I was converted from Catholicism to Christ at the age of 19.

[sandusky]

I think I’ve missed a lot this discussion.

Sandusky, one question for you, do you think that you are saved?

Yes.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

The debt, certainly related to sin, is not a “sin debt” as you understand it. When a person is absolved of their sins, they are completely washed of all debt from those sins. We believe this happens in baptism, reconciliation, and annointing of the sick.

ISTM guanophore, that you have deceived yourself, and that you are now trying to deceive me.

Trent clearly is warning not only the Reformers, but the individual Catholic as well, that their sins have not been completely blotted out.

Here’s the meat and the essence of Trent’s decree:**If anyone says that…the guilt…and the debt of eternal punishment [are] so blotted out…that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory… let him be anathema.**As a Catholic, your sins have not been completely blotted out; if you want to deceive yourself with respect to this, so be it, but stop trying to deceive me.

 

[sandusky]

No, the fullness of the faith was deposited “once for all” to the Apostles. God’s intention for Mary was included in that prior to any Apostle being chosen It was not the doctrine that was added, but our understanding of it. The need to proclaim it was a result, as have been all the proclamations of councils, of relinquishing that doctrine, and the attacks against what we received from the Apostles.

Provide the specific writings of the specific apostles that specifically articulate the IC. :coffeeread:

 

[cfrancis]

Provide the specific writings of the specific apostles that specifically articulate the IC. :coffeeread:

Much like asking you to provide specific writings of the specific apostles that specifically articulate the canon of Scripture

 

[sandusky]

Much like asking you to provide specific writings of the specific apostles that specifically articulate the canon of Scripture

IOW, you can’t provide them; OTOH, I can tell you how the canon came about.

Perhaps guanophore can provide those writings. :nope:

 

[cfrancis]

IOW, you can’t provide them; OTOH, I can tell you how the canon came about.

I suppose if “how it came about” was the question, you’d have a point. We, too, can tell you how the Marian beliefs became doctrine; in your words, how they “came about”

Alas, such was not the question:

Originally Posted by sandusky
Provide the specific writings of the specific apostles that specifically articulate the IC.

Much like asking you to provide specific writings of the specific apostles that specifically articulate the canon of Scripture

Seems you cannot provide specific writings of the specific apostles that specifically articulate the canon of Scripture.

 

[sandusky]

Seems you cannot provide specific writings of the specific apostles that specifically articulate the canon of Scripture.

The apostles didn’t articulate the canon of scripture; you should know that.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Dead in trespasses and sins, born children of wrath, but made alive with Christ by the mercy of God, and a new creation to boot.

That all occurs under Paul’s teaching concerning the “imputation,” or “crediting of righteousness.” Sounds like an actual change to me.

OK. So now we are in agreement that there is actual change in addition to a legal imputation? Then you are in accord with Catholic teaching on this. There is sanctification along with initial justification.

sandusky:

You’re attempting to spin this, Robert. Under Paul’s teaching of imputation I have the complete forgiveness of sins, and the complete forgiveness of the debt associated with those sins; therefore, if anyone’s sin’s have been blotted out, it would be mine.

First, I’m not spinning anything. Read the language you quoted from Trent carefully. It is speaking of “temporal” punishment for sins, not eternal punishment. So, what we are seeing in this language is simply the rejection of a faith alone form of salvation. It’s not an attack on God’s ability to forgive sins. Its the acknowledgement that God’s grace requires our response, and that our responses, in Christ, can attain merit.

Second, I am not doubting that your sins were “blotted out” completely. What I was pointing out in my first post is that, *if *you are being consistent with the Calvinist position (apparently you are not from what you say below) then you do not believe your sins were blotted out of YOU. You believe that Christ’s grace blotted the sins out only in a legal sense - that your corrupt nature remains to such a degree that, even after justification you have no power over sin. The Calvinist position is that in fact there is sin still remaining under that legal imputation - hence you cannot actually respond with a free will decision to follow Christ, because you are still under the power of your corrupted nature despite the grace of Christ. From what you say in your last post, you reject that concept and now are asserting an actual sanctification occurs at the moment of justification. This is entirely inconsistent with the rejection of merit in work. IF we are truly sanctified by justification, then our works in Christ have merit. This is consistent with the Catholic position that indeed there is an actual change in the person.

sandusky:

Why do you think that Trent issued the anathema in canon 30 listed above?

To address the reformation’s rejection of temporal punishment/restitution - i.e. efficacy of works and the doctrine of purgatory. I don’t think they issued the anathema you cited because they were somehow doubting the efficacy of God’s grace. But that seems to be how you are “spinning” the statement. You are simply perpetuating reformation myths by suggesting here that the Catholic Church doubts the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice. She has no such doubt.

sandusky:

Because it teaches that your sins have not been “blotted out,” that’s why, because you still owe a debt; ISTM that the teaching of your church finds Christ’s sacrifice incomplete—that’s not the position of Scripture. :tsktsk:

Now THIS is spinning. C’mon, sandy. Do you really think the Catholic Church intended to state that Christ’s sacrifice was incomplete in this anathema? More protestant myths being repeated. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid sandy. Think for yourself.

sandusky:

I don’t agree with Calvin on that. :nope:

Then your logic breaks down at a fundamental level. See above.

sandusky:

I think it’s certain that many of the damned believe themselves to be saved!

So, how do you know you are not one of those persons?

sandusky:

I haven’t abandoned your question; I’m sitting on it as it’s subjective, and I’m not yet ready to leave the current discussion.

I’m asking you for a doctrinal basis for your absolute assurance - not your subjective feelings. Please don’t go “LDS” on me and say it’s a “burning in the bosom” or such.

Not that I will reject such a feeling out of hand. If you have been graced with a personal revelation of your ultimate salvation, then I think that’s wonderful and amazing and a real blessing. But personal revelation is no basis for upholding doctrine. I am asking for a defense of the doctrine OSAS (absolute assurance).

Peace,
-Robert

 

[cfrancis]

The apostles didn’t articulate the canon of scripture; you should know that.

Yet you accept the canon of Scripture, you believe in the canon of Scripture, right?

 

[sandusky]

Yet you accept the canon of Scripture, you believe in the canon of Scripture, right?

Of course.

 

[cfrancis]

Of course.

So, you accept/believe the canon of Scripture absent of specific writings by the apostles, and absent any Biblical evidence. In short, your belief is based on tradition and extra-Biblical evidence.
Why then do you demand specific apostolic writings for the Immaculate Conception?

 

[sandusky]

Robert in SD:

OK. So now we are in agreement that there is actual change in addition to a legal imputation?

Yes.
Robert in SD:

Then you are in accord with Catholic teaching on this.

No, I’m not.

The CC position is that the actual change is wrought in justification; as I recall, there’s no distinction between justification and sanctification.

My position is that a change in legal status is wrought by justification. The actual change comes about through sanctification (practically).
Robert in SD:

There is sanctification along with initial justification.

They’re not the same. Along with justification, sanctification is also “positional”—set apart to God. But sanctification also has a practical side—the continued movement away from sin, to holiness. J & S occur together, but are two different things.
Robert in SD:

First, I’m not spinning anything. Read the language you quoted from Trent carefully. It is speaking of “temporal” punishment for sins, not eternal punishment.

I have Robert, and it’s Trent’s position that in spite of Christ’s sacrifice, a debt for sin is still owed, and that debt must be paid by the debtor.
Robert in SD:

So, what we are seeing in this language is simply the rejection of a faith alone form of salvation. It’s not an attack on God’s ability to forgive sins. Its the acknowledgement that God’s grace requires our response, and that our responses, in Christ, can attain merit.

I understand your position.
Robert in SD:

Second, I am not doubting that your sins were “blotted out” completely.

Sure you are; you insist that a temporal debt remains; if there’s a debt, then they haven’t been blotted out completely. If you want to deceive yourself on this, go ahead, but don’t try to deceive me.
Robert in SD:

What I was pointing out in my first post is that, if you are being consistent with the Calvinist position (apparently you are not from what you say below) then you do not believe your sins were blotted out of YOU.

The testimony is not that my sins have been blotted out of me.

The testimony is that the Father, having made me alive together with Christ, has FORGIVEN all of my transgressions, and cancelled all of the debt pertaining to them.

IOW, concerning this “blotting out,” God disagrees with Trent who insists that a debt remains—God says there isn’t any debt, Trent says “no God, there’s still a temporal debt.”
Robert in SD:

You believe that Christ’s grace blotted the sins out only in a legal sense - that your corrupt nature remains to such a degree that, even after justification you have no power over sin.

The language in which Paul describes justification is legal—the transference of the righteousness of Christ into my empty account.

Furthermore, the key to all of this, is that SIN NO LONGER HAS POWER OVER ME…

Man’s problem is that apart from Christ, he exists in the SPHERE, OR DOMAIN OF SATAN AND DARKNESS, but when he dies to Christ, he’s no longer under Satan’s rule (Rom 6:14; cf Col 1:13-14).

But Paul also makes it clear, that even though that’s true, it’s also true that man will sin, as a residual effect of the Fall (Rom 7:21-23; cf Gal 5:17) however, he no longer has to sin.
Robert in SD:

The Calvinist position is that in fact there is sin still remaining under that legal imputation - hence you cannot actually respond with a free will decision to follow Christ, because you are still under the power of your corrupted nature despite the grace of Christ.

See above.

You don’t understand the “Calvinist position” at all, Robert, and, forgive me, that’s because you don’t understand what’s being said in scripture.

Read Romans 6, Col 1:13-14; 2:8-15; 3:1-12, 2 Cor 5:17—you’re so far away, so very far away.
Robert in SD:

From what you say in your last post, you reject that concept and now are asserting an actual sanctification occurs at the moment of justification. This is entirely inconsistent with the rejection of merit in work. IF we are truly sanctified by justification, then our works in Christ have merit. This is consistent with the Catholic position that indeed there is an actual change in the person.

Thank you Robert for the Catholic understanding; I, however, am staying with the biblical understanding.
Robert in SD:

To address the reformation’s rejection of temporal punishment/restitution - i.e. efficacy of works and the doctrine of purgatory. I don’t think they issued the anathema you cited because they were somehow doubting the efficacy of God’s grace. But that seems to be how you are “spinning” the statement. You are simply perpetuating reformation myths by suggesting here that the Catholic Church doubts the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice. She has no such doubt.

They were warning the Reformers and Catholics that sin is not completely blotted out, but that a debt is still owed.
Robert in SD:

Now THIS is spinning. C’mon, sandy. Do you really think the Catholic Church intended to state that Christ’s sacrifice was incomplete in this anathema? More protestant myths being repeated. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid sandy. Think for yourself.

I am thinking for myself, and have drawn my own conclusions.

According to Trent, Christ’s sacrifice did not pay the sinners sin-debt in full. Per Trent, “a further payment of debt is required of the debtor either here in this world, or in purgatory.”
Robert in Sd:

I’m asking you for a doctrinal basis for your absolute assurance - not your subjective feelings. Please don’t go “LDS” on me and say it’s a “burning in the bosom” or such.

I know what you’re asking, Robert.

 

[pete_29]

I take it you don’t really know how you know; that’s alright Pete, keep thinking about it.

Forgive me o great wise one, I should have known that you know everything. Keep studying, you may actually learn some thing you don’t know, like the meaning of John 6.

 

[sandusky]

Forgive me o great wise one, I should have known that you know everything. Keep studying, you may actually learn some thing you don’t know, like the meaning of John 6.

I’ve already nailed it down, and thanks for the compliment.

 

[sandusky]

cfrancis:

So, you accept/believe the canon of Scripture absent of specific writings by the apostles, and absent any Biblical evidence. In short, your belief is based on tradition and extra-Biblical evidence.

Correct.

cfrancis:

Why then do you demand specific apostolic writings for the Immaculate Conception?

Because guanophore states that the IC was taught by the Apostles.

If it were, you should be able to produce proof of that—so produce.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The CC position is that the actual change is wrought in justification; as I recall, there’s no distinction between justification and sanctification.

My position is that a change in legal status is wrought by justification. The actual change comes about through sanctification (practically).

That is a false distinction that is not supported by the scriptures you cite. Justification is a real change in the person, not merely a legal imputation.

sandusky:

They’re not the same. Along with justification, sanctification is also “positional”—set apart to God. But sanctification also has a practical side—the continued movement away from sin, to holiness. J & S occur together, but are two different things.

Again, I think you are deceiving yourself about this distinction.

sandusky:

I have Robert, and it’s Trent’s position that in spite of Christ’s sacrifice, a debt for sin is still owed, and that debt must be paid by the debtor.

Sin is absolutely forgiven, and real change is wrought in the person through initial justification. “Temporal punishment” is not about the forrgiveness of “sin that leads to death.” Temproal punishment is restricted to the restoration of holiness and the removing of one’s attachment to sin.

sandusky:

I understand your position.

Clearly, you do not.

sandusky:

Sure you are; you insist that a temporal debt remains; if there’s a debt, then they haven’t been blotted out completely. If you want to deceive yourself on this, go ahead, but don’t try to deceive me.

A temporal punishment remains for sins already forgiven. The sins have been blotted out, and the person has been made new, but there still remains concupiscence, which is not sin. Ultimately, that concupiscence is completely removed, and we are returned to the perfectly sanctified state that Adam enjoyed before the fall. With most, purgatory is required, but some have that last attachment to sin removed here on earth. In either event, it is not “sin debt” that is being paid. The person is already made new and in Christ and in right relationship. This is merely the final application of God’s sanctifying grace.

sandusky:

The testimony is that the Father, having made me alive together with Christ, has FORGIVEN all of my transgressions, and cancelled all of the debt pertaining to them.

And as the Church has pointed out, God’s forgiveness is not merely a legal statement, but it is the actual removal of sin from the person, who is sanctified by that forgiveness. It is not apart from justification; it is part of the same process.

sandusky:

IOW, concerning this “blotting out,” God disagrees with Trent who insists that a debt remains—God says there isn’t any debt, Trent says “no God, there’s still a temporal debt.”

As I noted above, and as the Church states, the sins are truly forgiven. The way to salvation is opened. What remains is the attachment to sin, which is removed by temporal punishment, which we endure as Paul exhorts.

sandusky:

The language in which Paul describes justification is legal—the transference of the righteousness of Christ into my empty account.

The language of Paul is legal and spiritual. The language of God is absolute. When God says your sins are removed, they are actually removed; it is not just the ledger that is wiped clean. We are wiped clean. But our nature remains tied to sin; What we endure in Christ removes those ties and fully sanctifies us.

sandusky:

Furthermore, the key to all of this, is that SIN NO LONGER HAS POWER OVER ME…

On this we agree. Sin has no power because of Christ; not because of anything you have done; or refrained from doing. But YOU have a nature that can still give in to sin, which must be fully sanctified. That is the ongoing process of justification.

sandusky:

You don’t understand the “Calvinist position” at all, Robert, and, forgive me, that’s because you don’t understand what’s being said in scripture. Read Romans 6, Col 1:13-14; 2:8-15; 3:1-12, 2 Cor 5:17—you’re so far away, so very far away.

Sandy. I think it is you that has fallen away… so far that you can’t even see the morass you’ve made of the Christian faith.

sandusky:

Thank you Robert for the Catholic understanding; I, however, am staying with the biblical understanding.

This statement declares to me that you have no concept of what the biblical understanding is. The Catholic understanding is the biblical understanding.

sandusky:

They were warning the Reformers and Catholics that sin is not completely blotted out, but that a debt is still owed.

Personal sins are completely blotted out. Original sin is blotted out. But the effects of sin (concupiscence) remains pending the final application of God’s sanctification. Sins are truly forgiven. But I suppose you have to believe that temporal punishment means something otherwise, so the Catholic Church will remain the bogey man to you.

sandusky:

I am thinking for myself, and have drawn my own conclusions—according to Trent, Christ’s sacrifice did not pay the sinners sin-debt in full. Per Trent, "a further payment of debt is required of the debtor either here in this world, or in purgatory.

“temporal” punishment; not eternal punishment. You’re comparing apples to oranges … again. I can see the red Kool-Aid stains around your lips from my desk.

sandusky:

I know what you’re asking, Robert.

And yet, you refrain from answering because you will reveal the weakness of your OSAS position.

I think we’ve said enough to each other. I’m going to stop this conversation before I start saying things that I’ll really regret. If you ever want to answer the question, start a new thread and PM me to join it.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[sandusky]

That is a false distinction that is not supported by the scriptures you cite. Justification is a real change in the person, not merely a legal imputation.

Again, I think you are deceiving yourself about this distinction.

Sin is absolutely forgiven, and real change is wrought in the person through initial justification. “Temporal punishment” is not about the forrgiveness of “sin that leads to death.” Temproal punishment is restricted to the restoration of holiness and the removing of one’s attachment to sin.

Clearly, you do not.

A temporal punishment remains for sins already forgiven. The sins have been blotted out, and the person has been made new, but there still remains concupiscence, which is not sin. Ultimately, that concupiscence is completely removed, and we are returned to the perfectly sanctified state that Adam enjoyed before the fall. With most, purgatory is required, but some have that last attachment to sin removed here on earth. In either event, it is not “sin debt” that is being paid. The person is already made new and in Christ and in right relationship. This is merely the final application of God’s sanctifying grace.

And as the Church has pointed out, God’s forgiveness is not merely a legal statement, but it is the actual removal of sin from the person, who is sanctified by that forgiveness. It is not apart from justification; it is part of the same process.

As I noted above, and as the Church states, the sins are truly forgiven. The way to salvation is opened. What remains is the attachment to sin, which is removed by temporal punishment, which we endure as Paul exhorts.

The language of Paul is legal and spiritual. The language of God is absolute. When God says your sins are removed, they are actually removed; it is not just the ledger that is wiped clean. We are wiped clean. But our nature remains tied to sin; What we endure in Christ removes those ties and fully sanctifies us.

On this we agree. Sin has no power because of Christ; not because of anything you have done; or refrained from doing. But YOU have a nature that can still give in to sin, which must be fully sanctified. That is the ongoing process of justification.

Sandy. I think it is you that has fallen away… so far that you can’t even see the morass you’ve made of the Christian faith.

This statement declares to me that you have no concept of what the biblical understanding is. The Catholic understanding is the biblical understanding.

Personal sins are completely blotted out. Original sin is blotted out. But the effects of sin (concupiscence) remains pending the final application of God’s sanctification. Sins are truly forgiven. But I suppose you have to believe that temporal punishment means something otherwise, so the Catholic Church will remain the bogey man to you.

“temporal” punishment; not eternal punishment. You’re comparing apples to oranges … again. I can see the red Kool-Aid stains around your lips from my desk.

And yet, you refrain from answering because you will reveal the weakness of your OSAS position.

I think we’ve said enough to each other. I’m going to stop this conversation before I start saying things that I’ll really regret. If you ever want to answer the question, start a new thread and PM me to join it.

Peace,
-Robert

In Christ I have the complete forgiveness of sins, and you don’t.

In Christ I have a permanent right standing with God, and you don’t.

In Christ I have the assurance of eternal life based upon His promises and power, and you don’t.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

In Christ I have the complete forgiveness of sins, and you don’t.

In Christ I have a permanent right standing with God, and you don’t.

In Christ I have the assurance of eternal life based upon His promises and power, and you don’t.

Given all that I’ve said already, I’m not sure how to respond to this presumption/accusation. But I’ll keep praying for you.

God bless.

 

[sandusky]

Given all that I’ve said already, I’m not sure how to respond to this presumption/accusation. But I’ll keep praying for you.

God bless.

It’s a list of what I have in Christ, and what you don’t have in your church—what we’ve been discussing; the best thing to do is to believe it.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Originally Posted by sandusky
In Christ I have the complete forgiveness of sins, and you don’t.

In Christ I have a permanent right standing with God, and you don’t.

In Christ I have the assurance of eternal life based upon His promises and power, and you don’t.

You have no such thing.

All you have is empty promises that have been given to you by men with a fallible interpretation of scripture.