How To Read and Understand The Bible

[EdOsiecki]

]Hmmm…, but Matthew says that the Jews praised God for giving this power to forgive sins to MEN (in the healing of the paralytic

).Hi NotWorthy,thanks for your reply. Concerning Mat.9:6 above, Ginger on post 116 & 119, explaines it very well. In fact, she trumps and defeats your erroneous interpretation so well, that the only thing left for you to do is to admit that you are wrong!

In Leviticus 5 (see below), a person who commits a minor sin can take a sin offering to the priest, confess his sins, and what? His sins are forgiven. Now, I ask you, *Who *forgave that man’s sins?

Not so fast brother! The way you phrase it here, it appears that the sin was confessed to a priest and he forgave the sin. WRONG! ---- WRONG! ---- WRONG! ---- (A) Nowhere in the O.T., does God give priests permission to hear confessions or that any person confessed to a priest.---- (B) When you quote Lev 5:5-9, you underline confession and forgiven. which is bias to your cause, but you fail to note that it’s the BLOOD of the animal that atoned for the sin. Heb 9:22 “without the shedding of BLOOD there is no forgiveness of sin” In simple English the priest was the “middle man” killing the animal and he sprinkled the BLOOD on the altar. The sin was forgiven by God through the BLOOD of the sacrificed animal, a temporary system until Christ. The priest had nothing to do with the forgiving. ED O.

 

[SteveGC]

] And in the church God has appointed,—apostles,—prohets,—teachers,—workers of miracles,— those with gifts of healing,—administrators,—some speak in tongues. No priests! Ed O.

And these people God has appointed…where are they now? If it was just during biblical times, where do we read that this appointment was to become unnecessary after the death of the ones you acknowledge that God appointed?

Or, if you claim they’re still with us, and the pastor at a non-Catholic church is one of your examples of an appointed teacher, then how do you qualify him/her as being truly, authentically appointed by God?

Or, if you claim all believers are appointed as teachers, etc, where is this appointment clarified in scripture, and if you can find it somewhere, can you show me how I can know that we are all appointed in the same manner that the apostles were? Or is it a different kind of appointment?

EdOsiecki:

In simple English the priest was the “middle man”

Catholic priests still are the middle men. Are you thinking we’re saying that the priest himself becomes the source of the forgiveness, the source of grace?

 

[EdOsiecki]

]

, I receive the Holy Spirit in many ways, both through the Sacraments and by other means (… “the Wind blows where it wills…”). And for a time, I am fully in God. But as I sin, especially when I commit a mortal sin, I lose the Holy Spirit. ("… some sins are deadly…"). I lose this Eternal Life that Christ has given me. That’s why I go to Confession. I receive the Holy Spirit in confession. That’s one example.

Hi NotWorthy, thanks for your reply. Your theology is wrong! The Holy Spirit does not go away, then come back in at confession, and go away again when you sin, and come back in at confession. Heb. 10:14-17, " because by one sacrifice He has made PERFECT FOREVER those who are being made holy. v15 “The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: v16 “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord, I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.” v17 Then he adds: " Their sins and LAWLESS ACTS I will remember no more.”

Heb.13:5 “----Never will I leave you; Never will I forsake you.” (never is a superlative) (the Holy Spirit is an indwelt person { HE } that remains with us)

Heb.13:12, “And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make people holy through His own BLOOD.” When a person accepts Jesus’ BLOOD to cover he/she sins, that person is justified (just as if he/she never sinned) Should a believer sin, the Holy Spirit immediately does HIS work and convicts, the believer then confesses the sin to God, and is forgiven. The process continues until death. Should a believer continue to sin and reject the convicting of the Holy Spirit, then as 2 Peter 2:22 states, “There is an old saying that ’ A dog returns its vomit ----’ That is the way it is with those who turn again to their sin.” ED O.

 

[NotWorthy]

You might have a point** IF** the disciples had been given this power before this particular event. But since the power to forgive which you claim was given them, was not yet given, your argument fails.

You might have a point if the inspired author had written this before the Apostles were given this authority, but it was after. Hence your argument fails!

Furthermore, the people made this statement in response to the miracle of healing, not the act of forgiving.

Where does it say that? Jesus, first and foremost forgave the man, and then healed him in order to prove that He had the authority to forgive sins. Even the Pharisees, as you pointed out (and agreed with, I might add) knew that Jesus was talking of forgiving the man.

The most “telling” statement is made by Jesus when he says, “… that you may know that** the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins**”

Notice Jesus says “son of man” - singular!!!

And “The Son of Man”, who wields this authority explicitly gives this authority to MEN, in John 20. THAT is the most “telling” statement.

For Clarification, See: Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD;

Ginger

 

[NotWorthy]

For Clarification, See: Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD;
Ginger

For clarification, this was a Psalm of David. The Catholic Priesthood was still some 1000 years away when this scene was depicted. David doesn’t speak prophetically in any other place in this psalm, why do you insist that he should in verse 5?

 

[NotWorthy]

).Hi NotWorthy,thanks for your reply. Concerning Mat.9:6 above, Ginger on post 116 & 119, explaines it very well. In fact, she trumps and defeats your erroneous interpretation so well, that the only thing left for you to do is to admit that you are wrong!

No so fast, my brother. Both you and Ginger have so far danced around Jesus’ words, it’s incredible. As I pointed out to Ginger, Matthew is all about forgiveness. The healing is only “proof”. So, we have established that Jesus has the authority to forgive sins. (I think you agree with me on that point). Next, we see in John 20 that Jesus clearly gives this authority to men to do in His Name, namely the Twelve (eleven to be more precise).

I fail to see how this verse confuses you. Did Jesus give the Apostles the authority to forgive sins in His Name? If not, what did Jesus mean? His Words seem to be very clear, but I get the feeling that your beliefs are clouding your interpretation (or lack of interpretation).

To further my point, let’s return to Matthew 9, where Jesus shows his healing the paralytic proves that He can forgive the man’s sins. The Apostles are able to heal in Acts, right? They heal, only through the power of Jesus (IOW, they heal in His Name). This is exactly how they forgave others’ sins. They forgive, only through the power of Jesus (IOW, they forgive in His Name).

Now, do you admit that a man can’t heal someone’s injuries simply by his will? Its God’s Will that heals a man, although God often uses a human instrument to perform such a miracle. Its the same way with forgiveness. God Forgives, but uses the priest as His instrument.

Not so fast brother! The way you phrase it here, it appears that the sin was confessed to a priest and he forgave the sin. WRONG! ---- WRONG! ---- WRONG! ---- (A) Nowhere in the O.T., does God give priests permission to hear confessions or that any person confessed to a priest.---- (B) When you quote Lev 5:5-9, you underline confession and forgiven. which is bias to your cause, but you fail to note that it’s the BLOOD of the animal that atoned for the sin. Heb 9:22 “without the shedding of BLOOD there is no forgiveness of sin” In simple English the priest was the “middle man” killing the animal and he sprinkled the BLOOD on the altar. The sin was forgiven by God through the BLOOD of the sacrificed animal, a temporary system until Christ. The priest had nothing to do with the forgiving. ED O.

Not so fast brother! The Book of Leviticus is written for what purpose? To instruct the priesthood.

You say the priest had nothing to do with forgiveness? I say, “Balderdash”! If the sinner tried to perform all the rituals described in Leviticus 5 (regarding to the scene that I “erroneously” characterized), then that sinner would have been no better off. The priest was necessary. Period. And as you (or Ginger) so appropriately pointed out, “The Old is but a Shadow of the New”.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorthy, thanks for your reply. Your theology is wrong! The Holy Spirit does not go away, then come back in at confession, and go away again when you sin, and come back in at confession. Heb. 10:14-17, " because by one sacrifice He has made PERFECT FOREVER those who are being made holy. v15 “The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: v16 “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord, I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.” v17 Then he adds: " Their sins and LAWLESS ACTS I will remember no more.”

Then you have to explain John 15, where Jesus admonished the Apostles to abide in Him. He who doesn’t abide in him will be pruned away and thrown into the fire. It seems like someone can lose their salvation.

The parable of the Prodigal Son is a prime example. The son was dead, but was alive again!
Notice that he was alive, then he died, then he was alive again. Remember, Jesus is describing the Kingdom of God. The Prodigal Son shows that one can be part of the family of God, then walk away from their inheritance, only to return to the Family of God. Good Catholic Theology, my brother!

Heb.13:5 “----Never will I leave you; Never will I forsake you.” (never is a superlative) (the Holy Spirit is an indwelt person { HE } that remains with us)

Does Jesus say in John 15 that those who don’t remain in Him will be pruned, or does He not? You see, its not the Holy Spirit that abandons US. Its WE who abandon HIM. That is what Jesus is referring to when he says, “Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither…”.

Heb.13:12, “And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make people holy through His own BLOOD.” When a person accepts Jesus’ BLOOD to cover he/she sins, that person is justified (just as if he/she never sinned) Should a believer sin, the Holy Spirit immediately does HIS work and convicts, the believer then confesses the sin to God, and is forgiven. The process continues until death. Should a believer continue to sin and reject the convicting of the Holy Spirit, then as 2 Peter 2:22 states, “There is an old saying that ’ A dog returns its vomit ----’ That is the way it is with those who turn again to their sin.” ED O.

Well, now your talking out of both ends of your mouth.

Is it:
a) Should a believer sin, the Holy Spirit immediately does HIS work and convicts, the believer then confesses the sin to God, and is forgiven.
or
b) Should a believer continue to sin and reject the convicting of the Holy Spirit, then as 2 Peter 2:22 states, "There is an old saying that ’ A dog returns its vomit

Or does it sound like its not the sinning that counts, but its the belief that “I can sin all I want as long as I have Faith that the Holy Spirit will convict for me”?

What does a Catholic do at Confession.
a) They acknowledge their sins and confess them before God (through the priest).
b) They resolve to try to cease doing this sin for they know it offends God, Who is all deserving of their love.
c) They offer up a penance, a personal sacrifice (does this sound familiar to the old shadow we discussed in Leviticus 5?) to atone for their sins.
d) They ask God for forgiveness.
e) They trust the words of Holy Scripture that Jesus’ authority is passed on to His Servants to forgive our sins in His Name.

 

[EdOsiecki]

]

And these people God has appointed…where are they now? If it was just during biblical times, where do we read that this appointment was to become unnecessary after the death of the ones you acknowledge that God appointed?

Or, if you claim they’re still with us, and the pastor at a non-Catholic church is one of your examples of an appointed teacher, then how do you qualify him/her as being truly, authentically appointed by God?

Or, if you claim all believers are appointed as teachers, etc, where is this appointment clarified in scripture, and if you can find it somewhere, can you show me how I can know that we are all appointed in the same manner that the apostles were? Or is it a different kind of appointment?

Hi Steve GC, thanks for your reply and I appreciate hearing from you. To answer all of the above in summary: Eph 2:19-20 God’s church is built upon the apostles (not on Peter alone) and prophets with Christ being the head. Born again believers are members of that church. Which includes me too! The fourteen churches listed in the Bible, had and circulated all the letters which we call the N.T. today. What more is there to believe concerning salvation and eternal life that I personally (qualified by the Holy Spirit) that I can’t read for myself? In Acts, if the 3,000 and later 5,000 got saved without the Roman Catholic church. They didn’t need it. Paul already warned about corruption in the church Gal 1:8. Do you think it got better 2,000 years later? So I’m not impressed about qualifications. Is everybody accept Catholics going to hell? Obviously NO! ED O ]

 

[NotWorthy]

]Hi Steve GC, thanks for your reply and I appreciate hearing from you. To answer all of the above in summary: Eph 2:19-20 God’s church is built upon the apostles (not on Peter alone) and prophets with Christ being the head. Born again believers are members of that church. Which includes me too! The fourteen churches listed in the Bible, had and circulated all the letters which we call the N.T. today. What more is there to believe concerning salvation and eternal life that I personally (qualified by the Holy Spirit) that I can’t read for myself? In Acts, if the 3,000 and later 5,000 got saved without the Roman Catholic church. They didn’t need it. Paul already warned about corruption in the church Gal 1:8. Do you think it got better 2,000 years later? So I’m not impressed about qualifications. Is everybody accept Catholics going to hell? Obviously NO! ED O ]

How do you say the 3000 and later 5000 did not get saved without the (Roman) Catholic Church? They were baptized by the Church authority. This Church authority was the Catholic Church and the current Church authority derived their authority directly from these Apostles.

And no Catholic can claim that Catholics only are allowed in heaven. Where do you get that we claim this?

BTW, I put Roman in parenthesis because “Roman Catholic” is a term that Luther coined. What is now called the “Roman Catholic Church” is the Catholic Church in Acts.

 

[Ginger2]

"Ginger:

You might have a point IF the disciples had been given this power before this particular event. But since the power to forgive which you claim was given them, was not yet given, your argument fails.

You might have a point if the inspired author had written this before the Apostles were given this authority, but it was after. Hence your argument fails!

lol

Are you are suggesting Matthew told a lie about what the people did and thought in order to convince the reader of a doctrine that, according to you, would be established in the future?

Matthew is relaying the response of the eyewitnesses at the time of the actual event. You seem to be suggesting Matthew would fudge on the facts to convince the reader of future events.
If you are correct, how can anyone ever be certain whether the Apostle’s stories are factual or simply fabricated attempts to make others believe what they want us to believe?

Do you understand the implications of your asserts? You are suggesting the Apostles wrote lies about past events to convince people to follow them. Do you really think God would approve of such tactics???

Ginger

 

[kepha1]

Confession of sins to the priest was a provision made by God to the Jews long before Christ was born, which proves it is not a Catholic invention, although Catholics still share a certain solidarity with our elder brothers. Rejection of Church authority, and rejection of the New Testament priesthood led up to the rejection of confession as a sacrament, and these rejections are recent traditions of men.

Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.

Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution.

2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin).

Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other.

Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse.
Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly.

There is nothing wrong with confession ones sins directly to God, but for serious sins, it just isn’t biblical to confess directly to God alone.

 

[kepha1]

Ed O

Hi Steve GC, thanks for your reply and I appreciate hearing from you. To answer all of the above in summary: Eph 2:19-20 God’s church is built upon the apostles (not on Peter alone) and prophets with Christ being the head. Born again believers are members of that church. Which includes me too! The fourteen churches listed in the Bible, had and circulated all the letters which we call the N.T. today. What more is there to believe concerning salvation and eternal life that I personally (qualified by the Holy Spirit) that I can’t read for myself? In Acts, if the 3,000 and later 5,000 got saved without the Roman Catholic church. They didn’t need it. Paul already warned about corruption in the church Gal 1:8. Do you think it got better 2,000 years later? So I’m not impressed about qualifications. Is everybody accept Catholics going to hell? Obviously NO! ED O ]

" In Acts, if the 3,000 and later 5,000 got saved without the Roman Catholic church. They didn’t need it."

The 3000 and the 5000 in Acts were brought in to the Catholic Church.

Paul already warned about corruption in the church Gal 1:8.

Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.

The gospel message, which was the property of the Apostles to preach, was the true Gospel, and nowhere in the Bible is this gospel message the property of individual bible readers. The authority to preach the gospel was reserved only for those who were ordained, and the gospel message was passed on until the Bible was written down, and continues to be passed down under Apostolic Succession. That Gospel message, preserved in two different modes of transmission, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, share the same protection from error.

St. Paul is not talking about corruption in the Catholic Church, he is talking about anyone who is not in the Catholic Church who is preaching a different Gospel “contrary to that which we preached to you”.

The fourteen churches listed in the Bible, had and circulated all the letters which we call the N.T. today.

Ed, this is a half truth.

 

[NotWorthy]

lol

Are you are suggesting Matthew told a lie about what the people did and thought in order to convince the reader of a doctrine that, according to you, would be established in the future?

lol

No, I’m thinking you are reading this verse as, “and the people said, ‘Thank You all Good and Powerful God for giving this authority to men’” This verse could easily be seen as, “and the people said, ‘Thank You all Good and Powerful God’ for giving this authority to men”. Do you see the difference. The people praised God when they saw the healing.

In any event, the inspired author did say that the praise was because this authority was given to men (plural). Its up to you to do the math.

Matthew is relaying the response of the eyewitnesses at the time of the actual event. You seem to be suggesting Matthew would fudge on the facts to convince the reader of future events.

No, you seem to be reading more into my words than I am saying.

If you are correct, how can anyone ever be certain whether the Apostle’s stories are factual or simply fabricated attempts to make others believe what they want us to believe?

Do you understand the implications of your asserts? You are suggesting the Apostles wrote lies about past events to convince people to follow them. Do you really think God would approve of such tactics???

Ginger

Do you understand the implications of your asserts? I am not fudging facts.

 

[kepha1]

Ed O

"… Born again believers are members of that church. Which includes me too! The fourteen churches listed in the Bible, had and circulated all the letters which we call the N.T. today. What more is there to believe concerning salvation and eternal life that I personally (qualified by the Holy Spirit) that I can’t read for myself? In Acts, if the 3,000 and later 5,000 got saved without the Roman Catholic church. They didn’t need it. Paul already warned about corruption in the church Gal 1:8. Do you think it got better 2,000 years later? So I’m not impressed about qualifications. Is everybody accept Catholics going to hell? Obviously NO! ED O ]

" In Acts, if the 3,000 and later 5,000 got saved without the Roman Catholic church. They didn’t need it."

The 3000 and the 5000 in Acts were brought in to the Catholic Church.

Paul already warned about corruption in the church Gal 1:8.

Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.

The gospel message, which was the property of the Apostles to preach, was the true Gospel, and nowhere in the Bible is this gospel message the property of individual bible readers. Nowhere in the Bible is the Gospel message or even “Word of God” confined to the written word alone.The authority to teach was reserved only for those who were ordained, and the gospel message was passed on and continues to be passed down under Apostolic Succession. That Gospel message, preserved in two different modes of transmission, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, share the same protection from error.

St. Paul is not talking about corruption in the Catholic Church, he is talking about anyone who is preaching a different Gospel who is not in the Catholic Church, preaching “contrary to that which we preached to you”. St. Paul was Catholic.

The fourteen churches listed in the Bible, had and circulated all the letters which we call the N.T. today.

Ed, this is a half truth. Yes, they circulated NT letters. Along with those letters they circulated 12 “gospels” and 35 “Books of Acts”, for starters. On whose authority were the truly inspired books discerned from the fake books, with no one knowing for sure which books were inspired? And if you say the early Christians “just knew”, what were there names? This theory of circulating only inspired books was invented to undermine the authority of the Church, and there is not a shred of evidence to support this Protestant theory. The Bible took 4 centuries and as many councils to finally come together, it did not just fall out of the sky. So this “corrupt” church can produce an infallible book? Pitting the Bible against the Church is just another false dichotomy. Who do you think invented that one?

I would like to prove that Jesus and the Apostles were Catholic. Sounds radical? Yes, but those who are not Catholic are still included in the Church, it’s just that non-Catholic Christians (sadly) have varying levels of unity with the Church Jesus founded.

CATHOLIC:It comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus. : It means ‘Universal’, which in itself means, ‘of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein’. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.

CATHOLIC is biblical. It is in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations…teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world.” That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.

Rom. 1:8 ….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATanggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)”

Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8

“Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, of 106 A.D

106 A.D. Think about that. This was written just 10 years after Revelation, and some 200 years before Constantine was born. So who is really corrupt and resorting to lies?

 

[EdOsiecki]

No so fast, my brother. Both you and Ginger have so far danced around Jesus’ words, it’s incredible. As I pointed out to Ginger, Matthew is all about forgiveness. The healing is only “proof”. So, we have established that Jesus has the authority to forgive sins. (I think you agree with me on that point). Next, we see in John 20 that Jesus clearly gives this authority to men to do in His Name, namely the Twelve (eleven to be more precise).

I fail to see how this verse confuses you. Did Jesus give the Apostles the authority to forgive sins in His Name? If not, what did Jesus mean? His Words seem to be very clear, but I get the feeling that your beliefs are clouding your interpretation (or lack of interpretation).

To further my point, let’s return to Matthew 9, where Jesus shows his healing the paralytic proves that He can forgive the man’s sins. The Apostles are able to heal in Acts, right? They heal, only through the power of Jesus (IOW, they heal in His Name). This is exactly how they forgave others’ sins. They forgive, only through the power of Jesus (IOW, they forgive in His Name).

Now, do you admit that a man can’t heal someone’s injuries simply by his will? Its God’s Will that heals a man, although God often uses a human instrument to perform such a miracle. Its the same way with forgiveness. God Forgives, but uses the priest as His instrument.
Not so fast brother! The Book of Leviticus is written for what purpose? To instruct the priesthood.

You say the priest had nothing to do with forgiveness? I say, “Balderdash”! If the sinner tried to perform all the rituals described in Leviticus 5 (regarding to the scene that I “erroneously” characterized), then that sinner would have been no better off. The priest was necessary. Period. And as you (or Ginger) so appropriately pointed out, “The Old is but a Shadow of the New”. /

QUOTE]Hi Not Worthy, thanks for your reply. I’m speaking of a person going into a cofessional booth like Catholics do to confess sins to a priest, IT’S NOT IN THE O.T. SCRIPTURES. If it is show me where? God had specific rituals spelled out for the priests to do, and personal confessions was not among them. The people confessed their sins to God. The priests did NOT forgive sins, he was used to kill the animals and to sprinkle the Blood on ther Altar. It was God that forgave the sins by the required blood of the animals. Concerning the Old is but Shadowing of the New is “Hogwash!” Your problem is that you fail to understand what the words by Christ, IT IS FINISHED" mean. And why would the ripping of a curtain be so important to be placed in the Scripture if it had no significant meaning? ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Originally Posted by EdOsiecki
Hi NotWorthy, thanks for your reply. Your theology is wrong! The Holy Spirit does not go away, then come back in at confession, and go away again when you sin, and come back in at confession. Heb. 10:14-17, " because by one sacrifice He has made PERFECT FOREVER those who are being made holy. v15 “The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: v16 “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord, I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.” v17 Then he adds: " Their sins and LAWLESS ACTS I will remember no more.”

NotWorthy’s response:

Then you have to explain John 15, where Jesus admonished the Apostles to abide in Him. He who doesn’t abide in him will be pruned away and thrown into the fire. It seems like someone can lose their salvation.

Originally Posted by EdOsiecki 
Heb.13:12, “And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make people holy through His own BLOOD.” When a person accepts Jesus’ BLOOD to cover he/she sins, that person is justified (just as if he/she never sinned) Should a believer sin, the Holy Spirit immediately does HIS work and convicts, the believer then confesses the sin to God, and is forgiven. The process continues until death. Should a believer continue to sin and reject the convicting of the Holy Spirit, then as 2 Peter 2:22 states, “There is an old saying that ’ A dog returns its vomit ----’ That is the way it is with those who turn again to their sin.” ED O.

NotWorthy’s response:
Well, now your talking out of both ends of your mouth.

Ed’s response:
Hi NotWorthy, thanks for your reply Why do you as other Catholics so desperately try to destroy the Protestant doctrine of “always saved” I quote Heb 10:14, above, you counter with John 15 the pruning tree. When I very carefully explained why the differences, you then falsely accuse me of talking out of both sides of my mouth. Since I quoted God’s Word, you accused God’s Word of that! ED O

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi Not Worthy, thanks for your reply. I’m speaking of a person going into a cofessional booth like Catholics do to confess sins to a priest, IT’S NOT IN THE O.T. SCRIPTURES. If it is show me where? God had specific rituals spelled out for the priests to do, and personal confessions was not among them. The people confessed their sins to God. The priests did NOT forgive sins, he was used to kill the animals and to sprinkle the Blood on ther Altar. It was God that forgave the sins by the required blood of the animals.

Just as it is God who ultimately forgives the sins in the Confessional. No problems there, my brother. But God gave men the authority to forgive sins, and when they are forgiven by these men, then God will forgive them. You continue to deny Jesus’ words when you declare that there is no authority of the Church to forgive sins in God’s name.

And the confessional booth, why does that have to be spelled out? I fail to see where that’s even important. At first in the early Church, confessions were made in public. But the Church, who has the authority to Bind and Loose (and ancient Jewish traditional authority), decided that private confessions were better.

I mean, think about it. If brother George was ready to confess his marital affairs with sister Louise, but sister Louise hadn’t repented and let her husband know about the affair… well, you see how private confession is better for all parties involved!

Concerning the Old is but Shadowing of the New is “Hogwash!” Your problem is that you fail to understand what the words by Christ, IT IS FINISHED" mean. And why would the ripping of a curtain be so important to be placed in the Scripture if it had no significant meaning? ED O.

I NEVER said that this was an insignificant event. I just asked you many times, where does it say that “It is finished” means there is no need for a priesthood. You haven’t shown any Scriptures that spell that out. I could go into detail about many meanings behind the phrase, “It is finished”, which is actually better translated as, “It is Consummated” which closes the Sacrificial meal at Passover after the 4th Cup has been drunk from (remember, there were only 3 cups drank at Jesus’ Last Supper, the Cup of Consummation had not been drunk).

So please, Ed, let me know where Scriptures tells us that:
a) “It is Finished” is explicitly talking about the priesthood.
and
b) What exactly did Jesus mean in John 20?

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorthy, thanks for your reply Why do you as other Catholics so desperately try to destroy the Protestant doctrine of “always saved” I quote Heb 10:14, above, you counter with John 15 the pruning tree. When I very carefully explained why the differences, you then falsely accuse me of talking out of both sides of my mouth. Since I quoted God’s Word, you accused God’s Word of that! ED O

I falsely accused? I showed you two verses you used. that seemed to express the opposite.

Heb.13:12, “And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make people holy through His own BLOOD.” When a person accepts Jesus’ BLOOD to cover he/she sins, that person is justified (just as if he/she never sinned) Should a believer sin, the Holy Spirit immediately does HIS work and convicts, the believer then confesses the sin to God, and is forgiven. The process continues until death.

Here you show a believer sinning, but it doesn’t harm him. Confession. Forgiveness. Life is Good.

Should a believer continue to sin and reject the convicting of the Holy Spirit, then as 2 Peter 2:22 states, “There is an old saying that ’ A dog returns its vomit ----’ That is the way it is with those who turn again to their sin.” ED O.

Here a believer sins and returns to his own vomit. How can a believer reject the Holy Spirit? If he rejects the Holy Spirit, then he’s not a believer.

But to your point, are you saying that, as long as you believe that the Holy Spirit’s got your back, you can sin all your heart desires? Do you follow Martin Luther’s words that he can have sex 1000 times a day, and still expect to go to heaven?

That’s crazy talk.

 

[SteveGC]

EdOseicki:

Hi NotWorthy, thanks for your reply Why do you as other Catholics so desperately try to destroy the Protestant doctrine of “always saved” I quote Heb 10:14, above, you counter with John 15 the pruning tree. When I very carefully explained why the differences, you then falsely accuse me of talking out of both sides of my mouth. Since I quoted God’s Word, you accused God’s Word of that! ED O

Forgive my intrusion on your discussion…

I think we attempt to refute the “always saved” doctrine because it is so dangerously false, especially to those immature in their faith, just beginning their walk and trying to properly establish a good relationship with the Lord. To these, “always saved” often equates to easy believism, even if it isn’t initially presented in that way. Humans typically tend toward the path of least resistance, it’s in our nature, especially when we’re young in the faith. Preaching “always saved” establishes so very many pitfalls and snares for these folks because as they inevitably and gradually return to sinful behaviors, it becomes seductively and irresistibly tempting to rest on their laurels, on the so-called promise that God has already granted them eternal life in heaven, such that cooperating with His Grace to turn from sin and return to Him becomes considerably insignificant to them…thus leading many down the path to a return to sin enslavement, potentially risking their eternal salvation.

I think NotWorthy was possibly correct in implying that you were contradicting yourself, Ed. You first say that the Spirit convicts all believers in their sin and moves them to repentance, which suggests that you are saying a believer will always repent because they are already saved…then you say that the believer can refuse to respond to this conviction of the Spirit and will “return to his vomit” which is a clear reference to the loss of salvation. NW is wondering what you actually believe…so am I.

And I’m sure he doesn’t care for the comment that he is accusing God of double-talk, Ed. That’s not a charitable thing to say, sir. Nor is it accurate. NW doesn’t mind what the Scripture you cited means…he doesn’t think it’s contradictory at all…what he (and I) think is contradictory is your interpretation of those verses…which you seem to forget that you also included right alongside your quotations of those scriptures. In other words, if you go back and look at that post you gave, you didn’t just quote scripture. You offered Ed’s extracted meaning of it too. No one here refutes Scripture Ed…we just refute some folks’ interpretations of it.

blessings.

 

[EdOsiecki]

] .

Originally posted by NotWorthy
I receive the Holy Spirit in many ways, both through the Sacraments and by other means (… “the Wind blows where it wills…”). And for a time, I am fully in God. But as I sin, especially when I commit a mortal sin, I lose the Holy Spirit. ("… some sins are deadly…"). I lose this Eternal Life that Christ has given me. That’s why I go to Confession. I receive the Holy Spirit in confession. That’s one example.

/QUOTE] Hi NotWorthy, When I got saved by believing the gospel and sometime later was baptized, I received the Holy Spirit that doesn’t come and goes as you say yours does. Eph1:13, “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the Word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in Him with a SEAL the promised Holy Spirit. v14 who is a deposit QUARANTEEING our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s POSSESSION to the praise of His glory.” You see! I’m God’s possession! As the saying goes," it’s over Jesus’ dead body that He’ll ever let the devil have me." Jesus paid a very dear price to purchase/reedem me by HIs BLOOD. ED O.