Jesus Christ is our only 'mediator' as stated by St. Paul

[Peter_Dawson]

Peter Dawson: Let me commend you for your diligence in discerning what information is truth and what is not! I’m not sure if we settled the issue dealing with Mary, but you must agree, that there are other ways to look at not only the Cana wedding, and the time at the Cross, but it seems that Mary spent much time with her Son! I am no scholar, although I did attend college(AA degree), but I am learning more and more, the more mature I become in my Christian walk(Philippians 1:6).Do you think Mary had any idea what Jesus’s first miracle would be?

My suspicion is that by this time in her life, she was thinking of the last miracle.

 

[placido]

placido: How were you able to infer that I was upset about the triumph of good over evil? In post#382, I mitigated my previous position, noting the irony of the placement You do know what IRONY means, don’t you? And I have no need to change Christ’s Great Commission! I do believe, though, His words back then, apply to us as Christians today! In fact, a missions team from our church is returning from a 2 week trip to Guinea, West Africa, where they taught Vacation Bible School to the children, taught Bible classes to the adults, and baptized new believers, yippee for our Lord!!..“baptizing them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit!” Placido means peaceful, but I didn’t really feel that in some of your posts:thumbsup:

Okay you are not upset, but then, you need to explain the reason for saying this: “It’s interesting, that the catholic church has its’ headquarters in the center of what was once one the most evil empires in history”.

And yes, placido means peaceful. I can assure you I am peaceful, but in an internet forum and me being a weak communicator, I may come across as being not peaceful. Pray for me.

placido

 

[heiscominginthe]

SHW said…

There is a definite difference between venial sins and mortal sins. The punishment for unrepented mortal sin is hell forever. The punishment for venial sin is purgatory for the soul until the temporal punishment is paid. Jesus paid the eternal (Blood) price, but not the temporal (consequence) price because we reap what we sow (Galatians 6:7) and therefore we must pay the debt for all of our own sins which we commit after Baptism. We can do penance and offer prayers and give alms, etc. in order to atone for our venial sins on earth so that we do not have to pay for them in purgatory/prison. God is also a just God. (1 Corinthians 3:15, 1 Peter 3:18-20, Luke 12:59)

Do you not realize that Jesus came to set man free? Why do you want to once again put him in bondage?

Before Jesus came, all mankind was held prisoner in hell. Not one could enter the kingdom of heaven until Jesus had defeated the hold death had on him.

So now, when a man dies in the flesh and he was a believer, being born again in his spirit though Christ, the man is not held under the yoke of death so his spirit which was made alive again through Christ goes to be with Christ in heaven.

That is what makes Jesus’s words true when he said, “He who believes in me will never die.” Even though the body dies, the spirit does not if the man was born again.

That is what makes Jesus’s words true when he said,“He who believes in me, though he be dead, yet shall he live.” Here he is telling us although we will die in the flesh, our spirit lives on if we are born again prior to physical death.

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore: It is curious, that you see hate, instead of irony in my post about the catholic church;

No, 1beleevr. I did not see “hate” in your post. I saw a sarcastic innuendo about the Catholic Church. I quoted from your post, where you said you don’t hate Catholics, and noticed that you are making insulting sarcastic innuendos about it anyway. Actually, you seem to be one of the most fervent, giving, committed evangelicals posting here.

but this may indicate that you defend your religion more than the Cross, on which our Saviour died, and which is our sacred, symbol of freedom(without a corpus, of course)

I think that would be quite a leap to make, since Catholicism is based in the cross. The Catholic Church teaches Christ crucfied, and has been villified by many evangelicals because we leave Christ on the cross.

The Apostles publicly portrayed Christ as crucified, and since we received our faith from them, we have done the same.

I have never submitted a hate-filled, profanity-laced post about the catholic church

Certainly not that I have read. Just occasional innuendos such as the one about Rome

I disagree with a lot of what you guys believe, but agree with certain things, also! If you read post#382, you will see that I mitigated my previous post, noting the IRONY, of the placement of the Vatican:thumbsup:

Well, ok. I think it is entirely appropriate for the Church to storm Paganism by force, and take over every structure, consecrating it to Christ.

And as far as the discussion about Mary, at the wedding, I would be willing to bet, that there are many of us who, if we called our mother WOMAN, would have been grounded, or rebuked!

Well, of course! But you are inserting the modern use and connotation of the term into the text, and that is not appropriate. This was not a way to which good Jewish boys referred to their mothers. Since we know that Jesus kept all the commandments perfectly, then we know that he was not being disrespectful, therefore, it must have another meaning. John, who knew Mary best, is the one who uses this term for her throughout his gospel.

Mary was a woman, yes, but, she was still His earthly mother! Whether or not she was the new Eve, is speculation at best. She was definitely chosen by God, because of her humble and willing servan'ts heart!

We who are the children of Mary (disciples of her Son) are born again from above, and that is the manner in which she is the mother of all living. When He gave her to the disciple at the foot of the cross, He gives her to all of us who stand there.

 

[guanophore]

The absolute only thing left is the unrepented sin.

No, this is not the absolute “only thing left”. Proof of this can be found in this thread,where we are telling you that the Apostles and their successors believed and taught differently. Even if you reject what they taught(and still teach) if you are intellectually honest, you have to admit there is at least one other point of view.

The Apostles taught that intercessory prayer was insufficient to address mortal sins, and that they required sacramental confession. I think you cling to your view because it is a way to interpret the text in view of your rejection of the sacraments.

You see the one being prayed for has a free will and unless he cooperates with the grace of God and comes to repentance and the acceptance of Jesus he will be lost.

Yes, we are agreement on this point.

I’m sorry you feel that teaching according to the WORD OF GOD is not a reflection of righteousness

No need to feel sorry, especially since I don’t feel that way. I know you are striving to be righteous, and sincerely believe the different doctrines you have espoused. What I object to is your actions, which my betray your preaching, and the fact that you are not teaching according to the Word of God, but your perception of it, which has departed from the Apostolic Teaching.

Actually this is how Non-Catholic religions is presented on the home page.

I quoted the forum rules. It is a place to discuss and explore similarities and differences, not a venue for you to “teach” or “feed” us doctrines that depart from the Apostolic Teaching.

Non-Catholic Religions (36 Viewing)
Comparing and contrasting beliefs
Guess I don’t have to make “sincere inquiries” to get “Catholic Answers” about the Catholic Faith at all. It’s provided to compare and contrast beliefs. And I don’t think that anyone will accuse me of not doing that.

You have made it clear that you are not here to disccus, compare, and contrast, but to convert.

Please explain what rules I am violating. What doctrines am I feeding you that contradict what was given to the church by the apostles.

“Feeding” and “Teaching” and attempting to get Catholics t leave the Church is against the forum rules.

You see without giving even one example of such doctrines, Your accusations ring hollow.

One such example is at the beginning of this post, where you have departed from the Apostolic Teaching on the sacrament of confession.

I made one miscomment for which I apologised on another post. I never said that I was righteous.

In the post to which I am responding here, you put forth yourself as one who is “Preaching according to the Word of God”, and express your sorrow that I do not recognize you as righteous because of it.

You seem to have no problem breaking this one yourself.

Yes, I have had to turn myself into the mods twice already!

Here's my post that you refer to here

See this is what I’m talking about. I’m not sure whether you don’t understand what I’m saying or are deliberately twisting what I am saying. Again, all sin is serious. John is sayig in v. 16 that we should not pray for mercy for the sinner who himself does not ask for mercy. (in other words has not repented

How in the world, do you get from this post that I am saying that sins do not vary in severity?

It was not from that passage I got it. It was when you said that sin is sin, and all sin is severe.

Sometimes I get the feeling that you are reading some other thread and then answering it here. I have no idea what you are talking about here.

That may be true. I was posting on several threads.

But it does teach that the temporal punishment for these venial sins can be payed for by works or prayers or indugences. In other words without the blood of the Lamb of God.

No, Richard. The Catholic church has never, and does not now, teach this. It is, however, a common misunderstanding.

I believe exactly what John is saying and that is, there is a sin unto death. So you don’t agree with that.

Yes, I agree with that. I also agree that intercessory prayer is insufficient for addressing such a sin.

Her’s my post
It’s talking about sins that we should pray for or ask mercy for, these are sins that are repented of.

It does not say that. You made that up. You had to make that up to set aside the Apostolic meaning of the text.

John says however that there are sins that we should not even pray for. Again not my words, but John's. The only difference between these sins is that one we should pray for and the other we shouldn't. Both sins are serious. So why should we not even pray for one sin, if this was just explaining differing degrees of sins.

Mortal sins require a different kind of solution.

 

[placido]

I think that would be quite a leap to make, since Catholicism is based in the cross. The Catholic Church teaches Christ crucfied, and has been villified by many evangelicals because we leave Christ on the cross.
The Apostles publicly portrayed Christ as crucified, and since we received our faith from them, we have done the same.

You are right, guanophore. Just imagine two freelance photographic journalists running to Calvary shortly after Jesus was crucified. One got there first and took a picture of Jesus on the Cross. The other arrived an hour later after the body was removed from the Cross. He decided to photograph the Cross without the corpus anyway. Both submitted their pictures to the same daily newspaper. Now, which picture do you think would be on the front page? I tell you, an image of the Cross without the corpus is not Newsworthy.

placido

 

[guanophore]

It fails me how you get the above assumption from this post

I am pleased to here that it fails you, Richard. This is a great start. If it becomes clear that what you have been taugth about the Catholic faith makes no sense, then you may be able to eventually accep that what you have been taught is wrong.

Again you contradict yourself. First you say: The Catholic Church teaches that the only forgiveness of sins is through the blood of Christ.

Then you say:

Quote:
“James, it says clearly that it is the righteous who have great power in prayers, and that the prayer of FAITH is what heals the sick, and forgives sins.”

You can’t have it both ways.

They are not “two ways”, Richard. Both things are true. The Catholic Church teaches that forgiveness of sins happens only through the blood of Christ. We participate in that forgiveness when we are also covered by His Blood. We can extend His forgiveness to others, and we can participate in activities that will cover sins.

No there isn’t. It is merely my attempt to again explain what seems so very obvious to me

Great! I am glad we can agree that the belief you espouse cannot be found in the text. Rather, it is your interpretation (attempt to explain) what you are reading.

What seems obvious to you, accroding to what you have been taught, is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

and that is that the sin that leads to death is the sin for which the sinner HIMSELF DOES NOT ASK FOR MERCY.

I think we are all in agreement that sins will lead to death if the sinner does not ask for mercy. However, that is not what this passage is about. One must be mindful to whom the writing is addressed. John is writing to BELIEVERS! He is addressing those who are IN CHRIST by new birth:

1 John 5:16
" If any one sees his **brother **committing…"

Not me, the bible. See, I don’t disagree with everything the CC says. It’s just the implication of what that severity means is where our ways part.

Your perceptions of what the Scripture means is a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

This from the catechism of the CC
1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134

In other words The Cross Wasn’t enough.

Are you trying to say that temporal punishment means that the cross is not enough? This is a preposterous idea, but I want to be sure I understand what you are saying.

1472 On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. **A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.83 **

In other words the sinner pays for these sins by his works.

It is true that doing good works can cover a multitude of sins. However, it is not “payment” in the sense that you are using it. Doing good is an active process of avoiding evil. When we embrace purification, it drives out the unhealthy attachments in us. The only reason we can do these things is by grace, through faith, because Jesus paid for us by His blood on the cross. It is He who enables us to pick up our cross, and carry it.

1478 **An indulgence is obtained through the Church **who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, **intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments **due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.89

In other words Indugences are obtained only through the CC. **The merits of Christ ** are here usurped by the CC. This is blasphemy.

I agree it would be blasphemy if the merits of Christ were “usurped”. However, this is not possible. No one can rob God. God, in His mercy and generosity, gives Gifts to the Church, and allows the Church to dispense His mercies to the faithful.

1479 Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to **obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted. **

In other words. The so called temporal punishment is remitted by an act of man. Not God. No mention of Jesus or the Cross.

No, Richard, you have misunderstood the Apostolic Teaching. Punishment for sins can only be remitted by God. He allows us to participate in the remission of sins.

 

[guanophore]

I have gone over this many times on this thread. I think my position is clear.

What is clear to me is that you have a very grave misunderstanding of the Catholic faith.

John says using your translation above. "There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that.” Let me ask you. If mortal sin is repented of does it lead to death?

Yes. Repentance is part of the sacrament of confession.

I disagree. In context, John is encouraging all believers to pray for others and telling them that their prayers for others will be heard by God and also answered by God according to His will:

Great job addressing Richard’s misunderstanding, SHW!

There is a definite difference between venial sins and mortal sins. The punishment for unrepented mortal sin is hell forever. The punishment for venial sin is purgatory for the soul until the temporal punishment is paid. Jesus paid the eternal (Blood) price, but not the temporal (consequence) price because we reap what we sow (Galatians 6:7) and therefore we must pay the debt for all of our own sins which we commit after Baptism. We can do penance and offer prayers and give alms, etc. in order to atone for our venial sins on earth so that we do not have to pay for them in purgatory/prison. God is also a just God. (1 Corinthians 3:15, 1 Peter 3:18-20, Luke 12:59)

I would add that it is not necessary to be in Purgatory after death, if we do our purging here. The Church teaches us how to be purfied in this life as well.

I also disagree that we must “pay the debt of all of our own sins we commt after baptism”. This thinking does, indeed, reinforce Richard’s misunderstanding that the “cross is not enough”. Only Jesus can “pay the debt” of all of our sins. What remains to us are the consequences of our sins. Sometimes, God also sets these aside, unless the payment of them is purifying for us, in which case, He will allow us to pay. A good example is the thief on the cross. He testified that “we are paying the just punishment for our sins, but this Man has done nothing wrong”. We note that Jesus did not spare the thief the temporal punishment for his sins, but did promise him that his soul would be saved. This type of purging, suffering the temporal consequences of our sins, is purifying for our soul, if we embrace the cross with joy.

The indulgences are able to set aside the temporal consequences of our sins in the here and now. Jesus wants to free us from all sin, and the consequences of our sins. This promise is for right now, as well as for eternity.

 

[guanophore]

What I am trying to say, is, that two people can watch the same event, movie, or read the same article, and get something different out of it! Who’s right, who’s wrong? You are using the miracle(the first) at Cana to shore up your belief in Mary being more, beyond Christ’s mother, and exalting her to a rather lofty position!

I agree that there can be as may different points of view and perceptions as there are people. This is why Jesus had to appoint a Teaching Authority in the Church, to resolve disputes arising from such differences.

However, I believe you are wrong about “shoring up” beliefs. You see, Catholics do not have their faith extracted from the Scriptures. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ, on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. The revelation to them was complete prior to any word of the NT being written. The NT reflects what we believe, but it is not the Source of our faith, Jesus is.

God exalted Mary long before the wedding in Cana. Catholics believe He did so at the moment of her conception. Mary testified her understanding of this exaltation to her cousin Elizabeth:

Luke 1:52
52 he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;

Mary, a simple peasant maiden, exalted to bear the Son of God in her womb!

Can you give me the same respect for not elevating her, with statues and other things, to such an exalted position!

You are free to reject any and all of the Apostolic Teaching, to your own peril. This free will is a gift of God at creation.

Statues do not “elevate” anyone.

Jesus is the Name above all names, and our focus should be on Him! Mary was an incredible woman, and without her, we would not have had he Saviour! God chose her from among many, because of her humble and willing heart; and it is clear that Joseph was just as willing, to be used by God for His puposes!

Yes, and this is Catholic faith. Catholics see no need to exclude Mary from Jesus’ awesome Gospel message.

I am having a difficult time, seeing how you, as a Christian, do not believe that Jesus’s words back then, apply to us today!

I have a difficult time with that also. However, I think that some of the Scriptures are taken out of their context when they are applied.

That is why the term knowing Him as your …personal Saviour is used when talking about a relationship with Him:thumbsup:

True, it is used, but one must be cognizant that this is not found in Scripture. This is an invention of modern American Fundamentalism.

Do you mean to tell me, that when I read this Bible of mine, which was supposedly written by catholics, that I shouldn't believe that He is speaking to me; like when He said in John 14, that He was going to prepare a mansion for me?

God certainly can, and does, speak to our separated brethren through the Holy Scriptures written by Catholics.

 And you, and others, have explained things to me, and others, but from a catholic point of view. Why are CINOS allowed to be in the catholic church(along with "cafeteria catholics"), given the rigidity of the catholic religion?:confused:

Sorry, I can’t help with this, because I have never heard of a CINOS.

I also do not understand what you mean by “rigidity of the catholic religion”.

As far as sinners (cafeterial catholics) being “allowed in church”, the Church is a refuge for sinners, and it is my prayer that all such persons will be converted to Christ.

 

[AwGusTeen]

tmac1956: Or maybe you carried it to its’ illogical conclusion! Jesus said,"If you love Me, you will keep my Commandments, of which, confess to a priest every Saturday, is not included! snip…

Surely you do not limit your beliefs to that commandment, while ignoring the rest of scripture. As you probably know, scripture tells us to confess our sins to one another. Scripture also shows that Christ gave the ability to forgive sins to men. So, how are these men to forgive sins if those sins are not confessed to them? Even if you believe that this authority died with the apostles, the question still remains.

Believe me, there are enough catholics in this forum, to remind me of what sola scriptura means; but I have ner said that I live by that: I think it may be because I’m a non-catholic, that you believe I do And, there are some catholics, who whether they’re mocking non-catholics, or not, say,“Give me a verse, where is it in the Bible?” snip…

First you stated that no catholic has been able to show where the Savior commanded that one should confess one’s sins to a priest. Since much of what Christ did and commanded is recorded in scripture, one would naturally hold scripture to be the source of the evidence that you require. Now, however, you state that you do not “live by” Sola Scriputra. Ok, fine. What other source of authority regarding matters of faith and morals on earth do you acknowledge? Is it you? Is it your Pastor? Is it your church? I would really like to know specifically and succinctly what you actually believe.

And I was just thinking that it was IRONIC that the catholics were headquartered in the FORMER evil Roman Empire

The whole world trembles in the face of your rapier wit.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not sure if we settled the issue dealing with Mary, but you must agree, that there are other ways to look at not only the Cana wedding, and the time at the Cross, but it seems that Mary spent much time with her Son! I am no scholar, although I did attend college(AA degree), but I am learning more and more, the more mature I become in my Christian walk(Philippians 1:6).Do you think Mary had any idea what Jesus’s first miracle would be?

Yes, there are many ways to look at the Cana wedding. I have certainly heard some unique things here!

I suspect that Mary had already seen many of Jesus’ miracles, since she seemed so confident that He was going to fix the problem. I think the reason she did not go to the tomb is because she was the only one who really believed Him. Maybe He appeared to her first privately.

What exactly did pope John Paul II mean, when he said something to the effect that "All men(and women of course), could be saved!"

It is a refutation of the Reformed heresy that Jesus only came to save some, and that certain persons are pre-destined to damnation.

Was he saying that even those who are outside the catholic church had the opportunity to come to a knowledge of our sins, a confession that we know we have sinned, ask for forgiveness, repent, be baptized and be saved?

Among other things, this is also true.

So, what sin exactly is yelling at children? If that is true, then my mother(an awesome Christian mother) sinned eightfold, nearly every day!

James 1:19-20
19 Know this, my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, 20 for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God.

Or in this case, a woman.

Eph 4:26-28
26 Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and give no opportunity to the devil.

Eph 6:3-4
4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

Yelling can be a provocation to children.

I am not purporting that yelling is always a sin, or that a person who yells is not a committed Christian. However, in addition to being a less effective parenting technique, it can also be an occasion of sin because it is often an outlet for anger.

 

[guanophore]

You are missing the point. We are to confess our sins period. You believe it is to be to a priest, but are not all who are born again born into a royal priesthood? Are not all who are born again called saints of the Most High God?

Yes, we are all part of the royal priesthood. However, there are several levels of priesthood. There is the general priesthood of all believers, the ministerial priesthood, and the High priesthood. These roles, forshadowed in the OT, are fulfilled in the New.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Yes, there are many ways to look at the Cana wedding. I have certainly heard some unique things here!

I suspect that Mary had already seen many of Jesus’ miracles, since she seemed so confident that He was going to fix the problem. I think the reason she did not go to the tomb is because she was the only one who really believed Him. Maybe He appeared to her first privately.

It is a refutation of the Reformed heresy that Jesus only came to save some, and that certain persons are pre-destined to damnation.

Among other things, this is also true.

James 1:19-20
19 Know this, my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, 20 for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God.

Or in this case, a woman.

Eph 4:26-28
26 Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and give no opportunity to the devil.

Eph 6:3-4
4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

Yelling can be a provocation to children.

I am not purporting that yelling is always a sin, or that a person who yells is not a committed Christian. However, in addition to being a less effective parenting technique, it can also be an occasion of sin because it is often an outlet for anger.

Bever You do not believe this statement "What exactly did pope John Paul II mean, when he said something to the effect that “All men(and women of course), could be saved!” If not why ???

 

[guanophore]

John says for the umteenth time There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. In this particular v. He is telling us there is a sin that we should not be praying for** not a sinner.**

The context of the passage is praying for one another. There are some sins that don’t respond to this. In no case do we “pray for sin”. We pray for the people that are trapped in sin. If one is trapped in a mortal sin, intercessory prayer is insufficient. One must avail oneself of confession.

So, you are saying then that we should not pray for a person that commits apostacy.

I don’t think that is what she is saying, but we should most certainly pray fervently for those who have committed apostasy. Our prayers will be insufficient unless they go to confession, since it is a mortal sin.

Since as you say these are sins that lead to death, we probably shouldn't pray for these as well, Right?

That is what your orignial response to this passage seemed to indicate. We don’t pray for the “sins”, though, we pray for the persons trapped in them.

Here is where we part. 1John3: 4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Doesn’t say anything here about venial sin. It says sin, all sin, is the transgression of the law. And all sin if not washed in the blood of the Lamb of God, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is a sin unto death and we should not even pray for mercy for that sinner because they have made thier choice unto death.

Yes, but some sins are more serious than others. Your post seems to imply that you think venial sins are not washed by the Blood as well.

Do you not realize that Jesus came to set man free? Why do you want to once again put him in bondage?

There are a lot of Catholics that don’t realize this, it is true. However, what SHW is talking about is becoming free from sin by participating in Jesus’ redemptive act of suffering. He promised that all those who follow HIm would take up their cross. He promised that the servant is not above the Master, and that we can add our sufferings to His on the cross. Suffering can be redemptive, both for ourselves, and those for whom we suffer.

Before Jesus came, all mankind was held prisoner in hell. Not one could enter the kingdom of heaven until Jesus had defeated the hold death had on him.

No, heis. No one is a prisoner of hell until after the judgement. There were many righteous who died before Christ, who awaited Him to redeem them. The prison in which they waited is not the same prison as the one where Satan rules.

So now, when a man dies in the flesh and he was a believer, being born again in his spirit though Christ, the man is not held under the yoke of death so his spirit which was made alive again through Christ goes to be with Christ in heaven.

I would go even beyond this to say that before death, those who are in Christ are freed from sin, in this life, as well as the next.

That is what makes Jesus’s words true when he said, “He who believes in me will never die.” Even though the body dies, the spirit does not if the man was born again.

This is why it is so peculiar when Protestants come here to CAF and tell us we cannot pray to saints.

That is what makes Jesus’s words true when he said,“He who believes in me, though he be dead, yet shall he live.” Here he is telling us although we will die in the flesh, our spirit lives on if we are born again prior to physical death.

And we can live right here and now, free from sin and corruption, when we walk in His light.

 

[SHW]

Here is what you originally said
Sins that lead to death are mortal sins which cause the “death of eternal life in the soul.” Apostasy is one of these sins.
To which I replied
So, you are saying then that we should not pray for a person that commits apostacy.
Now you say
Depends on definition of apostasy.

See you can’t just go around making up your own definitions to suite whatever situation you are in. Here is the dictionaries definition for apostasy.
apostasy
the total rejection of Christianity by a baptized person who, having at one time professed the Christian faith, publicly rejects it. It is distinguished from heresy, which is limited to the rejection of one or more Christian doctrines by one who maintains an overall adherence to Jesus Christ.

We both need to be on the same page as to what “apostasy” means in order to discuss it:

Webster’s New World Dictionary & Thesaurus
Apostasy: an abandoning of what one has believed in, as a faith, cause, or principles

So, is the “apostasy” of the person present now or is it final? If it is present now, then repentance can still be made. If it is final (as at death), then repentance cannot be made.

Sounds like a pretty bad sin, Right? But this is not the sin that leads to death that John is talking about. Neither are all the sins that Paul enumerates. The sin that leads to death is not repenting of these sins.

The sin that causes the death of the soul/damnation is “final impenitence.” Sins that “lead to death” can still be confessed/repented before death. If a person does not repent of his/her apostasy or other mortal sins before death, then death makes this state of apostasy or other mortal sins final and so this person does not inherit eternal life.

All mortal sins “lead to death” and actually do cause “death of the soul” if not confessed/repented before death.

“Sin not leading to death” is also “called venial sin” since it cannot ever directly cause the “death of the soul/loss of eternal life” even if not confessed/repented before death. If venial sins are not confessed/repented/atoned before death, they can and will be atoned for after death in purgatory before the person is able to enter eternal life. (1 Corinthians 3:15) Purgatory’s fires cleanse venial sins from the soul.

Venial sin weakens a person’s sanctity and therefore continually sinning venial sins can make it easier for the person to eventually commit a mortal sin.

There are other sins that “lead to death” besides “apostasy” and some of these are adultery, fornication, lying, drunkenness, etc., as I posted earlier. All sins that actually can cause the loss of eternal life are called “sins that lead to death” since they do cause the death/damnation of the soul if not confessed/repented before death.

I think that John is making the point that we should pray for all people to repent, but he is also warning them that not all of their prayers will be answered because some people will choose to not repent before death and therefore they will lose eternal life in spite of all the prayers said for them.

Yelling at your children may not be a very good parenting tactic, but in no way is it a sin (ie. transgression of the law) unless it transgresses God’s law of love and then it is a sin unto death, If not repented of it is the sin that leads to death and not a venial sin.

**
Yelling at our children without “just cause” is a venial sin.** They did nothing wrong to deserve such treatment. They were not in danger. We yelled at them because of a defect in our own characters because we were upset about something else which had nothing to do with them. This is a sin against justice and it is a sin against loving our neighbor and it is a venial sin which must be repented/atoned on earth or repented/atoned in purgatory after death before we can inherit eternal life.

Will this venial sin cause you to lose eternal life? No. Only unrepented, unconfessed mortal sins cause us to lose eternal life.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

No, this is not the absolute “only thing left”. Proof of this can be found in this thread,where we are telling you that the Apostles and their successors believed and taught differently. Even if you reject what they taught(and still teach) if you are intellectually honest, you have to admit there is at least one other point of view.

You say** proof** that the only thing left is not the unrepented sin is because you say the apostles taught differently. Pretty arrogant statement isn’t it? To think that because you say it, that’s proof. Again I ask you to provide me with something (other than what you say) to show that the apostles taught anything differently.

The Apostles taught that intercessory prayer was insufficient to address mortal sins,

I certainly never said it was

and that they required sacramental confession.

Where does it say this.

I think you cling to your view because it is a way to interpret the text in view of your rejection of the sacraments.

I’m really not interested in your perception of me or why I do things. I would ask that you confine your comments to the subject and not get into personal critiques.

What I object to is your actions, which my betray your preaching, and the fact that you are not teaching according to the Word of God, but your perception of it, which has departed from the Apostolic Teaching.

What actions would those be? Again, I ask you to provide something anything other than what you say that shows that I have departed from what the apostles taught

I quoted the forum rules. It is a place to discuss and explore similarities and differences, not a venue for you to “teach” or “feed” us doctrines that depart from the Apostolic Teaching.

Aren’t we all trying to teach one another about our veiws and beliefs? You still haven’t shown how I depart from apostolic teachings except that you say I have. That’s not good enough.

You have made it clear that you are not here to disccus, compare, and contrast, but to convert

.
When anyone discusses, compares, or contrasts, they are doing so with, I am assuming, views that are firmly held and a certain amount of attempts at conversion is inevitable. Come on guano aren’t you trying a little to convert me to a belief in your apostolic tradition?

One such example is at the beginning of this post, where you have departed from the Apostolic Teaching on the sacrament of confession.

Where do the apostles teach confession. I keep asking you for something, other than what you say, to show me what it is you think they are preaching that I have departed from
You continually refuse to provide this something. I’m thinkin you can’t.

In the post to which I am responding here, you put forth yourself as one who is “Preaching according to the Word of God”, and express your sorrow that I do not recognize you as righteous because of it.

My sorrow was that you did not recognize that the servant in the parable was performing an act of righteousness. Why would you think that my attempts to teach God’s word would be any less righteous. My personal righteousness is as filthy rags before a holy God. The only righteousness I claim is the righteousness of Christ. Jeramiah 23:6In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

It was not from that passage I got it. It was when you said that sin is sin, and all sin is severe.

So, you disagree that all sin is severe. You’re going to have a hard time showing this in the bible. Let’s look at 1Jn3: 4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. John taught this Right? John is an apostle Right? So this is apostolic tradition Right? So, where do you find venial sin in this v. Sin, All sin, is a transgression of the law of God. If the law of God has not been transgressed, THERE IS NO SIN. Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

continued

 

[Richard_Kastner]

continuance

No, Richard. The Catholic church has never, and does not now, teach this. It is, however, a common misunderstanding.

1478 An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.89

You may say no but here it is in black and white. This from the catechism of the CC. An indulgence is obtained through the church "to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins."

Yes, I agree with that. I also agree that intercessory prayer is insufficient for addressing such a sin.

Ya, me to.

It does not say that. You made that up. You had to make that up to set aside the Apostolic meaning of the text.

You’re pretty good at pointing out when you feel someone is outside the apostolic teaching I have yet to see you affirmatively give what the apostles did teach on anything.
Anyhow, let’s go over it again, to see if we can figure out what John is saying and not to just discount what you think he isn’t saying.

1John5:16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

Ok, John says that if we see someone sin a sin that is not unto death, he shall ask (pray) and He shall give him life. Is this sin that is not unto death what the CC would call a venial sin. No, it isn’t because as 1Jn 3:4 says Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And Rom6:23 says For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. It can’t be venial because all sin is a transgression of the law and all sin leads to death unless you recieve the gift of God, Jesus Christ. So what are these sins then, Well the one not unto death is the sin repented of. The sin unto death is the sin not repented of. Now you can’t use your old worn out expression that it’s not apostolic because John wrote 1 John and Paul wrote Romans. Both apostles. If you can see some other possibility, please explain.

Mortal sins require a different kind of solution.

What would that be?

 

[guanophore]

You say** proof** that the only thing left is not the unrepented sin is because you say the apostles taught differently. Pretty arrogant statement isn’t it? To think that because you say it, that’s proof. Again I ask you to provide me with something (other than what you say) to show that the apostles taught anything differently.

No, I did not say that, however, if I did, it would not be arrogant. What I said was “proof” is in the thread itself. Obviously, those of us that have received the teaching of the Apostles understand the passage differently, which proves that there is more than one way to interpret the text.

The reason that you say “the only thing left” is that you have to rule out all other possibilities so as to dispense with the sacramental teaching of the Apostolic Church.

I certainly never said it was

Yet this passage clearly indicates that intercessory prayer for non-mortal sins is effective.

Where does it say this.

You seem to be laboring under the error that everything God committed to the Church can be found in the NT.

I'm really not interested in your perception of me or why I do things. I would ask that you confine your comments to the subject and not get into personal critiques.

It is not personal. Anyone who needed to reject the sacramental principles interprets such passages similarly.

What actions would those be? Again, I ask you to provide something anything other than what you say that shows that I have departed from what the apostles taught

Your assertion that the passage under discussion about moral sin refers to unrepented sin is a departure from what the Apostles believed and taugtht. We know what they believed and taught because it has been preserved in the churches founded by Apostles. If you don’t want to take my word for it. go over to the Orthodox forum, and try your new fangled idea there.

Aren't we all trying to teach one another about our veiws and beliefs?

It is possible that, in the process of exploring our differences, we would learn from one another. I would hope as much. However, that has not been your tone here. You have made several comments that indicate your purpose here is to make converts, and get people out of the Catholic Church, since you consider it apostate.
still haven’t shown how I depart from apostolic teachings except that you say I have. That’s not good enough.

When anyone discusses, compares, or contrasts, they are doing so with, I am assuming, views that are firmly held and a certain amount of attempts at conversion is inevitable. Come on guano aren’t you trying a little to convert me to a belief in your apostolic tradition?

Actually, it seems to me that you are quite hardened in you anti-Catholic sentiment. I respond to your posts for the sake of others who are reading, and may be open to learn that your ideas do not come from the Apostolic faith.

CAF is here for evangelistic purposes. That is no secret! It is not here to serve as a venue for your evangelistic endeavors. You will have to form your own site for that, or join some other SDA’s in the task.

 

[guanophore]

Where do the apostles teach confession. I keep asking you for something, other than what you say, to show me what it is you think they are preaching that I have departed from

It will not be possible for you to accept the teachings of the Apostles because you are laboring under the error of Sola Scriptura. Not only that, you have some gross misunderstanding of what the Catholic faith teaches. These impediments are prohibitive, I fear. In order to accept alternative information, you would have to have some chink in the armor open.

Many people tried to show you another way to look at the passage in John, to no avail.

You continually refuse to provide this something. I'm thinkin you can't.

I cannot pursuade someone who is not open to any evidence to the contrary of his own view, this is true.

My sorrow was that you did not recognize that the servant in the parable was performing an act of righteousness. Why would you think that my attempts to teach God's word would be any less righteous.

I believe you think that you are full of God’s righteousness. Your posts exude this conviction.

 The only righteousness I claim is the righteousness of Christ. Jeramiah 23:6In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Yes, your claims are heard loud and clear.

So, you disagree that all sin is severe.

No. I said that some sins are more severe than others. There are specific requirements that define a sin as mortal. Not all sins meet those requirements. One of those requirements we have discussed,that being knowledge. The Jews knew the prophesies about the messiah, and refused to accept Christ. They are therefore more culpable than Pilate, who was more ignorant than they.

You're going to have a hard time showing this in the bible.

This is not a problem for me, since I am not constrained by the error of Sola Scriptura.

Let's look at 1Jn3: 4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. John taught this Right? John is an apostle Right? So this is apostolic tradition Right? So, where do you find venial sin in this v. Sin, All sin, is a transgression of the law of God. If the law of God has not been transgressed, THERE IS NO SIN. Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

continued

John is talking about two kinds of sin. One is mortal, the other is not. “Venial” is the Latin term used to refer to sins that are not mortal. An example would be the hypocritical behavior of Peter when he was visiting the Church. Peter withdrew from the Gentiles when the Jews came, even though Peter believed that he was not subject to the Mosaic laws concerning contact with Gentiles. This is not a sin unto death, but clearly a problematic shortcoming, and not glorifying to God. It is falling short (missing the mark) which is the definition of a sin.

 

[SHW]

Hey, shw: What exactly did pope John Paul II mean, when he said something to the effect that “All men(and women of course), could be saved!” Was he saying that even those who are outside the catholic church had the opportunity to come to a knowledge of our sins, a confession that we know we have sinned, ask for forgiveness, repent, be baptized and be saved? Just wondering; someone at work mentioned him and it made me think of something he said about, I don’t know, 6 or 8 years ago!

Good questions!

All men and women can be saved, however, many will choose to not be saved by their own free will actions (by their disobedience to God’s commandments).

Non-Catholics can be saved, but they are still saved through Jesus and His Catholic Church’s Sacraments whether they belong formally to His Church or not. The Church offers Holy Mass (Sacrament of Holy Eucharist) (John 6:53-56) for these special intentions and many others. Jesus chose to found a Church and commanded His Church to make disciples by baptizing (Sacrament of Baptism) and also to teach these new disciples to observe/do all that He commanded. (Matthew 28:18-20) Marriage is another Sacrament of the Church. (Matthew 19:6) He forgives sins through His priests and the Church’s Sacraments. (John 20:23, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, Matthew 26:27-28)

So, if you have been baptized like Catholics are, either by immersion or pouring water over your forehead three times with these words said at the same time, “I baptize thee/you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” then you have been baptized Catholic even though you are not aware of it. Baptism is the way that people become disciples of Christ/members of His Catholic Church because Baptism removes Original Sin from the soul! Baptism is what makes us Christ’s disciples.

Protestants, who are Protestant because they actually do not know that Catholicism is Jesus’ True Church, can still be saved.

However, I am concerned about those who also malign His Catholic Church in their ignorance. This is evil. Saul thought that he was pleasing God by persecuting the Christians. However, Jesus blinded him by a bright light to get his attention and then asked Saul/Paul why he was persecuting Him because Saul was actually persecuting Jesus by persecuting His Church. (Acts 9:4) His Church speaks for Him. (Luke 10:16) He is the Head of His Church so if you speak evil about His Church, then you are also speaking evil about Him!

Mark 9:38-40
Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. 40 For he who is not against us is on our side.

1 Peter 3:12
For the eyes of the LORD are on the righteous,
And His ears are open to their prayers;
But the face of the LORD is against those who do evil.

God accepts all those who fear Him and work righteousness (Acts 10:34-35), but He founded a Church to lead His flock to the Promised Land and His desire is that all belong to His Church.

Those non-Christians who through no fault of their own do not know Him, can still be saved. God has given everyone a conscience and their consciences will determine whether they are saved or not. Their consciences will accuse them when they do wrong (God gives each person a conscience when He creates them) if they choose to listen to and obey their consciences. (Romans 2:14-16)

If a person knows that the Catholic Church is truly Jesus’ Church, but still refuses to enter His Catholic Church (because of fear of what his family will say or fear of how they will act, etc.), then this person cannot be saved because if you knowingly deny His Church, then you knowingly deny Him also. Those who deny Him are not saved. (Matthew 10:33, Titus 1:16)