Catholic teaching getting mischaracterized at Awana?

[Cathoholic]

1ke. You stated,

Originally Posted by 1ke

It only gets passed on to our “own” kids when they are allowed to go to AWANA. Which they shouldn’t be doing in the first place.

Agreed but . . . .

Non-Catholics may be reading this thread who think Awana is AOK.

Now I also agree that this advice . . .

Originally Posted by 1ke

It only gets passed on to our “own” kids when they are allowed to go to AWANA. Which they shouldn’t be doing in the first place.

. . . . should apply to Protestant readers here too. If I were a Protestant parent I would not let my kids attend an anti-Catholic organization either.

But we are still left with . . . .

But our Catholic children are still left with their Protestant friends that may be going to Awana and thus have “indirect” influence on our kids.

Originally Posted by Cathoholic

Then this gets passed off in this distorted fashion to our own children or their friends (or our grandchildren or their friends) who in some cases are directly involved in this group or indirectly (as with the friends of our children) involved and contributes to misunderstandings about the Catholic faith.

So are you suggesting Catholic parents don’t allow their kids to play with Protestants if these Protestant kids go to Awana?

Surely you are not suggesting that we as adults cut friendship with our children’s Protestant friends parents that we too may have befriended (we need to be prepared to respond to objections and “defend the hope that lies within us”, but I don’t think you are suggesting cut them all out of our lives are you?)

Or are you suggesting:

Originally Posted by Cathoholic

We then have a better understanding of the Protestant objections that eventually inevitably get raised to us or to our children (especially from their friends in Awana).

Then we can better respond to the objections directly or prepare our children and grandchildren accordingly.

Or are you suggesting some other solution?

 

[sousley]

I remember AWANA from when I was a child. Sponsored by the Baptist church, I think we met in the high school gym for fun and games. The adult leaders carried this little green cards in their shirt pockets banded with a rubber band and would periodically stop us kids (about 7-8 years old) and talk with them for a minute and hand one of these green cards handed to them. Image me delight when I was finally picked one night. I got stopped while I was running toward the gallon koolaid jug with a straw and he leaned over and asked, “hey stop a minute, have you been saved yet”. I thought, “saved from what?” so I said, “no”. He smiled and handed me a card and said, “well, here, just read this prayer on the front, can you do that?” Well of course I could read. So I read the “Please Lord Jesus, come into my heart and be my personal Lord and Savior” prayer on the front. Then you flip it over and sign your name on the line on the back and there you have it. He told me to carry this card with me all the time. And there you have it, I was now saved. I still didn’t know from what, but he seemed happy that he was giving out these cards and so was I because I was just like one of the other kids. Later in life, I became Catholic. So much for the “get out of hell free” card. Oh well, I don’t know what happened to it anyway. I guess you really can lose your salvation!

 

[gwarald]

This isn’t true. It’s the classic mischaracterization of Catholic teaching by Protestants.

What is the mischaracterization? We both agree that the Catholic and Protestant view of the scope of Christ’s atonement is different.

Contarini:

Of course Jesus’ death has a different relationship to original sin than to actual sin,

Protestants say there is no difference: Christ paid for original and actual/personal sin and satisfied the eternal and temporary punishment deserved.

Are you disagreeing with,

gwarald:

Catholicism teaches that mankind atones for their own actual sins through penance.

?

The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism, Vol. 2, 1969, p. 199 says,

“The priest gives us a penance after confession that we may make some atonement to God for our sins, receive help to avoid them in the future, and make some satisfaction for the temporal punishment due to them.”

 

[robwar]

Catholic teaching getting mischaracterized at Awana?

To the people who hang around the “Apologetics” area here (because I think it is important how the apologists see this).

Seems to me Catholic teaching is getting mischaracterized at Awana.

This suggests to me to be an example of how the Catholic message of being “born again” or “baptized” and our justification gets reduced down to mere “church rituals” and “good works”.

Then this gets passed off in this distorted fashion to our own children or their friends (or our grandchildren or their friends) who in some cases are directly involved in this group or indirectly (as with the friends of our children) involved and contributes to misunderstandings about the Catholic faith.

Awana (Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed) is a para-church Protestant children’s ministry whose goal is, “evangelizing and discipling kids in the church and community”.

Here is a so-called “quiz question” (you can see it for yourself here if it is still posted there).

Any thoughts? Do you think I am reading into this group by seeing a misrepresentation of Catholicism, or do you think this is not aimed at Catholicism? Or do you think it is aimed at St. Paul’s letter to the Romans (and Judaizers)? Both? Something else?

Awana is a Baptist church (mostly) childrens ministry and somewhat in a very vague sense similar to a boy/girl scouts organization. I am not sure how you got ahold of this or if you are sending your children to Awanas. My brother-in-law is a deacon in an independent Baptist Church and is active in leading Awanas. I am not too surprised by the question. I probably wouldn’t sending my Catholic children to it do to the basic Baptist theology that would be presented. I know though that it is a good program and well run
and there isn’t much you can do about the question since it isn’t going to change.

 

[Cathoholic]

robwar

Thank you for expressing your concern.

I am not sure how you got ahold of this or if you are sending your children to Awanas.

No. We are not supporters of Awana nor have we been in the past, but again thanks for your concern.

I probably wouldn’t sending my Catholic children to it (due) to the basic Baptist theology . . .

Agreed.

Appears they are teaching Catholic theology too . . . . only teaching it wrong.

If their question is what I think they are implying, it looks to me like it is among other things, “Anti-Catholicism 101 For Children”. Yet another reason to assiduously train our children in their Catholicism to guard against this sort of apparent dishonesty of Awana (at least it appears that way to me).

 

[Cathoholic]

gwarald. You stated:

Quote:
Catholics teach that Jesus died for original sin only and not also for actual sins.

You were challenged on this idea and told it was a misconception.

Now you state:

Quote:
Catholic and Protestant view of the scope of Christ’s atonement is different.

Instead of trying to tell me what Catholics believe I want to see from an official Catholic source, where you came up with the idea that . . . .

Quote:
Catholics teach that Jesus died for original sin only and not also for actual sins.

Not the idea that . . .

Quote:
Catholic and Protestant view of the scope of Christ’s atonement is different.

 

[Cathoholic]

gwarald. You also quoted part of the Baltimore Catechism.

The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism, Vol. 2, 1969, p. 199 says,

“The priest gives us a penance after confession that we may make some atonement to God for our sins, receive help to avoid them in the future, and make some satisfaction for the temporal punishment due to them.”

What do you think the context of “temporal punishment due” here means?

In your tradition do you have to pay ANY account for your sins?

 

[LegoGE1947]

What is Awana?

In many fundamentalist churches it is a program aimed at kids where they can earn “merit badges” for how many Bible verses they can memorize and rattle off. It is used to indoctrinate kids who are already Protestant and convert kids who are not, especially Catholics. It is set up something like Scouts. On the surface, it is lots of fun and games, but under the hood it is an indoctrination and conversion tool. If you are Catholic and have kids you want to remain Catholic, keep them out of AWANA!

 

[gwarald]

What do you think the context of “temporal punishment due” here means?

According to official RCC teaching (CCC 1472, 1473), the context of temporal punishment is where a ‘creature’ expiates or makes reparation for sin.

In your tradition do you have to pay ANY account for your sins?

The Protestant position is that Jesus paid for all sin for all believers. Therein lies the reason why they would allege that Roman Catholics earn salvation by works.

 

[LegoGE1947]

According to official RCC teaching (CCC 1472, 1473), the context of temporal punishment is where a ‘creature’ expiates or makes reparation for sin.

The Protestant position is that Jesus paid for all sin for all believers. Therein lies the reason why they would allege that Roman Catholics earn salvation by works.

It is like if I went around vandalizing other peoples’ property, but then stopped doing it and went about saying"I’m sorry" they could forgive me but I might still have to pay a debt for what I had done. Justice would demand it to be so. If you read the story about David and Bathsheba, David was sorry for killing Uriah, and having adultery with Bathsheba. God forgave David but David still had to undergo some punishment for his acts, in that the baby Bathsheba had died.

 

[Cathoholic]

Ok gwarald. I am glad you cited CCC 1472 and 1473. I think we can work with those.

But I’d like you to retract your statement:

Catholics teach that Jesus died for original sin only and not also for actual sins, because it is not true (and your citing of CCC 1472 and 1473 did not state that either).

---

What We Perhaps Have In Common . . . ***

Now with regards salvation, I cannot speak for ALL Protestants as they believe in private interpretation so each one of them comes up with their own beliefs and interpretations so when I say “Protestants” admittedly the best I can do is relate to my own family members, friends (many of which are Protestant Ministers), readings, etc. so there MAY be exceptions.

Catholics and Protestants both affirm God as omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, perfect, etc., etc.

Adam and Eve were made by their very nature with some sort of “state of holiness and justice”.

This was an undeserved gift or grace from God (they did not “earn” this special relationship with God).

Adam and Eve sinned LOSING this state of holiness and justice as a part of the nature they were made with. Because of their sin, (along with the devil who tempted them) sin and death entered into the world.

Catholics and Protestants both affirm one sin against an infinite God is a sin against ALL of this INFINITE God (so the sin “just keeps on giving” so to speak).

This sin resulted in a radical change in the very nature of Adam and Eve (and even upon the material cosmos itself—that’s WHY Egypt’s first born cattle even died too at Passover (as a reminder of this), that’s why God so loved mankind to be sure but also THE WORLD that He gave his only begotten son, etc. Because RADICAL redemption was needed for mankind but also now for all of the material cosmos due to sin).

Since Adam and Eve now have a fallen nature, the best they can do is pass on that fallen nature to their offspring.

Parents pass THEIR NATURE on to their offspring. Zebras have baby zebras for their babies, Dogs have baby dogs (not cats) for their babies, and fallen human beings have fallen human beings for babies.

All these human offspring are born with this “lack” or “privation” or “deprivation” of the original “holiness and justice” that Adam and Eve had. Why? Because Adam and Eve cannot give to their offspring something of which they did not possess by their natures.

In addition, another result of Original sin is we have a tendency toward sin that Adam and Eve did not possess either called “concupiscence.”

When concupiscence hath conceived, it brings forth sin, as James 1:15 says.

Since we are finite beings we cannot “earn” a relationship with an infinite God.

Don’t think of a relationship with God as merely being forgiven sins. Think of a relationship with God as being forgiven sins to be sure, but ALSO being made as sons and daughters of God.

Since we are merely finite beings, we are utterly incapable of paying an account for any type of sin that we commit. God has perfect mercy, but God also has perfect Justice.

Perfect justice (recall God has Perfect Justice) demands we pay an account for sin.

Since our account is INFINITE, we could NEVER pay a full account for our sins.

Incidentally, this is what the ancient Church Fathers used to argue against the Arian heretics. That if Jesus was less than True God AND True Man, He could not have paid an infinite account.

But Jesus IS True God and True Man and DID pay an infinite account.

Incidentally, try using this against the Jehovah’s witnesses the next time they come to your door as they think Jesus was merely St. Michael the Archangel—who of course is NOT infinite either and therefore CANNOT even if he were absolutely perfect, Michael COULD not pay a full account for our sins. You will see the JWs leave real fast with this argument.

If Michael COULD pay a FULL account for sin, then Jehovah God, MUJST not be INFINITE. But if Jehovah God IS INFINITE, then mere Michael could NEVER pay an eternal account for sin because St. Michael is . . . . a mere finite being. Perfect yes. But a mere FINITE being he is (and thus could NOT pay an infinite account).

So Original sin demands an infinite price paid AND actual committed sin (any sin) demands an infinite price paid.

Perfect mercy (recall God has PERFECT Mercy)

Since Jesus isn’t a MERE man but is True God AND True Man, He (Jesus) ALONE can pay this account.

Jesus came to save us as He is perfectly merciful (he came to pay this account and more).

These are the things (I think) we agree upon are they not?

I will show the other aspects of Catholic soteriology later but I want to make sure we have the common items down first.

 

[gwarald]

Ok gwarald. I am glad you cited CCC 1472 and 1473. I think we can work with those.

But I’d like you to retract your statement:

I don’t understand how my statement is inconsistent with the catechism.

---

What We Perhaps Have In Common . . . ***

These are the things (I think) we agree upon are they not?

I will show the other aspects of Catholic soteriology later but I want to make sure we have the common items down first.

You are correct. There is very much that we have in common. For the most part, Protestants view many of the church fathers as champions of the faith. We even adhere to those confessions, creeds, and councils of the church which have been demonstrated to stand the test of Holy Scripture. As such, they bear the stamp of God’s protection for His people and provide an immense advantage to our faith.

 

[Cathoholic]

Great gwarald!

You are correct. There is very much that we have in common. For the most part, Protestants view many of the church fathers as champions of the faith. We even adhere to those confessions, creeds, and councils of the church which have been demonstrated to stand the test of Holy Scripture. As such, they bear the stamp of God’s protection for His people and provide an immense advantage to our faith.

We have something to build upon. As I said. MANY things in common.

You also said:

I don’t understand how my statement is inconsistent with the catechism.

Let’s see if we can build upon that.

I think the key might be to understand how Catholics view the concept of “temporal punishment due” to sins.

There is an infinite account that we cannot pay. You and I agree upon this so I won’t dwell on it here.

Yet there remains a “temporal punishment” that we must pay.

We could NEVER pay a FULL account for our sins but some account we must pay.

When Moses was convicted of hitting the rock twice, he was repentant. Yet he still had to PAY an account. He is not “EARNING” salvation, but he still MUST pay some sort of account.

When King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, and convicted of such, he was repentant. Yet some sort of account for his sin remains. He and Bathsheba lost their first-born son as a result of his sin . . . . even though he was sorry.

In the New Covenant likewise we are called to have the dignity to pay an account for sins–not in an infinite sense (we could never do that), but in SOME sense.

That’s WHY Jesus tells us we must beware! Because we will PAY an account for EVERY wrong word we utter (and that’s what we’d expect isn’t it). Both the justified AND the unjustified.

Now I know WHAT you are going to say. You will object and state: "Well we could NEVER pay a full account for any wrong word we utter. And you’d be right. We cannot pay a FULL account.

But Jesus doesn’t tell us we will pay a FULL account. But He DOES tell us we will pay an account. Jesus says so! Since Jesus says so I know if yo affirm Sacred Scripture you will agree with Jesus (hopefully more than “agree”).

Question: Do you think you MUST render account for sins?

MATTHEW 12:36-37 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

As soon as you say “yes”, you are affirming what Catholics mean by a “temporal” account.

We could NEVER pay an eternal account.

And the only way we could even “pay” a temporal account is . . . .

a. Because we are so great on our own
b. Because we have the dignity of Christ living and working IN US and through us. Because we have this GRACE (that unites us to Christ), we can “walk in newness of life”.

ROMANS 6:3-4 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

This is part of that “participation” or “sharing” or “koinonia” we have in and through Jesus Christ.

Yes we share in Jesus glory and resurrection and the “Easter Sunday” . . . BUT . . . .

We ALSO share in Jesus’ suffering, and death, and Good Friday".

As a matter of fact without “Good Friday” there is no “Easter Sunday” for us.

That’s WHY St. Paul even links this to our sonship!

ROMANS 8:15b-17 When we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

 

[Cathoholic]

And the only way we could even “pay” a temporal account is . . . .

a. Because we are so great on our own
b. Because we have the dignity of Christ living and working IN US and through us. Because we have this GRACE (that unites us to Christ), we can “walk in newness of life”.

The answer to this question of course is “b”.

Sorry. I should have put the answer in the post (#33) below. I know YOU know this gwarald but someone else reading it may not.

 

[LegoGE1947]

The answer to this question of course is “b”.

Sorry. I should have put the answer in the post (#33) below. I know YOU know this gwarald but someone else reading it may not.

Although there may be some who would like to think man is so great on his own

 

[gwarald]

Yet there remains a “temporal punishment” that we must pay.

We could NEVER pay a FULL account for our sins but some account we must pay.

This is what I was trying to express. You believe there are temporal punishments associated with actual sins for which Christ did not atone, correct?

When Moses was convicted of hitting the rock twice, he was repentant. Yet he still had to PAY an account. He is not “EARNING” salvation, but he still MUST pay some sort of account.

There are two kinds of payments. Sometimes, pay is used to describe suffering a misfortune in consequence of an action. This is different from payment of a debt.

When Johnny gets angry and breaks his toy, he pays for his action in the first sense: he suffers the loss of his toy. However, he has made no payment in the second sense. He does not atone, make up for, repay or make right the broken toy, let alone the act of anger.

In Deuteronomy 32, we see Moses suffered the consequence of his action. God did not allow him to lead the conquest of the land of Canaan and enter it, because he did not sanctify God before the people. So Moses suffered the loss of a privilege, the honor of leading the people into the land.

The text does not suggest that suffering this consequence made atonement, or repaid the guilt debt before God, or fixed what was broken: sanctifying God before the people. Moses did not pay, in that sense. He did not make it right, atone for his sins.

When King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, and convicted of such, he was repentant. Yet some sort of account for his sin remains. He and Bathsheba lost their first-born son as a result of his sin . . . . even though he was sorry.

“Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of theLord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.”

God took away David’s son not because David must make payment for his sins. God had already put them away, " The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die." Rather, God took away David’s son, so that God’s enemies would not be able to blaspheme. For example, they could not say that God did not care about murder and adultery.

There are further problems with the handling of the New Testament texts, but let’s get back to the point, because all this isn’t really addressing how my statement is inconsistent with the catechism, or what’s wrong with my earlier sentence, which you must in some way agree with, as you make some distinction between Christ’s “relationship” to “actual” and “original” sins.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What is Awana?

Approved Workmen Are Not Afraid

 

[Cathoholic]

gwarald. You said,

This is what I was trying to express. You believe there are temporal punishments associated with actual sins for which Christ did not atone, correct?

No!

I am saying Christ atoned for the eternal consequences ALL on His own.

The temporal punishments Jesus atones for too, in and through and with us with our cooperation but NEVER no NEVER us on our own.

We can reject this cooperation (but we will be rejecting grace if we do!) with Jesus.

As Jimmy Akin says: “apart from Christ we can do NOTHING. . . . . but WITH HIM we can do some stuff”.

That’s the whole idea when I discussed a

“participation” or “sharing” or “koinonia” we have in and through Jesus Christ.

gwarald. You also said,

In Deuteronomy 32, we see Moses suffered the consequence of his action. God did not allow him to lead the conquest of the land of Canaan and enter it, because he did not sanctify God before the people. So Moses suffered the loss of a privilege, the honor of leading the people into the land.

I am not disputing this gwarald. . . . but Moses STILL paid an account as a “consequence of his action” as you yourself said.

The text does not suggest that suffering this consequence made atonement, or repaid the guilt debt before God, . . .

Also agreed. But it does suggest he had an account to pay because of his sin (Moses, because of this, DIED before entering the Promised Land). Moses paid some account, the fact that he could NOT atone for his sin not withstanding.

or fixed what was broken: sanctifying God before the people. Moses did not pay, in that sense. He did not make it right, atone for his sins.

Also agreed. Nor could he atone for ONE sin in and of himself.

All this isn’t really addressing how my statement is inconsistent with the catechism

Then show me where Catholicism teaches what you said: That Jesus doesn’t atone for committed sins.

gwarald. The fact that Jesus says we must pay an account for every wrong word we utter in the context of BOTH the justified and the unjustified should say something to you.

Either you can . . .

1. “Agree” with Jesus (we pay an account for every wrong word we utter).
2. Submit to Jesus (still affirming we pay an account for every wrong word we utter).
3. Re-invent Jesus’ words into something they are not (“well we don’t REALLY pay an account for every wrong word we utter, even though Jesus explicitly says so”).

Which one do YOU say it is gwarald? 1, 2, or 3?

As soon as you “agree” and/or submit to Jesus teaching you will be affirming Catholic theology.

As soon as you disagree . . . . Well your issue isn’t with the Catholics then. Your issue is with God almighty in the flesh. Your issue is with Jesus Christ.

Consider the following statement:

gwarald must pay an account . . . . for EVERY wrong word he/she utters.

a. True
b. False

I say it is true.
Jesus says it is true.
gwarald says it is ________?

Remember I never said you could pay a full account and I never said you could pay a PARTIAL account on your own either gwarald.

But in union with Jesus you must pay some account. This is the sense that Catholics assert this paying an account (the Biblical sense).

This is a GRACE gwarald. **We must WORK in and together with Jesus otherwise we will be rejecting the very grace of God! **

This is Catholic doctrine. This is the Bible.

The bit about how Catholics supposedly deny Jesus atones for actual sin is a distortion.

And again, I’m asking you (now that you know better) to retract that statement about how Catholics allegedly teach Jesus does NOT atone for committed sin. That’s all.

Nobody is asking from you anything heroic here gwarald.

All I am asking for, is to NOT to say we believe something we don’t believe in (when you now know otherwise).

 

[gwarald]

Either you can . . .

1. “Agree” with Jesus (we pay an account for every wrong word we utter).
2. Submit to Jesus (still affirming we pay an account for every wrong word we utter).
3. Re-invent Jesus’ words into something they are not (“well we don’t REALLY pay an account for every wrong word we utter, even though Jesus explicitly says so”).

Which one do YOU say it is gwarald? 1, 2, or 3?

Jesus is saying that the ones who will give an account for their words are those who are not forgiven. Therefore, the context of Jesus’ words provides a fourth option. I choose that one.

Consider the following statement:

gwarald must pay an account . . . . for EVERY wrong word he/she utters.
​

a. True
b. False

I say it is true.
Jesus says it is true.
gwarald says it is ________?

Prior to being a Christian this was true. But ever since I began to trust in Christ for deliverance from my sin, there is no condemnation for me while I am in Him. (Romans 8.1)

This is a GRACE gwarald. **We must WORK in and together with Jesus otherwise we will be rejecting the very grace of God! **

I agree with this statement, but this work on my part does not add one inch to my advancement to glory. It cannot. This is why Christ purchased salvation for me.

The bit about how Catholics supposedly deny Jesus atones for actual sin is a distortion.

And again, I’m asking you (now that you know better) to retract that statement about how Catholics allegedly teach Jesus does NOT atone for committed sin. That’s all.

Your explanation only verifies the language of the Baltimore Catechism:
“The priest gives us a penance after confession that we may make some atonement to God for our sins, receive help to avoid them in the future, and make some satisfaction for the temporal punishment due to them.”

If I am atoning for sin, then Jesus didn’t.​

 

[Cathoholic]

I’m glad your bringing this up gwarald because this is exactly the issue that seems to be on the Awana test. And just like Awana seems, you are teaching Catholic theology. And just like Awana seems, you are teaching Catholic theology WRONG.

Concerning . . .

MATTHEW 12:36-37 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

gwarald. You stated,

Prior to being a Christian this was true. But ever since I began to trust in Christ for deliverance from my sin, there is no condemnation for me while I am in Him. (Romans 8.1)

But I am not talking about “condemnation” for you. I am asking if you have to pay any account for your sins?

Once you say “yes” you will be affirming a “temporal” (not an “eternal”) account in SOME sense. YOU gwarald, will be affirming Catholic theology if you say “yes” in ANY temporal sense.

gwarald. You also stated,

Jesus is saying that the ones who will give an account for their words are those who are not forgiven.

(bold and underline mine)

The problem with this gwarald is that it is only half right.

Jesus IS talking about people who are “not forgiven” (“condemned”). But Jesus is ALSO talking about people who ARE FORGIVEN (“justified”).

You can’t just throw a little pixie dust on these verses and hope half the teaching will go away.

gwarald. Would you say there are men are in SOME SENSE justified by their words in the context of Matthew 12:36-37? If they are “justified” are they “not forgiven”?

If this verse(s) concerns the people who ARE forgiven, do they NOT have to pay an account for EVERY wrong word too (in some sense)?

If this verse concerns ONLY people who are “not forgiven”, why would Jesus use the term “justified” in this context?

MATTHEW 12:36-37 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

gwarald. Would you say men in SOME SENSE render account for their careless words?

MATTHEW 12:36-37 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

the ones who will give an account for their words are those who are not forgiven.

NOT MATTHEW 12:36-37 (Phantom Verse) 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; 37 for by your words you will be justified, but this really does not concern the justified but only the ones who are not forgiven."

gwarald. Would you say God renders to “every man” according to his works?

ROMANS 2:6-8 6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

gwarald. Consider the following statement:

gwarald must pay an account . . . . for EVERY wrong word he/she utters.

Your answer:

Prior to being a Christian this was true.

ALSO NOT MATTHEW 12:36-37 (Phantom Verse) 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; 37 but this only concerns men who have not accepted me and nobody else."

gwarald. Would you say if you refuse to cooperate with God’s grace of working in you; you will . . .

1. Accept God’s grace anyway?
2. I cannot REFUSE to accept God’s grace?
3. Reject and lose God’s grace?

gwarald. Romans 6:23 says, “the wages of sin is death.”

Would you say you are never going to have a bodily death (gwarald never dies?) because Jesus paid your “wage” in full so you don’t have to?

Or would you say you must IN SOME SENSE pay a “wage” and your body will in fact die because of your sin (even though it is “paid” for in an eternal sense)?