going to hell for not being Catholic, or the Catholic church telling me I'm going to hell for not being Catholic count?
Because that's what happens in real life and here on FR, and that's what the church teaches.
The only reason people aren't being forced to convert at the point of the sword, or under threat of torture and fire, is that the Catholic church has lost its political power to people who finally had the wherewithal to stand up to it.
But that hasn't prevented the church from anathema-ing those who disagree with it.
=============================================================
Here are some links I've collected which help to give a broad biblical basis for "purgatory", for anyone interested in checking them out. (Freeper "boatbums" also made a point about "purgatory" in her post #56 saying, "I think many Catholics would be surprised to learn that there really is no consensus within their religion about Purgatory" (since it is not exhaustively described or documented) -- as, of course, "heaven" and "hell" also are not exhaustively described or documented -- but three of these links which I'm providing here (which contain the name "Jerry Walls", a Protestant scholar) illustrate that there is also not a real unanimous consensus among Protestants about "purgatory" either.)
Some Helpful Links About "Purgatory"
|
Fascinating. Good luck believing this nonsense.
I read your analysis of what you think Scripture says and I gonna hold only to what the word plainly states, not to analysts that are not even likely to be among Yeshuas elect.
The words "heaven" and "hell" certainly are in Scripture. The word "purgatory", though is NOT. There doesn't NEED to be unanimus consensus for Protestants on Purgatory since that dogma is REJECTED. Even the Orthodox reject it! My point is that if your religion is going to make something dogma, mandatory to be believed, invent "rules" for how to get people out and other associated doctrines like prayer to departed saints, the treasury of merit, Mary being used to get people out, etc. shouldn't it be expected to have some sort of detail figured out before it gets cemented as an infallible dogma??? Even the meager attempts to appeal to Scripture passages for proof texts is inadequate and it is already known that the Roman Catholic church says she doesn't NEED to rely upon God's word since truth is whatever they say it is.
Maybe that's just peachy fine for some people, but it isn't for me. I know that what God intends for us to believe about Him IS contained in His sacred word and it won't be dependent on some people centuries later finally getting around to figuring it out.
Except that even then it is not, but a morally incognizant infant (typically), or even a comatose person, becomes formally justified by his own holiness via sprinkling of water, possible even by a Prot.
Could you please post the verses here and present the exegesis to back up your conclusions?
Augustine on Final Preservation:
But of such as these [the Elect] none perishes, because of all that the Father has given Him, He will lose none. John 6:39 Whoever, therefore, is of these does not perish at all; nor was any who perishes ever of these. For which reason it is said, They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us. 1 John 2:19. (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints)
I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. (Augustine, On the Perseverance of the Saints)
"Will any one dare to say that this perseverance is not the gift of God, and that so great a possession as this is ours in such wise that if any one have it the apostle could not say to him, 'For what hast thou which thou hast not received?'[ 2] since he has this in such a manner as that he has not received it?" To this, indeed, we are not able to deny, that perseverance in good, progressing even to the end, is also a great gift of God; and that it exists not save it come from Him of whom it is written, "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights." (Augustine, Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 10)
"... the human will does not obtain grace by freedom, but obtains freedom by grace; when the feeling of delight has been imparted through. the same grace, the human will is formed to endure; it is strengthened with unconquerable fortitude; controlled by grace, it never will perish, but, if grace forsake it, it will straightway fall; by the Lord's free mercy it is converted to good, and once converted it perseveres in good; the direction of the human will toward good, and after direction its continuation in good, depend solely upon God's will, not upon any merit of man. Thus there is left to man such free will, if we please so to call it, as he elsewhere describes: that except through grace the will can neither be converted to God nor abide in God; and whatever it can do it is able to do only through grace. "(Augustine, Aurelius. Augustine's Writings on Grace and Free WIll (Kindle Locations 45-46). Monergism Books. Kindle Edition.)
Justification presupposes mans free act of will to accept and cooperate with this grace. God does not force this action or state on man. Human freedom is a secondary, but, essential element.
Augustine teaches that salvation is by "man's free will," in the sense that God illuminates the heart, making it alive again, and with love irresistibly draws the sinner to salvation. In other words, God draws us willingly, but it is impossible for a blind man to be given sight and to not see the face of His God. IOW, this is not something that man can resist, nor can it be properly said to be "cooperation" in the Roman Catholic sense, that they earned it. Rather, it is by the will of God entirely, without the "willing" or "running" of man: More from Augustine on this topic here:
And further, should any one be inclined to boast, not indeed of his works, but of the freedom of his will, as if the first merit belonged to him, this very liberty of good action being given to him as a reward he had earned, let him listen to this same preacher of grace, when he says: For it is God which works in you, both to will and to do of His own good pleasure; (Php 2:13) and in another place: So, then, it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy. (Rom 9:16) Now as, undoubtedly, if a man is of the age to use his reason, he cannot believe, hope, love, unless he will to do so, nor obtain the prize of the high calling of God unless he voluntarily run for it; in what sense is it not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, except that, as it is written, the preparation of the heart is from the Lord? Otherwise, if it is said, It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, because it is of both, that is, both of the will of man and of the mercy of God, so that we are to understand the saying, It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, as if it meant the will of man alone is not sufficient, if the mercy of God go not with itthen it will follow that the mercy of God alone is not sufficient, if the will of man go not with it; and therefore, if we may rightly say, it is not of man that wills, but of God that shows mercy, because the will of man by itself is not enough, why may we not also rightly put it in the converse way: It is not of God that shows mercy, but of man that wills, because the mercy of God by itself does not suffice? Surely, if no Christian will dare to say this, It is not of God that shows mercy, but of man that wills, lest he should openly contradict the apostle, it follows that the true interpretation of the saying, It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, is that the whole work belongs to God, who both makes the will of man righteous, and thus prepares it for assistance, and assists it when it is prepared. (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Ch. 32)
And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens. And when the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, who being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: What shall we say then? he says: Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, not of works, but, of future works, and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, God forbid; that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in Gods doing this, and says: For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of Gods Free Grace.)
"We know that God's grace is not given to all men . To those to whom it is given it is given neither according to the merits of works, nor according to the merits of the will, but by free grace. To those to whom it is not given we know that it is because of God's righteous judgment that it is not given." (Augustine, Treatise On Rebuke and Grace)
But that world which God is in Christ reconciling unto Himself, which is saved by Christ, and has all its sins freely pardoned by Christ, has been chosen out of the world that is hostile, condemned, and defiled. For out of that mass, which has all perished in Adam, are formed the vessels of mercy, whereof that world of reconciliation is composed, that is hated by the world which belongeth to the vessels of wrath that are formed out of the same mass and fitted to destruction. Finally, after saying, If ye were of the world, the world would love its own, He immediately added, But because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. And so these men were themselves also of that world, and, that they might no longer be of it, were chosen out of it, through no merit of their own, for no good works of theirs had preceded; and not by nature, which through free-will had become totally corrupted at its source: but gratuitously, that is, of actual grace. For He who chose the world out of the world, effected for Himself, instead of finding, what He should choose: for there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace, he adds, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. (Tractates on the Gospel of John, 15:17-19)
=============================================================
Are you saying that all Protestants must reject "purgatory", as if that is a Protestant dogma?
Well, you might reject it, but it is certainly not rejected by Protestant Professor / Scholar "Dr. Jerry Walls", nor was it rejected by Protestant "C. S. Lewis" (and I suspect there are many other Protestant brothers and sisters as well who do not reject it, even though you do).
See this video, as well as the links to Jerry Walls other clips and book in post #70:
HBU [Houston Baptist University - Dr. Jerry Walls]: CS Lewis on Why Our Souls Demand Purgatory
We are saved from the wages of sin.
=============================================================
You want me to type thousands and thousands of words for you, so that you don't have to click on a link?
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.