Forgiveness for non-Catholics possible?

[kimball1]

Let’s look at what Jesus really said.

John 6:54-56 -
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

John 6:63-64 - The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe."

Jesus is speaking figuratively. We know this for a few reasons. First, if it was literal, it would be cannibalism. This is no doubt why some grumbled and went away. He asks them if they are offendid in V.61. But then he clears up the issue and tells them the word he speaks are spirit and they are life.

But hold on, back in verse 35, Jesus said “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”

So it looks like two options here. 1. We can either eat His flesh and drink His blood for life, or, option 2. is that we can just come to Him and we will never go hungry and believe in Him and we will never go thirsty. This is either the cafeteria salvation plan where we can pick and choose, or Jesus is in fact speaking figuratively when He says eat my flesh and drink my blood.

Friends the truth is that it means to come to Him, that is receive Him as your Lord and Savior and believe in Him.

Which brings us to Communion. Jesus says do this in memory of Him. So if it is presently happening, it would not be in memory as in past tense.

Scripture interprets Scripture. John 6:53 by itself would be taken out of context apart from the rest of the text. So now we are back to the “Sacrifice of the Mass in an unbloody manner” vs. Hebrews 9:22, …without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness." You can believe in God and even about Jesus, but if you put your faith in the wrong sacrifce, there will be no forgiveness.

Peace and Grace.

Bud

 

[Bishopite]

You betcha!

That is why it is called the Good News.

I John 5:13 - I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Sanctification is not salvation. When you confess to God you are a sinner and recongnize your condition and ask Jesus to be your savior, thus putting your trust in His one true Sacrifice, you will be fully justified on the bases of Christ dying in your place. Sanctification is a muturing in our walk with the Lord and has nothing to do with salvation.

Wrong. Justification is NOT merely a one-time event and then you are guaranteed salvation, 1 Cor 9:27, Mt 10:22, Mt 24:13…that you must endure to the end to be saved. Initial justification happens at Baptism, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, John 3:5, Titus 3:5. Salvation is justification and sactification and a process. Punctiliar only justification is NOT Scriptural.

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

1 John 5:10-12 - Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Salvation is an immediate process.

Initial justification is an immediate event, but justification is also a process. Abraham was justified in Gen 12:1-4 then 15:6 and finally in Chapter 22 because he obeyed God. Paul speaks of “the obedience of faith” in Rom 1 and 16. Jesus said in Mt 10:22 that “if you endure to the end you will be saved” Notice the conditional satement “if” which requires a life-long obedience through faith. And then the avoiding of mortal sin as is mentions in 1 John 5.

Romans 10:9-11 - That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

What’s ironic about these verses is they DON’T mention repentance, do they? So does that mean we don’t have to repent?

Santification has to do with our spiritual growth after we are saved.

2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Peace and Grace,

Bud

So what’s your point? 2 Tim nowhere says it is the only authority does it? And sanctification also happens in conjunction with justification 1 Cor 6:11 “KJV: And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

That “some of you were washed” is a reference to baptism and also notice that sanctification precedes justification here and both are a process as Mt 10:22 says…you must endure to the end to be saved.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Dear all,

In light of John 20:23, can someone please tell me if mortal sins can be forgiven directly by God without the need for sacramental confession and absolution? Is it enough for a dying person to repent of his/her sins and be forgiven?

John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Looking forward to hearing some responses please!

God bless,
Noel.

Catholic theology admits only the possibility, not the likelihood. It’s kind of like saying “can I win the lottery?” Yes, I can but is it likely? Not at all. For likelihood, I look to the Syllabus of Errors of Blessed Pius IX, who said that we should not have great hope that those removed from the full communion of the Church will receive salvation.

 

[Bishopite]

[kimball1;1978752]Let’s look at what Jesus really said.
Jesus is speaking figuratively. We know this for a few reasons. First, if it was literal, it would be cannibalism. This is no doubt why some grumbled and went away. He asks them if they are offendid in V.61. But then he clears up the issue and tells them the word he speaks are spirit and they are life.

But hold on, back in verse 35, Jesus said “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”

So it looks like two options here. 1. We can either eat His flesh and drink His blood for life, or, option 2. is that we can just come to Him and we will never go hungry and believe in Him and we will never go thirsty. This is either the cafeteria salvation plan where we can pick and choose, or Jesus is in fact speaking figuratively when He says eat my flesh and drink my blood.

"if Jesus was not speaking literally in John 6 (“My flesh is real food; My blood is true drink,” etc.), He would have been a poor teacher. After all, everyone listening to Him speak those words understood that He meant them literally. They responded, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” In the cases of Jesus saying He is a “door” or a “vine,” we find no one asking, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?” It was clear from the context and the Lord’s choice of words in those passages that He was speaking metaphorically. But in John 6 He was speaking literally. In John 6:41, the Jews “murmured” about Christ’s teaching precisely because it was so literal. Christ certainly knew they were having difficulty imagining that He was speaking literally, but rather than explain His meaning as simply a metaphor, He emphasized His teaching, saying, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever, and the bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world” (John 6:51). Why would Christ reinforce the literal sense in the minds of His listeners if He meant His words figuratively? Now point out how the Lord dealt with other situations where His listeners misunderstood the meaning of His words. In each case, He cleared up the misunderstanding. For example, the disciples were confused about His statement, “I have meat to eat that you know not of” (John 4:32). They thought he was speaking about physical food, real meat. But He quickly cleared up the misunderstanding with the clarification, “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me, that I may perfect his work” (Matt. 4:34; cf. 16:5-12). Back to John 6. Notice that the Jews argued among themselves about the meaning of Christ’s words. He reiterated the literal meaning again: “Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you” (verses 53-54). In verse 61 we see that no longer was it just the wider audience but “the disciples” themselves who were having difficulty with this radical statement. Surely, if Christ were speaking purely symbolically, it’s reasonable to expect that He would clear up the difficulty even if just among His disciples. But He doesn’t. He stands firm and asks, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” (Verse 62-63). Did Christ “symbolically” ascend into heaven after the Resurrection? No. As we see in Acts 1:9-10, His ascension was literal. This is the one and only place in the New Testament where people abandon Christ over one of His teachings. Rather than try to correct any mistaken understanding of His words, the Lord asks His Apostles, “Do you also want to leave?” (verse 67). His Apostles knew He was speaking literally. St. Paul emphasizes the truth of the Real Presence: “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord . . . .Whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27-29). If the Eucharist is merely a symbol of the Lord’s body and blood, then St. Paul’s words here make no sense. For how can one be “guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord” if it’s merely a symbol? This Greek phrase for being “guilty of someone’s body and blood” (enokos estai tou somatos kai tou haimatos tou kuriou) is a technical way of saying “guilty of murder.” If the Eucharist is merely a symbol of Christ, not Christ Himself, this warning would be drastically, absurdly overblown. "
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/nutsandbolts.html

 

[Bishopite]

Jesus is speaking figuratively. We know this for a few reasons. First, if it was literal, it would be cannibalism.

"Leviticus 17:10 indeed condemns “eating blood.” Then say, "If we’re going to be consistent with the Levitical Law, then we must also perform animal sacrifices - lambs, pigeons, turrtledoves- according to Leviticus 12:8. But as Christians, we are not under the Levitical Law. We’re under the ‘law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus’" (Rom. 8:2). Hebrews 7:11-12 tells us the Levitical Law has passed away with the advent of the New Covenant. A New Testament commandment always abrogates an Old Testament commandment. For example, in Matthew 5, the Lord repeatedly uses the formula, “You have heard that it was said (quoting an Old Testament law), But I say unto you . . .” In each instance, Christ supercedes the Old Testament law with a new commandment of His own, such as the commandment against divorce and remarriage, overagainst Moses’ allowance for it in Deuteronomy 24:1 (cf. Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-39, 43-44). This is what we see in John 6. The blood prohibition in Leviticus 17:11-12 was replaced by Christ’s new teaching in John 6:54: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you.” Eating blood was prohibitted in the Old Testament, “Because the life of the flesh is found in the blood” (Lev. 17:11). Blood is sacred and the life of each creature is in its blood. Many pagans thought they could acquire “more” life by ingesting the blood of an animal or even a human being. But obviously this was foolish. No animal or human person has the capacity to do this. But in the case of Christ, it’s different. John 6:54 tells us that our eternal life depends on His blood: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you.” envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/nutsandbolts.html

Ironic how some Protestants exegete Scripture in a literal sense save John 6 where they suddenly change to the figurative.

 

[Bishopite]

[kimball1;1973465]

The bad news is that all sin is mortal. Mortal means death dealing, and Venial means easily forgiven.

All sin is mortal? Huh? What about 1 John 5:17 “All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.”
A sin that is not deadly is a sin that doesn’t lead to death.

The Biblical truth is that Romans 6:23 says, 'For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." As far as sins that are easily forgiven, I Corinthians 7:23, “You were bought at a price.” To say anything about Christ’s death was easy is way off. If we are to be saved, we must put our trust in Jesus Blood, which he sacrificed once and for all.

Now getting back to forgiveness, compare the “Sacrifice of the Mass in and Unbloody Manner” vs. “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Like the demons, you can believe in the Trinity, the Deity and Bodily Resurrection, but if you don’t have the blood, you will have no forgiveness. You need to put your trust in the right sacrifice.

For further information: chick.com/reading/books/218/218_01.asp

Also, you can contact me at webpastor@cedarhillbaptist.org

Peace and Grace,

Bud

I thought you would be a Jack Chick supporter. Jack Chick spews out some of the most anti-Catholic venom and vitriol in the world, that’s why Catholic Answers condemns his ways. found at…catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp

 

[sandusky]

"if Jesus was not speaking literally in John 6 (“My flesh is real food; My blood is true drink,” etc.), He would have been a poor teacher. After all, everyone listening to Him speak those words understood that He meant them literally. They responded, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” In the cases of Jesus saying He is a “door” or a “vine,” we find no one asking, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?” It was clear from the context and the Lord’s choice of words in those passages that He was speaking metaphorically. But in John 6 He was speaking literally.

You are not being completely honest here.

For example:John 6:48
“I am the bread of life.

John 6:51
“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”With respect to that verse, if you truly take John 6 literally, then you must maintain that Jesus is truly some mixture of actual grain and wheat, and therefore, truly bread; isn’t that correct?John 6:53
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.With respect to that verse, if you truly take John 6 literally, then you must maintain, without any qualification, that eating Jesus’ flesh is necessary for salvation; isn’t that correct?John 6:56
“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.With respect to that verse, if you truly take John 6 literally, then you must maintain that by eating the bread, believers actually live within Jesus’ physical body; isn’t that correct?John 6:58
“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”With respect to that verse, if you truly take John 6 literally, then you must maintain that by eating the bread, believers will never experience physical death in time; isn’t that correct?

If you disagree with what I’ve posted, then in truth, you are being very particular in your “literal” interpretation, and I would like to know why?

 

[Bishopite]

[sandusky;1979934]You are not being completely honest here.

Actually I am being honest with Scripture as a cohesive whole. 1 Cor 11:29-31 “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment,”

Can you be guilty of a symbol?

For example:
John 6:48“I am the bread of life.

John 6:51“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”With respect to that verse, if you truly take John 6 literally, then you must maintain that Jesus is truly some mixture of actual grain and wheat, and therefore, truly bread; isn’t that correct?

No, that would be the literistic sense or the over literal sense like saying it rained cats and dogs, that actual animals were falling from the sky. Taken literally, we consume Jesus’ body blood and soul and divinity.

John 6:53

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.With respect to that verse, if you truly take John 6 literally, then you must maintain, without any qualification, that eating Jesus’ flesh is necessary for salvation; isn’t that correct?

It is the normal means by which Jesus established, however whether one knows that they need to, or can i.e., the prisoner or slave without the ability; these don’t incure any culpability to what they should have done since it was “impossible” for them to fulfill John 6:53. There is a difference in one knowing what they must do and another being ignorant or incapable, surely God is a just God and judges the intent of ones heart.

John 6:56

“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.With respect to that verse, if you truly take John 6 literally, then you must maintain that by eating the bread, believers actually live within Jesus’ physical body; isn’t that correct?

The substance of the body and blood of the Eucharist substantially present in a sacramental sense which is also a literal sense.

John 6:58

“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”With respect to that verse, if you truly take John 6 literally, then you must maintain that by eating the bread, believers will never experience physical death in time; isn’t that correct?

No, eating the bread helps you receive eternal life, it is th

If you disagree with what I’ve posted, then in truth, you are being very particular in your “literal” interpretation, and I would like to know why?

What do you mean by “very particular?” Taking the literal sense means understanding what the author indended convey to his readers, understanding the genre, and idiomatic language of the time it was written. If Jesus didn’t want John 6 to be literal than what of 1 Cor 11? Again, can you be guilty of a something merely symbolic?

 

[Bishopite]

You are not being completely honest here.

For example:John 6:48“I am the bread of life.

John 6:51“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”With respect to that verse, if you truly take John 6 literally, then you must maintain that Jesus is truly some mixture of actual grain and wheat, and therefore, truly bread; isn’t that correct?John 6:53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.With respect to that verse, if you truly take John 6 literally, then you must maintain, without any qualification, that eating Jesus’ flesh is necessary for salvation; isn’t that correct?John 6:56“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.With respect to that verse, if you truly take John 6 literally, then you must maintain that by eating the bread, believers actually live within Jesus’ physical body; isn’t that correct?John 6:58“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”With respect to that verse, if you truly take John 6 literally, then you must maintain that by eating the bread, believers will never experience physical death in time; isn’t that correct?

If you disagree with what I’ve posted, then in truth, you are being very particular in your “literal” interpretation, and I would like to know why?

Your questions made me think that you are asking me a Catholic how I know John 6 is literal as opposed to literalistic or figurative.
But a more interesting question is, by what criteria do you know the correct way to interpret Scripture? I can answer how I can, see 1 Tim 3:15.

 

[sandusky]

Bishopite:

What do you mean by “very particular?” Taking the literal sense means understanding what the author indended convey to his readers, understanding the genre, and idiomatic language of the time it was written.

What I mean by very particular, is that you are inconsistent and indiscriminate in the application of literal interpretation.

Literal interpretation does mean understanding what the author intended to convey to his readers, but within the understanding of literal interpretation is the recognition of figurative, symbolic, and spiritual language, and spiritual meaning as well.

You reject my literal interpretation of John 6:48, 51 on the basis that my interpretation is
over[ly] literal**. But literally contained within those verses is the spiritual truth that Jesus is indeed “the Bread of Life.”

You reject my literal interpretation of two verses, John 6:53, 56, on the basis of two separate a priori commitments to church teachings that my interpretations contradict.

You didn’t finish the reason for your rejection of one of the verses.

Going back to my “literal interpretations” of John 6:48, 51—the only two interpretations that were not rejected by you on the basis of a prior commitment to particular church doctrines—how is it that those two interpretations (vv48,and 51), are “over[ly] literal**,” for you; but, when Jesus says that one must eat His flesh, and drink His blood, that for you, is not over[ly] literal**?

 

[kimball1]

Sandusky, I can’t seem to figure out if you are a transubstantiationist, to coin a word, or if you are making an argument for the Word of God. Maybe it’s because it’s 11pm here and I just got back from Bible study and the old noggin is not kickin’ in so well.

 

[kimball1]

Time to get the man made religion out of the way and stick to the Word of God in it’s simplest form.

THE GOSPEL:

THE BAD NEWS -
Romans 3:23 - ALL ARE SINNERS
Romans 5:12, 6:23a - SINNERS ALL DIE
Revelation 20:11-15 - LAKE OF FIRE

THE GOOD NEWS -
Romans 6:23 - GOD OFFERS A GIFT
John 3:16 - GOD LOVES US
Romans 5:8 - JESUS DIED FOR US
I Peter 2:42 - JESUS BORE OUR SINS
Revelation 1:5b - JESUS SHED HIS BLOOD TO WASH AWAY SINS

YOUR CHOICE -
Romans 10:13 - CALL ON HIM
Ephesians 2:8-9 - RECEIVE HIS GIFT BY FAITH
John 1:12 - BELIEVE ON HIS NAME

JESUS CHRIST IS THE ONLY WAY TO ETERNAL LIFE

John 14:6 - “Jesus saith unto him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.’”

Acts 4:12 - “Neither is there savlation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

I Timothy 2:5 - “For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.”

          WILL YOU BELIEVE?

John 5:40 - “Come to me that ye might have life.”

YOU CAN KNOW FOR SURE - 100%

1 John 5:11-13 - “And this is the record: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.”

 

[kimball1]

NOT OF GOOD WORKS

Romans 3:20 - “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Romans 3:28 - “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

Romans 4:5 - " But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

Titus 3:5 - “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost…”

Ephesians 2:8-9 - “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

                     SALVATION IS A FEE GIFT

Romans 6:23 - “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Ephesians 2:8 - “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God…”

John 10:28 - " And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."

II Corinthians 9:15 - “Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.”

                   DO YOU WANT TO GET SAVED?

Repent of your man made religion and embrace the good news.

Pray with all sincerity:

Dear God,
I know that I am a sinner. I know You love me. I know Jesus died in my place, to suffer for my sins. I know Jesus shed His blood to wash away my sins. I call unto you. I receive your Son, and I believe in the death-burial-resurrection of Jesus for me. I trust You to save me from my sins and give me eternal life.
In Jesus name I pray, Amen.

If you prayed this with sincerity in your heart because you just realized that neither you nor any man made religion can save you from eternal damnation; no priest or pope can save you, but only Jesus, then you have just begun a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and are born again.

John 3:3 - "Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’”

Luke 15:10 - “Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

If this is you, I would like to hear from you.

Peace and Grace.

Bud

 

[Pax]

NOT OF GOOD WORKS

Romans 3:20 - “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Romans 3:28 - “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

Romans 4:5 - " But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

Titus 3:5 - “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost…”

Ephesians 2:8-9 - “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

                     SALVATION IS A FEE GIFT

Romans 6:23 - “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Ephesians 2:8 - “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God…”

John 10:28 - " And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."

II Corinthians 9:15 - “Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.”

                   DO YOU WANT TO GET SAVED?

Repent of your man made religion and embrace the good news.

Pray with all sincerity:

Dear God,
I know that I am a sinner. I know You love me. I know Jesus died in my place, to suffer for my sins. I know Jesus shed His blood to wash away my sins. I call unto you. I receive your Son, and I believe in the death-burial-resurrection of Jesus for me. I trust You to save me from my sins and give me eternal life.
In Jesus name I pray, Amen.

If you prayed this with sincerity in your heart because you just realized that neither you nor any man made religion can save you from eternal damnation; no priest or pope can save you, but only Jesus, then you have just begun a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and are born again.

John 3:3 - "Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’”

Luke 15:10 - “Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

If this is you, I would like to hear from you.

Peace and Grace.

Bud

Ease up on the agenda, and learn what it is we believe before making this kind of rant.

 

[Bishopite]

What I mean by very particular

, is that you are inconsistent and indiscriminate in the application of literal interpretation.

Literal interpretation does mean understanding what the author intended to convey to his readers, but within the understanding of literal interpretation is the recognition of figurative, symbolic, and spiritual language, and spiritual meaning as well.

And a symbolic are spritual are part of John 6, however, the literal takes presidence as the “primary” meaning of that chapter.

You reject my literal interpretation of John 6:48, 51 on the basis that my interpretation is
over

 

[Church_Militant]

How curious that Jesus would commission men to forgive sins only from the time of His resurrection to the death of the last Apostle. Do you believe that He wanted the “laying on of hands”(1Tim:4,14;5,22;Acts:6,6; 8,17;2Tim:1,6) to impart the powers of the apostles, or was it a transmission of nothing. Remember that what Jesus once wanted, He always wants - “the Same, yesterday, today, and forever.”(Heb:13,8).

That would be Catholic teaching. The commission did not end with the death of the last apostle

 

[Church_Militant]

Noel,

First I want to say that I know only just a few Catholics that according to their own religion are going to heaven. The Catholic church dogma says that missing the “Sacrifice of the Mass in and Unbloody Manner” on Sunday (or Saturday evening, or whatever “counts”) is a mortal sin, in which upon their death, they would go directly to hell if not getting to confession. Yet these same Catholics are sure not to eat meat on Friday. (See I Timothy 4:3) They say they don’t believe that part. Sounds like the cafeteria salvation plan. (pick and choose).

Sounds more like you have no decent understanding of Catholic teaching and since Catholics do not presume that they will go to Heaven your opening comments are misleading.

The bad news is that all sin is mortal. Mortal means death dealing, and Venial means easily forgiven.

According to you. I note that you seem to have ignored any passages of scripture that apply that do indeed point out a difference between Mortal and venial sins.

1st John 5:16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. 17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

The Biblical truth is

…not what you have presented here.

So you should not be concerned about non-Catholics, but those who do not put their trust in the finished work on the Cross, once and for all.

As we are taught by the Catholic Church.

In John 19:30, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. When He died on the cross it was once and for all. When He said “it is finished,” the greek word was “tetellestai,” which also meant “paid in full.”

Gee… as if the Catholic Church does nuot teach that.

Now getting back to forgiveness, compare the “Sacrifice of the Mass in and Unbloody Manner” vs. “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Like the demons, you can believe in the Trinity, the Deity and Bodily Resurrection, but if you don’t have the blood, you will have no forgiveness. You need to put your trust in the right sacrifice.

It would help a lot if you knew what you were talking about here. You do not. Read these and maybe try again. The Institution of the Mass and Christ in the Eucharist not to mention, The Eucharist IS Scriptural

For further information: chick.com/reading/books/218/218_01.asp

Also, you can contact me at webpastor@cedarhillbaptist.orgNot likely… Thomas F. Heinze doesn’t know what he’s talking about any more than Jack Chick does. Chick either willing or was duped into publishing the scam and hoax of Alberto Rivera. And still hasn’t admitted it…

I was non-Catholic. Been there and done that.

 

[sandusky]

Bishopite:

And a symbolic are spritual are part of John 6, however, the literal takes presidence as the “primary” meaning of that chapter.

The definition of literal interpretation is that ones reading of scripture should be literal. When when one encounters what is clearly figurative language, or symbolic language, or spiritual language, ones literal interpretation is that the language is figurative, symbolic, spiritual.

IOW, when Jesus says, “I am the bread of Life,” one understands that as a spiritual truth, and that understanding is the literal interpretation of “I am the bread of Life.” Do you see what I am saying?

So you are correct in saying the literal interpretation always takes precedence.

Bishopite:

Uh…ok, well if you want a spiritual sense of the literal, fine.

I did not say the spiritual sense of the literal; what I said is that the literal interpretation of “I am the Bread of Life,” is that it is a spiritual truth. I said nothing about a sense.

Bishopite:

So what’ wrong with commitments to church teachings?

In John 6:53, Jesus says, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in yourselves; that is an unqualified statement, the converse of which is that the one who does not eat the flesh and drink the blood is dead, and does not have salvation.

You reject what Jesus’ says in that verse on the basis of invincible ignorance, when in fact, Jesus’ makes no such qualification; therefore you are inconsistent in your literal interpretation because it contradicts Church teaching.

Bishopite:

What’s wrong with a prior commitment to particular Church doctrine? That’s HOW we get the context.

Prior Church Doctrine should not determine the context of scripture; that approach yields an eisegetical interpretation biased by the prior doctrine; you said you wanted to relate the writer’s intention.

The major distortion of John 6 comes from the proposition that it is connected to the Last Supper. It is bias that links those two sections of scripture; the only mention of the events of John 6 are found only in John 6.

Be that as it may, you haven’t answered the question that I would like you to answer; namely, how is it that saying that Jesus, in vv48, 51 is truly a mixture of wheat, and grain, and therefore truly bread, is an “over[ly] literal**,” interpretation to you; but, saying Jesus really means that one must literally eat His flesh, and drink His blood is not an “over[ly] literal**,” interpretation
to you?

 

[DB_AND_ALI]

By the Great High Priest, who also left authority to His Apostles to forgive sins (see the OP’s original citation of scripture).

I think Protestants who are genuinely contrite are forgiven by God. But God alone knows IF and HOW. It’s a grey area that He MAY forgive, it’s a certainty that in the priestly office, He DOES forgive (again, the above citation). Why risk it?

I am catholic but i disagree…our god is not a god of ‘ifs’ and ‘maybes’…the sinner on the cross was truly repentant and was promised heaven ; no ifs and buts !
So one can be forgiven by asking for forgiveness directly or [for catholics] we can go to confession , with the same result.
Or am i missing something here ???!

 

[DianJo]

Hi,

Im a non-catholic Christian and I do believe we no longer need priests. Jesus Christ took care of that for us. When He died the veil ripped in half giving all of us a direct line to God. I believe that is where the priesthood ended and the new priesthood began. What I mean is that we are all considered priests and go directly to God. I know Im not explaining this well, but maybe another non-catholic will come along and do a better job

You believe such a thing because throughout the generations this passage has been completely misinterpreted.

Do you think that God, in His Almighty Wisdom, would institute the ministerial (Jewish) priesthood to the extent He did, teach His priests to do the things that He taught them - one of which was to mediate between man and God in forgiving sins and then just say, “Okay, because of Jesus, you no longer need the priesthood!”

Nope, don’t think so. Jesus Himself said, “I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.” This says nothing about abolishing the priesthood. In fact, Jesus Himself instituted the priesthood of the New Covenant the night of the Last Supper and then sent the Apostles out to all nations to do as He did - to serve all peoples - that’s what the priesthood does.

Why would Paul call his ministry a ministry of reconcilation? And then say he was an ambassador of Chirst 2 sentences later? “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, “So we are ambassadors for Christ” (2 Cor. 5:20). I understand that you will say that the reconciliation talked about here is Jesus reconciling man and God so we could once again enter into heaven. I would say correct but it also means the forgiveness of an individual’s sins in confession. Otherwise, there would’ve been no reason for Jesus to breathe on the Apostles, give them His Spirit and tell them that they could forgive sins.

It is also evidenced in the bible that the Apostles passed on their “office” (Bishop) with the laying on of hands to pass on this Spirit so that their successors could forgive as well. It’s called Apostolic Succession. There is no eveidence anywhere that that power died with the last Apostle. You’re reading something into scripture that is simply not there because that’s what has been taught to you by someone who believes in what the reformers passed on.

You cannot pick verses to say what you think they say. You have to look at verses in light of ALL OF SCRIPTURE, from beginning to end. God took great pains to teach His priests how to act as mediators between He and man in forgiving sins - it goes all the way back to Adam and Eve. Jesus did not abolish the priesthood - the reformers did!