Can a protestant tell me what this is from and what its talking about

[cooterhein]

How can a protestant caim to believe in any type of temporal punishment if salvation can not be lost even if one doesnt want it anymore???

Once more…well, maybe twice, actually.

Again, we do affirm that punishment can and does happen in this life that occurs for various teaching and/or preventative purposes. However, we deny that any Christian can or does undergo punishment for the purpose of making restitution for a divine debt that must be paid “before access can be opened to the kingdom of heaven.”

If there is nothing one can do to lose salvation and all sins past, present and future are forgiven by Jesus sacrifice thne what is the purpose of temporal punishment anywhere?

Again, we do affirm that punishment can and does happen in this life that occurs for various teaching and/or preventative purposes. However, we deny that any Christian can or does undergo punishment for the purpose of making restitution for a divine debt that must be paid “before access can be opened to the kingdom of heaven.”

 

[ignatius777]

Once more…well, maybe twice, actually.

Again, we do affirm that punishment can and does happen in this life that occurs for various teaching and/or preventative purposes. However, we deny that any Christian can or does undergo punishment for the purpose of making restitution for a divine debt that must be paid “before access can be opened to the kingdom of heaven.”

Again, we do affirm that punishment can and does happen in this life that occurs for various teaching and/or preventative purposes. However, we deny that any Christian can or does undergo punishment for the purpose of making restitution for a divine debt that must be paid “before access can be opened to the kingdom of heaven.”

What I dont see in your answer is whats the need for any punishment whatsoever if salvation cant be lost and Jesus death pays for all sins past present and future

 

[cooterhein]

The fact that the Westminster Confession even mentions “temporal punishment” suggest a deviation of modern protestants from their core beliefs.

If temporal punishment were necessarily equated with a satisfaction of divine justice through the avenging punishment of you for your own sins, that certainly would be a deviation from the core beliefs of Protestantism. But temporal punishment is not necessarily equated with this, and this time, it’s not. Actually, you can plan on doing this every time Protestants talk about temporal punishment.

 

[ignatius777]

If temporal punishment were necessarily equated with a satisfaction of divine justice through the avenging punishment of you for your own sins, that certainly would be a deviation from the core beliefs of Protestantism. But temporal punishment is not necessarily equated with this, and this time, it’s not. Actually, you can plan on doing this every time Protestants talk about temporal punishment.

With all due respect you see it at “avenging” punishment. Sin seperates us from God and must be made right. Sin makes us impure and nothing impur can enter heaven. Purification must take place before siful man can enter heaven. We are saved from hell y Jesus death but when we enter heaven is duein part to the time necessary for purification as a result of the sin ofo ur free will

 

[guanophore]

For the record it doesnt appear to have anything to do with not be able to lose ones salvation, in fact it seems to say just the opposite.

It only “appears” that way to you because you are thinking Catholically. You know that a person who is in the state there described has already been separated from God.

But the Reformers taught that the nature of sin had been changed, and that it no longer separates people from God. Therefore, once a person has been saved, they can fall into any and every sin and it does not keep them from God.

 

[ignatius777]

It only “appears” that way to you because you are thinking Catholically. You know that a person who is in the state there described has already been separated from God.

But the Reformers taught that the nature of sin had been changed, and that it no longer separates people from God. Therefore, once a person has been saved, they can fall into any and every sin and it does not keep them from God.

So sin no longer makes us impure?

 

[cooterhein]

What I dont see in your answer is whats the need for any punishment whatsoever if salvation cant be lost and Jesus death pays for all sins past present and future

Again, in shorter form.

“…for various teaching and/or preventative purposes.”

It may have some benefit for you or another person. In more specific detail, this could have to do with causing you to repent (Ps. 32), to grow in righteousness and holiness (Hebrews 12), to teach against repetition of sin (1 Cor. 10), to keep you humble (2 Cor. 12), or to strengthen your faith (2 Cor. 1).

 

[ignatius777]

Again, in shorter form.

“…for various teaching and/or preventative purposes.”

It may have some benefit for you or another person. In more specific detail, this could have to do with causing you to repent (Ps. 32), to grow in righteousness and holiness (Hebrews 12), to teach against repetition of sin (1 Cor. 10), to keep you humble (2 Cor. 12), or to strengthen your faith (2 Cor. 1).

So we dont sin anymore once we are saved?

 

[guanophore]

Then why did you ask if you already knew? It just makes you look like someone who is trying to start an argument not a discussion.

The question was not asking where it came from, but what it means. The OP should have cited the source, and that was an error, but it is a confusing quandary (the doctrine of eternal security), especially for someone who has received the Apostolic Teaching.

 

[cooterhein]

With all due respect you see it at “avenging” punishment. Sin seperates us from God and must be made right.

Via temporal punishment of you, yes? And with all due respect, Trent sees it as an avenging punishment as well. Can you tell me what this is from?

"…the satisfaction imposed by them [temporal punishments] is meant not merely as a safeguard for the new life and as a remedy to weakness, but also as vindicatory (i.e. avenging) punishment for former sins.”

Give you a hint; it’s Trent.

Sin makes us impure and nothing impur can enter heaven.

Well, it’s really a bit less like becoming impure and more like starting impure and having no way of becoming pure aside from divine intervention.

Purification must take place before siful man can enter heaven.

Purification and temporal punishment are not synonymous. I can see why you’d jump from temporal punishment to purification given your background, but that isn’t what Protestants do with it when it comes up in places like this. Nor is it what we’re meant to do.

Iow, if you’re keeping a list of reasons that Protestants believe temporal punishment happens and reasons that Protestants reject, “purification” goes in the reject pile. In the sense that you’re using it, at least.

We are saved from hell by Jesus death

It would be awesome if you just stopped there.

but

Oh boy.

when we enter heaven is duein part to the time necessary for purification

Which, according to Protestantism, is non-existent. Nor is it implied by the mention of the words “temporal punishment,” whose purpose is neither vindictive nor avenging nor purifying nor debt-pleasing nor “for satisfaction” nor a restitution.

 

[cooterhein]

So we dont sin anymore once we are saved?

I think you know the answer to that question. The question you’re getting at, though, is probably something like this: If we don’t bear the responsibility of taking care of our sin problem, who does? I think you know the answer to that question, too. And that’s what you were really after with this thread, wasn’t it?

 

[guanophore]

Protestants obviously don’t believe in purgatory. And while we do affirm that forgiven sin may yet result in temporal punishment for a number of reasons…

Actually, you DO believe in purgatory, you just don’t call it that. And many Protestants have such a warped perception of Catholicism that they don’t even know what is understood by Purgatory.

Purgatory is the state of being cleansed from the temporal consequences of one’s sins. I say that all Protestants believe this because they also accept the Apostolic Teaching that “nothing unclean can enter heaven”. For that reason, everything that is not sanctified in this life must be purged/cleansed before we get to heaven. They think of it more like the “putting on of a garment” (instantaneous).

Some people have their purgatory (temporal punishment for sins) in this life, but some do not.

**

For our benefit, that one person or another may repent of sins, to grow in righteousness and holiness, to discourage repetition of sins, to keep us humble or strengthen us in faith…

We absolutely deny that temporal punishment awaits any believer in this life or the next that is vindictive, a restitution, or done for the payment of a divine debt.**

It is very Catholic of you to say this.

Making restitution of our sins, though, is part of repentance, or as Catholics call it, penance. We are to “bear the fruits that befit repentance”, and that often includes making amends to those we have harmed.

In no case can we make sufficient amends to God to purchase our own salvation (pay the debt).

cooterhein:

 However, we deny that any Christian can or does undergo punishment for the purpose of making restitution for a divine debt that must be paid "before access can be opened to the kingdom of heaven." This we do not do. Moreover, this is something we cannot do while affirming the major Solas.

I am not sure what is meant by the term “divine debt” used here. From our perspective, it is a human debt, incurred by our offenses. When Jesus said we would not get out until we paid the last penny, we understand this to be a reference to temporal payment, not eternal.

 

[guanophore]

How can a protestant caim to believe in any type of temporal punishment if salvation can not be lost even if one doesnt want it anymore??? If there is nothing one can do to lose salvation and all sins past, present and future are forgiven by Jesus sacrifice thne what is the purpose of temporal punishment anywhere?

There has to be some way to reinterpret the scriptures that refer to the consequences of living a sinful life. Since the premise is that no sin, present or future, can ever separate the believer from Christ, then the references to these effects must be temporal, not eternal.

I think the purpose was well explained in the post above. God desires holiness for us. When His children fail to walk according to His commandments, he chastizes and disciplines them so that they will return to their Father’s house.

 

[guanophore]

With all due respect you see it at “avenging” punishment. Sin seperates us from God and must be made right.

This is one of the main doctrinal changes made during the Reformation. The idea was conceived that sin no longer separates mankind from God. Jesus paid the price, and reconciled mankind to God. He paid for all the sins, past, present, and future. He “made it right” in his body on the cross.

Sin makes us impure and nothing impur can enter heaven. Purification must take place before siful man can enter heaven. We are saved from hell y Jesus death but when we enter heaven is duein part to the time necessary for purification as a result of the sin ofo ur free will

You are right but according to Reformed theology, we are declared clean by God when we are saved (even though we are not actually clean). We are “hidden with Christ in God”, so our own personal cleanliness is not an issue anymore. We are snow covered dungheaps.

We are purified by His blood -His sacrifiice, so His purity is all that is needed.

 

[Zenas]

So we dont sin anymore once we are saved?

Oh we sin plenty. It’s just that those sins were forgiven before they were ever comitted.

 

[guanophore]

Via temporal punishment of you, yes? And with all due respect, Trent sees it as an avenging punishment as well. Can you tell me what this is from?

"…the satisfaction imposed by them [temporal punishments] is meant not merely as a safeguard for the new life and as a remedy to weakness, but also as vindicatory (i.e. avenging) punishment for former sins.”

vindicatory does not necessarily equate to “avenging”. The punishment for most of our sins is inherent in the sin itself. We bear in our own bodies the consequences of many sins. Sins have damaging effects, both on the person who commits them,and on others who are affected by them. Part of reconciliation to God is reconciling to ourselves and others that our sins have damaged. This is why it is so important to bear the fruit that befits repentance. It is vindicatory, and restorative.

Well, it’s really a bit less like becoming impure and more like starting impure and having no way of becoming pure aside from divine intervention.

I think many of our separated brethren believe that Purgatory is not “divine intervention”. For us, it is the opportunity to be cleansed by grace, through faith,

Purification and temporal punishment are not synonymous. I can see why you’d jump from temporal punishment to purification given your background, but that isn’t what Protestants do with it when it comes up in places like this. Nor is it what we’re meant to do.

But your previous post clearly indicated that one can be purified (grow in holiness) through temporal punishment.

if you’re keeping a list of reasons that Protestants believe temporal punishment happens and reasons that Protestants reject, “purification” goes in the reject pile. In the sense that you’re using it, at least.

Maybe I am missing something. Do you not see keeping yourself pure as part of the process of being sanctified? Is there a difference in your mind between being purified, and being made holy?

nor purifying nor debt-pleasing nor “for satisfaction” nor a restitution.

Do you not have any place in your theology for making restitution of wrongs?

I think you know the answer to that question. The question you’re getting at, though, is probably something like this: If we don’t bear the responsibility of taking care of our sin problem, who does? I think you know the answer to that question, too. And that’s what you were really after with this thread, wasn’t it?

I wonder. I think sometimes we talk past one another due to semantics problems. For Catholics, Jesus has already taken care of the “sin problem” because He paid the eternal price for our sins. His payment, though, does not make us immediately sanctified. We are covered by His grace, while we work out our salvation in fear and trembling in this life. We have the HS at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure, which is to make us actually pure.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Protestants obviously don’t believe in purgatory. And while we do affirm that forgiven sin may yet result in temporal punishment for a number of reasons…
.

This looks like a contradiction because purgatory describes the biblical temporal punishment found in the NT. Purgatory is a word like “Trinity”. It was created to describe the state of temporal punishment, of which no one knows exactly how long it takes place.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Oh we sin plenty. It’s just that those sins were forgiven before they were ever comitted.

That is true, but in order for those sins to be forgiven, one must participate in the redemtive process. If a boy breaks a window, he can say I’m sorry all day long, yet if his fails to offer reparation for the offense he is not engaging in repairing the relationship with the owner of the window. Christ died for all sins, but in order to be covered by the blood of the lamb you must eat the supper of the lamb, like the passover. “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you shall not have life within you.”

The way you have this stated, one can go around and break every window he runs into and never repair or offer to repair. That’s a blessings theology perspective. I get something for nothing attitude. This contradicts salvation history reasserted by Christ with His flesh. It’s a sacrilege to push a doctrine where we do not have to do anything in order to receive something. Remember “faith without works is dead”.

 

[Zenas]

That is true, but in order for those sins to be forgiven, one must participate in the redemtive process. If a boy breaks a window, he can say I’m sorry all day long, yet if his fails to offer reparation for the offense he is not engaging in repairing the relationship with the owner of the window. Christ died for all sins, but in order to be covered by the blood of the lamb you must eat the supper of the lamb, like the passover. “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you shall not have life within you.”

The way you have this stated, one can go around and break every window he runs into and never repair or offer to repair. That’s a blessings theology perspective. I get something for nothing attitude. This contradicts salvation history reasserted by Christ with His flesh. It’s a sacrilege to push a doctrine where we do not have to do anything in order to receive something. Remember “faith without works is dead”.

I agree with you but the Protestant and the Baptist perspective is very strong on salvation without works. Remember sola fide? This is really what they believe. All sins, past, present and future, are forgiven at the time you are saved. You need to go back and read the Baptist Faith & Message that I quoted in Post No. 8.

 

[ignatius777]

I agree with you but the Protestant and the Baptist perspective is very strong on salvation without works. Remember sola fide? This is really what they believe. All sins, past, present and future, are forgiven at the time you are saved. You need to go back and read the Baptist Faith & Message that I quoted in Post No. 8.

The problem is no where does sola fide work and nor is it supported anywhere