"It is finished"?

[Brendan]

So, are you really interested in finding out what Jesus meant? Or do you just want to defeat Baptists in a debate to convince yourself that Catholicism must be right?

They are both pretty much the same thing: finding out what Jesus meant AND Catholism being right

 

[po18guy]

Your combative and negative comments are not welcome here.

peace.

Click the triangle in the upper right corner. And pray for his hardened heart.

Truth plods along slowly, while ignorance flashes like lightning. Our job is the eradication of ignorance regarding Christ’s church. This is part of taking up our cross daily. If it seems to wear us out, it killed our Savior!

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

Back to my question: Do you really want to know what Jesus meant? Or do you just want to defeat Christians in a debate?

Skip, we invite you to the fulness of Christ. At present, you have no idea of the depth of the Catholic faith. But, stick around and the truth will appeal to you as it has to us. We didn’t invent the faith, or Christ’s chuurch. He established it for all of mankind. Its truth was revealed to us, as it will be to you - if you allow it.

Please accept that some primary Baptist beliefs are not consistent with scripture. There are many former Baptists here, and they are not bad-mouthing the Baptist church. Rather, they praise it for leading them to a much deeper, more fulfilling faith.

Since your soul is at stake just like ours, we pray that you will not persist in your hardness of heart.

1. Does baptism save you?
2. Are you saved by faith alone?

Questions to ponder.

Christ’s peace.

 

[cydonian]

Click the triangle in the upper right corner. And pray for his hardened heart.

Thanks for the info po18guy.
I’m new here and didn’t know to do that.

Thanks again to everyone for their helpful comments!

 

[po18guy]

For those, especially our Baptist brethren, who wonder:

Q: Does baptism save you?

A: **Yes! ** 1 Peter 3:17-22 “It is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water (through which Noah and family were delivered - po18guy) symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.”

Q: Are you saved by faith alone?

A: No! James 2:18-26 (King James Version) "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

What this is not: Works based salvation. No. A living, breathing faith leads you to works of righteousness.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

Christ’s words were also interpreted as “It is consummated”. This consummates the marriage of Christ with His bride, the church. Yes, He accomplished all that was necessary for us to be justified before God, but it is not automatic, and not free. It requires active participation on our part. The denial of self. The taking up of our cross daily. There is only one thing which is automatic, and Christ was sent to save us from it.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Des]

I found the bolded words to be the most telling.

You say that you don’t know what Jesus meant, you just know that whatever Baptists say must be wrong.

So, are you really interested in finding out what Jesus meant? Or do you just want to defeat Baptists in a debate to convince yourself that Catholicism must be right?

It’s called believing in the Church and the Church says the Baptists are wrong when it comes to just believe and you are saved. Dogma’s prevent us from wandering too far off from the truth of a verse as the Baptists clearly have done.

So being the humble servant of Christ and His Bride that cydonian is, he/she did the right thing by knowing the Baptists are very wrong in their interpretation of that verse and asking other Catholics on here for some imput for a good response.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Back to my question: Do you really want to know what Jesus meant? Or do you just want to defeat Christians in a debate?

Are you now insinuating that you have the truth and us poor Catholics are not in *your *special “club?” That we are just playing word games and learning debate tactics here? What is your point other than to question the motives of the original poster? Do you have a reason to doubt the poster’s sincerity? Can you not charitably assume the original question is one being asked in good faith?

Why don’t we drop the distractions and get back to the original question? What do you think Jesus meant when He said “It is finished.” (Jn 19:30) Please contribute something in a positive manner, rather than simply dissenting to the form in which the original question was asked.

My thought on the matter is that Jesus was referring to His work on the cross being completed, but not the full work of redemption, since He had not yet descended to preach the good news to the dead, nor had he risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, etc. Scott Hahn’s work is also an interesting take on the comment - I’m not saying he is wrong. I think there are many layers of meaning and spiritual insight to be gained from a contemplation the last words uttered by the Savior.

I have heard many fundamentalist preachers and evangelists use the language to justify their personal belief in the notion that we need do nothing at all to “be saved” because the “work” of salvation was finished by Christ on the cross. I think this is an untenable interpretation.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[des_scahill]

I have heard many fundamentalist preachers and evangelists use the language to justify their personal belief in the notion that we need do nothing at all to “be saved” because the “work” of salvation was finished by Christ on the cross. I think this is an untenable interpretation.

Peace,
-Robert

Isn’t becoming saved initially just a first step on the path to discipleship?. But staying saved until the day of your death is quite another thing.

I could be wrong here, but somehow my ‘private interpretation’ of scripture gives me an overall impression that God actually wants as many people as possible to get into heaven. So the initial ‘barriers to entry’ are kept as theologically simple as possible. That first step though does does require you to have a heart attitude of swearing complete loyalty to Jesus, letting God run your life, and give up running it yourself.

Thats a huge blow to our human ego for all of us - and that can be hard enough on its own to cope with. But for some, even more very profound and possibly serious implications for you as an individual. ( you get jailed, cast out by your family, lose your job or even far worse for making just that first step in some places).

Should that initial decision - because of its possible immediate life-altering significance to some new converts - really be allowed to get ‘cluttered’ up with ‘theological’ stuff like “oh dear, this person can’t even spell transubstantion let alone express coherently of what it is, so despite the fact that he does appreciate the necessity for a sacrament of communion, we can’t let him have it with us until he does - he’s sorta ‘sub-christian’ in the meantime” or “dearie me, ,when we baptised you the other day, somehow the little finger of your left hand didn’t make it fully underwater. Sorry, you aren’t really a “true” christian. Bit of a shame really, and oh, by the way they executed your sister yesterday, she’s not going to heaven either”.

It does seem to me at times that both Catholic and Protestants alike can lose sight of the full implications of ‘jot and tittle’ doctrinal stances for those non-believers in far more brutal societies than the ones many of us live in.

So I dunno if I’d be so quick to say that the '‘fundamentalist’ (whatever that label means - its definition seems to vary from country to country) preacher has an ‘untenable’ position. The seemingly simple can be very profound.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Isn’t becoming saved initially just a first step on the path to discipleship?. But staying saved until the day of your death is quite another thing.

I agree. I would say it is one thing to become justified by baptism; but quite another to enter into eternal salvation.
des=scahill:

I could be wrong here, but somehow my ‘private interpretation’ of scripture gives me an overall impression that God actually wants as many people as possible to get into heaven.

I think it is fair to say that God wants all to be saved and each one of us was created to be with Him eternally.

des_scahill:

So the initial ‘barriers to entry’ are kept as theologically simple as possible. That first step though does does require you to have a heart attitude of swearing complete loyalty to Jesus, letting God run your life, and give up running it yourself.

I don’t know if I’d put it exactly that way. But I agree with the concept that God must be first, and self must be subordinated to God. However, I disagree with the implication that we - as members of the body of Christ - have no obligation to respond to the grace we receive.

des_scahill:

Should that initial decision - because of its possible immediate life-altering significance to some new converts - really be allowed to get ‘cluttered’ up with ‘theological’ stuff like “oh dear, this person can’t even spell transubstantion let alone express coherently of what it is, so despite the fact that he does appreciate the necessity for a sacrament of communion, we can’t let him have it with us until he does - he’s sorta ‘sub-christian’ in the meantime” or “dearie me, ,when we baptised you the other day, somehow the little finger of your left hand didn’t make it fully underwater. Sorry, you aren’t really a “true” christian. Bit of a shame really, and oh, by the way they executed your sister yesterday, she’s not going to heaven either”.

It is not cluttering up the significance of a moment of grace to say that it can be lost. None of the “hypotheticals” you suggest here would be a basis for saying a person is not ultimately saved. Spelling (or even a full understanding) of the word transubstantiation is not necessary for salvation. Full emersion is not required for baptism, nor is water baptism necessary in exigent circumstances. There is a baptism of desire which addresses the scenarios of the person who cannot receive water baptism but dies desiring it; and the baptism of blood where one dies for the faith, without receiving water batism. There is not clutter in the Catholic position. There is clarity of doctrine and a fullness of what has been revealed by Christ and the apostles concerning our salvation.

des_scahill:

It does seem to me at times that both Catholic and Protestants alike can lose sight of the full implications of ‘jot and tittle’ doctrinal stances for those non-believers in far more brutal societies than the ones many of us live in.

Perhaps what you say is true, and there are no atheists or apologists in foxholes. But this is not a foxhole. This is a forum where people come to discuss the “jot” and the “tittle.”

des_scahill:

So I dunno if I’d be so quick to say that the '‘fundamentalist’ (whatever that label means - its definition seems to vary from country to country) preacher has an ‘untenable’ position. The seemingly simple can be very profound.

I really do appreciate what you are saying. But let me respond by saying that my conclusion was not arrived at quickly. I have given great thought and considerable prayer to the question of eternal salvation. After MUCH consideration, it seems clear to me that the position of “eternal security” taken by the fundamentalists - the once saved always saved position - is contrary to the message in the scriptures. Perhaps it is a simplification of the message, and it certainly is appealing to many. But that does not make it correct. Nor does it make the Catholic position complicated or formalistic as you suggest.

Thanks for the comments. They are much appreciated.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[des_scahill]

I
However, I disagree with the implication that we - as members of the body of Christ - have no obligation to respond to the grace we receive.

Sorry, I didn’t mean for that implication to be drawn. I should have been more explicit and stated that the person’s heartfelt commitment was a response to the realisation that they had been justified and found ’ the way’ to eternal life through Christ.

I agree completely. The parable of the wheat and the tares, which also has an accompanying interpretation in Matthew 13: 36 - 43
just on its own makes that clear, and there are a number of warnings to believers about ‘falling away’ elsewhere in the New Testament

None of the “hypotheticals” you suggest here would be a basis for saying a person is not ultimately saved.

I agree, but no doubt we could both find someone somewhere who would disagree with both of us T

]Spelling (or even a full understanding) of the word transubstantiation is not necessary for salvation. Full emersion is not required for baptism, nor is water baptism necessary in exigent circumstances. There is a baptism of desire which addresses the scenarios of the person who cannot receive water baptism but dies desiring it; and the baptism of blood where one dies for the faith, without receiving water batism. There is not clutter in the Catholic position. There is clarity of doctrine and a fullness of what has been revealed by Christ and the apostles concerning our salvation.

I certainly don’t dispute the need for clarity and precision,. But our faith is not wholly an exercise in intellectualism. The difficulty is: Once you attempt to “precisely” define and ‘codify’ something divine so that it can be fully grasped and understood by a human intellect, ( ie. its “rational”) that then tends to lead to the exclusion of that part of the divine to which the human intellect perhaps should be saying “I 'dont know”.

Perhaps what you say is true, and there are no atheists or apologists in foxholes. But this is not a foxhole. This is a forum where people come to discuss the “jot” and the “tittle.”

True, and I don’t want to wander off topic. ‘Jots and tittles’ should be kept in their rightful place though. .

I really do appreciate what you are saying. But let me respond by saying that my conclusion was not arrived at quickly. I have given great thought and considerable prayer to the question of eternal salvation. After MUCH consideration, it seems clear to me that the position of “eternal security” taken by the fundamentalists - the once saved always saved position - is contrary to the message in the scriptures. Perhaps it is a simplification of the message, and it certainly is appealing to many.

I’d agree completely that the ‘once saved always saved’ position is untenable. Unfortunately, these days we seem to have increasing numbers of people who want their ears tickled, and won’t read their bible for themselves to check up on what they hear, Discipleship is never an easy road. Believing only what you find appealing, thats been derived based on ‘text grabbing’ isn’t going to cut it.

I can understand some of the reasons why some Catholics hold some of the views they do of “Protestants”. Whats going on in the wider ‘protestant’ community though, is due to a far wider and more complex variety of reasons than Catholics might perceive from outside looking in.

Blessings

Des.

But that does not make it correct. Nor does it make the Catholic position complicated or formalistic as you suggest.

Thanks for the comments. They are much appreciated.

Peace,
-Robert

[/QUOTE]

 

[Skip_Wiley]

Skip, we invite you to the fulness of Christ.

I already have the fullness of

We didn’t invent the faith, or Christ’s chuurch. He established it for all of mankind. Its truth was revealed to us, as it will be to you - if you allow it.

And therein lies the difference. We believe that God reveals His truth through His word. You believe He reveals it through fallible men.

Please accept that some primary Baptist beliefs are not consistent with scripture.

Name one.

Since your soul is at stake just like ours, we pray that you will not persist in your hardness of heart.

Actually, my soul is not at stake. I am already saved and the state of my “soul” is assured.

 

[Skip_Wiley]

What is your point other than to question the motives of the original poster?

How can I respond to his question unless I know what his motives are?

Do you have a reason to doubt the poster’s sincerity? Can you not charitably assume the original question is one being asked in good faith?

Whether it was asked in good faith or not was never the issue. I never had any doubts that he asked it in good faith until his response to me. I was just asking what his purpose was so that I know how to answer his question.

Why don’t we drop the distractions and get back to the original question? What do you think Jesus meant when He said “It is finished.” (Jn 19:30) Please contribute something in a positive manner, rather than simply dissenting to the form in which the original question was asked.

Jesus meant exactly what He said: “tetelestai”, which literally means “the debt has been paid”.

Now it’s your turn to do your usual gymnastics in order to claim that He really said something entirely different.

 

[Skip_Wiley]

It’s called believing in the Church and the Church says the Baptists are wrong when it comes to just believe and you are saved.

So why should I believe your church over the Bible?

So being the humble servant of Christ and His Bride that cydonian is, he/she did the right thing by knowing the Baptists are very wrong in their interpretation of that verse and asking other Catholics on here for some imput for a good response.

Thank you for proving my point. Catholics are so brainwashed by the Catholic church that they must believe that anything a Baptist says is wrong, simply by virtue of the fact that a Baptist said it.

They can’t even engage in honest, rational discussion.

 

[po18guy]

I already have the fullness of

So, there is not possibly any more of Christ that you could possibly know? You have learned everything from the book that admits it is incomplete? (John 20:30, John 21:25, Luke 3:18, Acts 4:20) Bless you, my brother! You are amazing!

And therein lies the difference. We believe that God reveals His truth through His word. You believe He reveals it through fallible men.

The Word is Jesus Christ in the Flesh. A tiny portion of Christ is in the bible. If you believe in the Holy Spirit, and I think you do, you must accept that He can lead fallible men (like the Apostles and their successors) to all truth, just as Jesus said. If you believe the Catholic bible that you use, you already trust the Holy Spirit to have inspired fallible men to write God’s word. Don’t harden your heart against the church He founded just because it doesn’t appeal to you. I pray this is not the case.

Name one.First, I asked you two questions. No answer to either. How about four?

1. Does baptism save you, or is it just going through the motions?
2. Are you saved by faith alone?
3. Is private interpretation of scripture allowed?
4. Are you once saved, always saved?

It is clear from the bible that your soul is in danger. Please listen to those of us who love you as a brother in Christ, no matter how much you may care to calumniate us.

Actually, my soul is not at stake. I am already saved and the state of my “soul” is assured.

Once saved always saved is a trap that leads to arrogance. It is the same way the Pharisees believed. Don’t fall into it!

Skip. I admire your love of Christ and your missionary zeal, but to calumniate the Church about which you know very little does indeed place your soul at risk. If you only knew, how much you can learn here, and how much better spent your missionary time would be on the unbaptixed non-Christian.

Oh, your church has truth in it. There is absolutely no doubt about that. However, the fulness of truth, God’s own deposit of truth remains within the Catholic (“universal”) church. The fact that you do not currently believe this does not change the truth one iota. I shall call you to the fulness of Christ, in the Flesh, as long as I live.

MAy the peace and fulness of Christ be with you.

 

[Skip_Wiley]

So, there is not possibly any more of Christ that you could possibly know? You have learned everything from the book that admits it is incomplete? (John 20:30, John 21:25, Luke 3:18, Acts 4:20) Bless you, my brother! You are amazing!

I know Christ as much as it is possible to know Him here on Earth.

Don’t harden your heart against the church He founded just because it doesn’t appeal to you. I pray this is not the case.

Actually, I’m already a part of the church He founded. I understand that you don’t recognize us as a legitimate part of the church but, frankly, I don’t care.

It is clear from the bible that your soul is in danger.

Actually, it’s clear from the Bible that I’m saved. Sorry, but I trust God’s word, not the scare tactics of your cult.

Please listen to those of us who love you as a brother in Christ, no matter how much you may care to calumniate us.

Oh yeah, all of your name calling and personal attacks really shows that you love me.

Once saved always saved is a trap that leads to arrogance.

Then I guess God and I are just arrogant.

Skip. I admire your love of Christ and your missionary zeal, but to calumniate the Church about which you know very little

Actually, I know a great deal about it, but I understand that your brainwashing requires you to say that I don’t.

If you only knew, how much you can learn here, and how much better spent your missionary time would be on the unbaptixed non-Christian.

Oh, your church has truth in it. There is absolutely no doubt about that. However, the fulness of truth, God’s own deposit of truth remains within the Catholic (“universal”) church. The fact that you do not currently believe this does not change the truth one iota. I shall call you to the fulness of Christ, in the Flesh, as long as I live.

And if you believe that the fullness of truth is in your organization and not in Christ, then you are a fool.

By the way, before I put you on ignore, I just want to point out one more time that you never did back up your statements about Baptists.

You were never able to come up with an example of any of our doctrines that is unbiblical, like you claimed.

Now, goodbye.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

So why should I believe your church over the Bible?

Actually, don’t believe ANY church over the Bible. Rather, believe in the Church THROUGH the Bible. You might just end up taking a swim

Catholics are so brainwashed by the Catholic church that they must believe that anything a Baptist says is wrong, simply by virtue of the fact that a Baptist said it

Although, sadly, that bold part might be true of some people in the Church - it would seem that is true of people on both sides of the fence…considering the way you put that statement

Catholics are so brainwashed by the Catholic church

and based on your previous posts also.

They can’t even engage in honest, rational discussion.

I feel that is exactly what people here have been trying to do - have Honest, RATIONAL, discussions with you. Would you please continue to respond in kind?

Jesus meant exactly what He said: “tetelestai”, which literally means “the debt has been paid”.

Yes, He did. The debt of Adam has been paid, in full. NO ONE else NEED die for that original sin. (Although, as always, we have free will) Now - the REAL question between us is this - what comes NEXT?

Initial belief in Christ, our Lord and Saviour, confession of our sins and acceptance of His forgiveness gives us Justification, as well as Sanctification. Your position, if I’m not mistaken, holds that that event is ongoing, once and forever, and nothing more than that is needed.

Well, without getting into a pages-long discussion right away about definitions and quasi-quantum mechanics is it sufficient to ask how it is possible for someone who is permanently cleansed, permanently made holy (The short definition of Sanctification) to commit further sin?

If that is all that is needed for one to ‘be saved’ why then isn’t Scripture a LOT shorter? Why all the cautions and declarations about running the race with patience lest we lose that for which we have fought?

Rom 6:11 - In the same way, you too must continually consider yourselves dead as far as sin is concerned, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Rom 6:12 - Therefore, do not let sin rule your mortal bodies so that you obey their desires.

Rom 6:13 - Stop offering the parts of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness. Instead, offer yourselves to God as people who have been brought from death to life and the parts of your body as instruments of righteousness to God.

Rom 6:14 - For sin will not have mastery over you, because you are not under law but under grace.

Rom 6:15 - What, then, does this mean? Should we go on sinning because we are not under law but under grace? Of course not!

Rom 6:16 - Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey-either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Remember that Paul here is speaking to the Roman Christian population, as well as us today. If Justification and Sanctification were a one-time forever-done action - there would be no need of the warning in those passages. But, this is an ongoing effort that Paul even had to wrestle with. Hebrews 12:1 encourages us to run with patience, shedding off the sin that entangles us. Then: 1Co 9:24 - “You know that in a race all the runners run but only one wins the prize, don’t you? You must run in such a way that you may be victorious.”

and then:

2Ti 2:5 “Moreover, no one who is an athlete wins a prize unless he competes according to the rules.” Now link these verses with Romans: Rom 6:22 - But now that you have been freed from sin and have become God’s slaves, the benefit you reap is sanctification, and the result is eternal life.

There is a reason that our salvation is linked with the image of running a race. It is a life-long effort that we must constantly wrestle with in order to win. If it were as simple as accepting Christ and going to church, the New Testament would be a lot shorter. The fact that it is not, should lead us to ask why. The answer is in the last verse above. The benefit you reap from abstaining from sin - or after returning to the throne through Actual Grace and so receiving Sanctifying Grace - is eternal life. Sanctifying Grace must be present within us to obtain eternal life. The whole of the Scriptures contains examples for us to follow, advice on how to live a God-Fearing life, as well as warnings on what will happen if we don’t.

Sorry…continued…*

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

There are always two senses, or levels of understanding to Scripture: the literal, and the spiritual. The spiritual can be broken down into the allegorical, such as the Parables; the moral, instructions for Godly living; and the Prophetic, end times events. All of these last are based upon the literal sense first, don’t twist things into meaning what you want them to mean. Heed Peter’s warning:

2Pe 3:15 - Think of our Lord’s patience as salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him.

2Pe 3:16 - He speaks about this subject in all his letters. Some things in them are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures.

Paul’s letters were hard to understand then, because people did not have the whole of the scriptures to draw from. Romans is the most complete book concerning the whole of Scripture, but it cannot exist in a vacuum. Search the Scriptures for yourself and read them according to what is stated quite plainly. That is always where you have to start in order to have a real understanding of our Lord’s instructions for our daily living, and our eternal life. Remember the roles of Justifying grace, and Sanctifying Grace: Actual grace allows us to come, justified through Christ, in faith to the throne of Grace to be forgiven; Sanctifying Grace comes next cleansing us and giving us strength to run the race set before us with patience, that we may win the prize of eternal union with our creator.

We are all willing to have calm, rational, Honest discussions here…even sometimes when we are not responded to in kind.

Peace

John

 

[Isa_Almisry]

And that’s exactly what I mean. How can he know that your church has the “fullness of the truth” (a fancy way of saying “NAH NAH NAH I’m in the special club and you’re not!”) when he doesn’t even know what the truth is?

Uh, that’s why he asked, so he can learn and therefore know. Instead of making it up.

Again, this is exactly what I’m talking about. Does he really want to know what Jesus meant? Or does he just want to go to the Catholic church and find out what they want him to believe Jesus meant?

I think he is prudent on drawing on the wisdom of all the generations of those who have mediated on those words since Christ uttered them till now, instead of guessing.

If he was being prudent, then he wouldn’t have said “help me defeat the Christians” but “I’m seeking to find out what the Bible says about this”.
(Edited)

Defeat the Christians? Isn’t he Catholic? Why not find out what it means from someone who has some claim to the copy right of the Good Book?

 

[Skip_Wiley]

Actually, don’t believe ANY church over the Bible. Rather, believe in the Church THROUGH the Bible. You might just end up taking a swim

…and drown like so many others.

I feel that is exactly what people here have been trying to do - have Honest, RATIONAL, discussions with you. Would you please continue to respond in kind?

I don’t see how simply dismissing everything I say with “oh, you’re a non-Catholic. What could you possibly know” is doing that.

Yes, He did. The debt of Adam has been paid, in full. NO ONE else NEED die for that original sin.

And if He’d been talking about original sin, you might have a point.

is it sufficient to ask how it is possible for someone who is permanently cleansed, permanently made holy (The short definition of Sanctification) to commit further sin?

Same way 1 John tells us.

There is a reason that our salvation is linked with the image of running a race. It is a life-long effort that we must constantly wrestle with in order to win.

And therein lies the difference. You see it as a life long effort that you must constantly wrestle with in order to win.

Christians see it as a one time event that Christ has already won.

If it were as simple as accepting Christ and going to church, the New Testament would be a lot shorter.

Strawman. Nobody said that’s how we’re saved.