Obtaining God's Forgiveness

[Gadgeteer]

This reflects what Paul experienced in Romans7…
.
.
2Cor13:5 says, “Test yourselves, examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith; do you not realize this, Christ is in you, unless you fail the test?” (adokimos are disqualified) How do we test ourselves? We examine our fruit! EXACTLY as Peter said in 1:1:5-11!

Oops, 2Peter1:5-11; sorry!

 

[Gadgeteer]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us, but none of this is evidence for or against anything.

I gave up trading biblical references with others on CAF a long time ago for the simple reason that anyone can interpret any verse/passage/book to mean whatever he wants.

Hi again, Della! There are many who say that, but — for instance as I’ve studied Reformed Theology – I find solid principles are taught in the Scriptures they thought were opposite. Did I give a comment on Jeremiah 13:23? RT’s think that the intent is that we can NEVER change our spots or skin-type (not that leopard-spots or Ethiopian tints are sinful, it’s just expressing permanency) — verse 27 plainly states, “How long will you remain unclean?”

In plain words changing IS WITHIN our power; that question makes no sense in any other way.

So, the answer doesn’t lie there. Sola scriptura is a fallacy–mainly because it is historically unsupportable and secondly, because it cannot lead any two groups of people with different interpretations to any agreement.

Sometimes that may be true. When Scripture says, “to exhort with sound doctrine and refute those who contradict” (Titus1:8-9), there must be “sound doctrine” in many cases behind that.

I was attracted here by the Calvinist threads – I know the long dispute waged between Catholics and RT’s. I hoped to have something of value to share, so that in future conversations with RT’s the very verses they thought were “absolute predestinary”, can be clearly and indisputably shown not to teach “Sovereign Election”.

I could mention authority to interpret Scripture, but that’s another topic for another thread.

I have to ask you who is harmed by believing in purgatory, when the Church teaches that it is a part of heaven? Did you know that?

I did not – there is always more to learn.

Purgatory isn’t a second chance at salvation. All who are in purgatory are saved.

And I did not know that either. Thank you.

If you could help me understand – those in Purgatory have incomplete sanctification?

So, there’s no need for the kind of urgency you declare is needed. Catholics are not taught to strive for purgatory, but to strive and contend for heaven, as St. Paul urged us to do.

And THAT, is perfect agreement between you and me. :hug1:

All we do/receive–our Sacraments, our prayers, our good Christian work, etc., is all aimed at our salvation and that of others. So do not fear for us and for our beliefs. We’re doing just fine as we are, thank you all the same. :tiphat:

I think perhaps I offended you? Wasn’t meant, hope you’ll forgive me.

 

[Della]

Hi again, Della! There are many who say that, but — for instance as I’ve studied Reformed Theology – I find solid principles are taught in the Scriptures they thought were opposite. Did I give a comment on Jeremiah 13:23? RT’s think that the intent is that we can NEVER change our spots or skin-type (not that leopard-spots or Ethiopian tints are sinful, it’s just expressing permanency) — verse 27 plainly states, “How long will you remain unclean?”

In plain words changing IS WITHIN our power; that question makes no sense in any other way.

Yes, we are perfectable in Christ not merely predestined to perfection in Christ.

Sometimes that may be true. When Scripture says, “to exhort with sound doctrine and refute those who contradict” (Titus1:8-9), there must be “sound doctrine” in many cases behind that.

Of course, St. Paul was directing his remarks to one person, to Titus, an ordained minister, not to anyone at all. We have to remember that the only Scripture St. Paul and Titus knew was the OT, and it wasn’t the OT’s teachings that were in dispute but those of Christ. One of the worst things we can do is take verses out of their context–their own as well as their historical context.

Again, we could discuss who has the authority to interpret Scripture, but that would take us off topic. If you’d like to discuss it, please feel free to start a new thread.

I was attracted here by the Calvinist threads – I know the long dispute waged between Catholics and RT’s. I hoped to have something of value to share, so that in future conversations with RT’s the very verses they thought were “absolute predestinary”, can be clearly and indisputably shown not to teach “Sovereign Election”.

You will find that those who hold to their own interpretations are not swayed by “dueling Bible verses.” They read into the Bible what they want to find in it, as do all who take it upon themselves to determined doctrine/dogma based on sola scriptura.

If you could help me understand – those in Purgatory have incomplete sanctification?

Sanctification is not static/a one time event–it’s an ongoing process that God, in his mercy, does not end with our physical death for those who are in Christ. It is only through the redemption that Christ won for us that we are sanctified–indeed, it is he who sanctifies us at every stage of our lives. I’m afraid this is a deep topic that is a bit beyond my ability to fully discuss. I do know that we do not sanctify ourselves without Christ. I also know that Christ extends his mercy to those who are not fully prepared for the Beatific Vision but who do not deserve hell, either.

I think perhaps I offended you?

Not at all. I apologize if I gave you that impression. I merely wished to allay any fears for Catholics’ salvation for practicing our faith. I encountered several Protestants who do have the idea that Catholics cannot be saved by being Catholics. I’m happy to see you’re not one of them.

Wasn’t meant, hope you’ll forgive me.

Indeed, I see that. I ask your forgiveness, as well.

 

[Todd977]

Hi, Todd. What would be the circumstance where one “would not know if his contrition is because he loves God, or if it’s from some selfish reason”?

Is it possible for a person, due to such things as self-deception, rationalization, introspection illusion, etc., to mistakenly think that he loves God when in fact he doesn’t? St John seemed to think so, saying, “If any one says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar.” (1 John 4:20) Jesus said something similar, “Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you **will think **he is offering service to God.” (John 16:2)

St Paul warned against self-deception a couple times. (1 Cor 3:18; Gal 6:3)

Not to be argumentative, but for my own information — how are we sanctified, before death? I read 1Cor6:11:

“…you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

Hagiazō — aorist passive indicative. “Done deal”, statement of fact.
(King James, “you are sanctified”.)

For my own information about what you believe — what would we have to do in Purgatory, to “gain additional sanctification”? Aren’t we sanctified by Jesus’ blood, shed on the Cross?

Yes, we are sanctified when we receive the graces of baptism but that sanctification is not necessarily a permanent condition. If it were a permanent condition, the apostles would not have found it necessary in their letters to warn Christians not to sin, not to backslide. We must strive to maintain our sanctification, as the author of Hebrews told Christians, “Strive … for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” Jesus spoke of this when he washed the feet of his disciples, saying, “He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet…” (John 13:10) Purgatory is where, if necessary, Jesus washes the feet of Christians for the final time after their death before they enter heaven, since “nothing unclean can enter it.” (Rev 21:27) Our sanctification in Purgatory is passive; it is done to us; we don’t actively do anything; it is a final participation in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Yes, we are perfectable in Christ not merely predestined to perfection in Christ.

Agreed.

Of course, St. Paul was directing his remarks to one person, to Titus, an ordained minister, not to anyone at all. We have to remember that the only Scripture St. Paul and Titus knew was the OT, and it wasn’t the OT’s teachings that were in dispute but those of Christ. One of the worst things we can do is take verses out of their context–their own as well as their historical context.

Paul says he is an “ambassador for the Gospel, proclaiming it boldly” (Eph6:19-20) — and that we also are ambassadors for Christ, 2Cor5:20. In a real sense, we are all commanded to “preach the Gospel”. (Mark16:15)

Yes “historical context” is important, often critical. Take the very real concept of “SEMITIC VIEW” (also called “Anthropomorphism”) – ascribing to GOD (or others), what men do themselves. Did God harden Pharaoh’s heart towards sin? Was God CAUSAL in Pharaoh’s sin? (Rm9:17-18!) We see that the idea of “God-hardening-Pharaoh” (Ex10:1), is the same event as Pharaoh hardening his own heart (Ex9:34). This explains Rm12:3, God does not actually give saving-faith only to a few, as RT’s claim. It explains 2Cor4:3-4, satan does not have the power to blind people from salvation; cemented in the previous chapter, 3:16 says that men turn to God BEFORE their hard-hearts are unveiled!

1Sam6:6 exposes forever that Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart, God did not unilaterally do it!

(Those verses — Rom9:17-19, Rm12:3, and 2Cor4:3-4 are some of the “Fifty-Five Verses Thought to Support Reformed Theology!”)

Again, we could discuss who has the authority to interpret Scripture, but that would take us off topic. If you’d like to discuss it, please feel free to start a new thread.

That might be interesting. I think by now you understand that I perceive some Scriptures have their own authority.

Hope no one gets tired of me throwing out 1Cor2:14 — this verse shows the bias and error of Reformed Theology. RT’s think it is the clearest proof that “God must regenerate hearts BEFORE one can understand and believe the Gospel and be saved”. But Paul is very blatant — in verse 12 we receive the Spirit (are saved!!!) before and in order to GET the understanding mentioned in verse 14!

So the “authority to interpret” is 100% there from PAUL, there is no other interpretation or explanation possible. Even RT’s will admit that “no one receives the Spirit WITHOUT repentance and salvation”.

Do you think that would make a good thread?

You will find that those who hold to their own interpretations are not swayed by “dueling Bible verses.” They read into the Bible what they want to find in it, as do all who take it upon themselves to determined doctrine/dogma based on sola scriptura.

I look forward to your thoughts on what RT’s think of 1Cor2:14; that is on page 98 I think of Pink’s “The Sovereignty of God”, It’s in R.C.Sproul’s “Chosen by God”, and it’s in every other prominent Calvinism-promoting book!

If we can make many other “solid studies of Scripture” as you and I just did on 2Cor2:12-14 (actually, you and I just did SEVERAL – RT’s understanding of 2Cor4:3-4 is ruined by 3:16, Jer13:23 RT is ruined by 27, Rom12:3 and Rm9:17-19 RT is ruined by 1Sam6:6 (and Ex9:34 and 10:1). There are many more like this, where the Scripture itself is “sufficiently authoritative” to prohibit someone presuming his or her own authority!

Whaddya’ think, Della? Is it valid to say that in many places the WRITERS gave sufficient authority to understand solid things? How could a Calvinist propose that in 1Cor2:12 an “unsaved walking-in-sin-person receives (lambano) the Holy Spirit”???

 

[Gadgeteer]

Sanctification is not static/a one time event–it’s an ongoing process that God, in his mercy, does not end with our physical death for those who are in Christ.

It’s not really a question of “being static”; but rather, how does it happen? Is it done by Jesus to a believer? Or does a believer contribute partly to his own sanctification?

“Sanctified”, is made holy (righteous). “Justified” is declared holy/righteous.

2Cor5:21 says that through Jesus we become the righteousness of God.

Is it by something we do? Or is it a gift that Jesus did by Himself? If we can contribute to our own righteousness, then what purpose did the Cross serve? Rom3 tells us that “none are righteous, not one”. I perceive our righteousness, is all HIM in us, nothing of ourselves. Sufficient and complete, wrought on the Cross.

Where you and I have perfect agreement is that “sanctification”, is part of a location in which we must ABIDE. Heb10:26-29 warns us if we continue willfully sinning, Jesus’ Cross no longer covers us; and a man who was once sanctified by Jesus’ blood can turn away and scorn that very blood, can trample Jesus with whom he once fellowshiped, and can insult the Spirit who once indwelt him.

What I’m not understanding, is how “sanctification” can be …incompletely received. I acknowledge that not everyone is spiritually mature all at once; yet, “sanctification” seems a done deal in verses like 1Cor6:11. It is absolutely forfeitable as our “abiding-in-Christ” is rejectable. But when one abides in Christ, is there any way he is not fully “sanctified/made-holy-righteous”?

If one is “not-fully-righteous”, then he’s abiding partly in SIN, and I can’t see how he is walking with Jesus! I’ve often heard Christianity compared to a woman being pregnant; she’s not “a little pregnant”, or “partly”—she either is, or she is not. Jesus said “he who is not with Me is against Me”. How can we be with Him less than 100%?

So then “maturity” is more learning to abide more and more in Christ (and to be filled with the Spirit, Eph5:18), every moment of which we would be FULLY righteous/sanctified; and turning to sin we absolutely FALL and can VACATE the sanctification that Jesus finished on the Cross, as the man in Heb10:29 did!!!

Do you think you and I are so far apart on this?

It is only through the redemption that Christ won for us that we are sanctified–indeed, it is he who sanctifies us at every stage of our lives.

See? All I can say to your statement, is —

I’m afraid this is a deep topic that is a bit beyond my ability to fully discuss. I do know that we do not sanctify ourselves without Christ. I also know that Christ extends his mercy to those who are not fully prepared for the Beatific Vision but who do not deserve hell, either.

Please comment on what I just said above — didn’t we just discuss it fully?

Not at all. I apologize if I gave you that impression. I merely wished to allay any fears for Catholics’ salvation for practicing our faith. I encountered several Protestants who do have the idea that Catholics cannot be saved by being Catholics. I’m happy to see you’re not one of them.

No, I’m not. To be blunt – when I converse with a Catholic, here or in the “real world” — I begin presuming that he, or she, is a saved brother or sister. Unless something occurs to indicate otherwise (such as denying Jesus’ deity, or espousing Antinomianism, or Universalism, or some other clear “different gospel”)…

Indeed, I see that. I ask your forgiveness, as well.

Not needed — but know that I am honored by your words!

:hug3:

 

[Gadgeteer]

Is it possible for a person, due to such things as self-deception, rationalization, introspection illusion, etc., to mistakenly think that he loves God when in fact he doesn’t?

Absolutely! In Greek, the “double-name” is an expression of intimacy. So in Matt7:21-23, there are those who excitedly rush to Jesus’ arms crying, “LORD! LORD!” — only to be met with Jesus’ turned face and His hand up to stop them, “I do not know you, depart from Me you who practice wickedness!”



How could they be so certain they were SAVED, and be so wrong? It’s the same in Rev3:14-22. I think if I was poor, or blind, or miserable, or wretched, or naked, I would KNOW it – but somehow these people DID NOT!

St John seemed to think so, saying, “If any one says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar.” (1 John 4:20) Jesus said something similar, “Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you **will think **he is offering service to God.” (John 16:2)

St Paul warned against self-deception a couple times. (1 Cor 3:18; Gal 6:3)

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise.

For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.

Excellent citations! Well done!

Yes, we are sanctified when we receive the graces of baptism but that sanctification is not necessarily a permanent condition. If it were a permanent condition, the apostles would not have found it necessary in their letters to warn Christians not to sin, not to backslide. We must strive to maintain our sanctification, as the author of Hebrews told Christians, “Strive … for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” Jesus spoke of this when he washed the feet of his disciples, saying, “He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet…” (John 13:10) Purgatory is where, if necessary, Jesus washes the feet of Christians for the final time after their death before they enter heaven, since “nothing unclean can enter it.” (Rev 21:27) Our sanctification in Purgatory is passive; it is done to us; we don’t actively do anything; it is a final participation in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

I’m just not understanding how “sanctification” is not complete, as verses like 1Cor6:11 seem to imply. You and I agree completely that “it is not permanent, we are warned not to backslide”.

I’ve gone more into detail in the previous post to Della — if you would honor me by giving your thoughts to what I have said, I suspect you and I will find we’re more in agreement than not.

And again, it’s not that “we are out to agree with each other” — which can be terribly WRONG* — but that we are agreeing together on what the Apostles said!

• Rom1:32 “…although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

Yikes…

 

[Gadgeteer]

I also know that Christ extends his mercy to those who are not fully prepared for the Beatific Vision but who do not deserve hell, either.

We all deserve Hell, every one of us. “All have sinned and fall short of God’s glory”.

Paul says in Eph2:3, “we were children of wrath (orge-Hell, Rom2:5, 8)”.

Who is it who is stands outside of “deserving of Hell”, but is also outside of “fully ready to see Christ face-to-face”?

“He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” Matt12:30

Who is in between?

 

[Della]

We all deserve Hell, every one of us. “All have sinned and fall short of God’s glory”.

Paul says in Eph2:3, “we were children of wrath (orge-Hell, Rom2:5, 8)”.

Who is it who is stands outside of “deserving of Hell”, but is also outside of “fully ready to see Christ face-to-face”?

“He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” Matt12:30

Who is in between?

Those who have not repented of their mortal sins before death, is all I meant. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Della]

It’s not really a question of “being static”; but rather, how does it happen? Is it done by Jesus to a believer? Or does a believer contribute partly to his own sanctification?

“Sanctified”, is made holy (righteous). “Justified” is declared holy/righteous.

2Cor5:21 says that through Jesus we become the righteousness of God.

Is it by something we do? Or is it a gift that Jesus did by Himself? If we can contribute to our own righteousness, then what purpose did the Cross serve? Rom3 tells us that “none are righteous, not one”. I perceive our righteousness, is all HIM in us, nothing of ourselves. Sufficient and complete, wrought on the Cross.

Where you and I have perfect agreement is that “sanctification”, is part of a location in which we must ABIDE. Heb10:26-29 warns us if we continue willfully sinning, Jesus’ Cross no longer covers us; and a man who was once sanctified by Jesus’ blood can turn away and scorn that very blood, can trample Jesus with whom he once fellowshiped, and can insult the Spirit who once indwelt him.

What I’m not understanding, is how “sanctification” can be …incompletely received. I acknowledge that not everyone is spiritually mature all at once; yet, “sanctification” seems a done deal in verses like 1Cor6:11. It is absolutely forfeitable as our “abiding-in-Christ” is rejectable. But when one abides in Christ, is there any way he is not fully “sanctified/made-holy-righteous”?

If one is “not-fully-righteous”, then he’s abiding partly in SIN, and I can’t see how he is walking with Jesus! I’ve often heard Christianity compared to a woman being pregnant; she’s not “a little pregnant”, or “partly”—she either is, or she is not. Jesus said “he who is not with Me is against Me”. How can we be with Him less than 100%?

So then “maturity” is more learning to abide more and more in Christ (and to be filled with the Spirit, Eph5:18), every moment of which we would be FULLY righteous/sanctified; and turning to sin we absolutely FALL and can VACATE the sanctification that Jesus finished on the Cross, as the man in Heb10:29 did!!!

Do you think you and I are so far apart on this?

I believe we are simply coming at this issue from different directions, although I may have a small advantage in that I was once Protestant who very much believed opposite of the Catholic Church’s teachings on several things, so I have some idea where you’re coming from. Whereas, you may not know the language/expressions used by Catholics that may mean the same thing you are saying. So, we are feeling our way along, trying to find a common language and understanding, yes?

The Church teaches that sanctification is a gift of God, but it’s one we obtain by cooperating with God’s grace. So, we do have our part to play, but it’s by the power of the Holy Spirit that we are able to cooperate with God’s grace. Cooperate is the key word. God does not impose his will on us, but we are to be open to instruction and the graces of the Sacraments in order to be sanctified.

I highly recommend you research the Catechism of the Catholic Church for a better explanation of Church teachings. You may look up whatever topic you like by using the search engine provided on this website: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm.

 

[pablope]

It’s not really a question of “being static”; but rather, how does it happen? Is it done by Jesus to a believer? Or does a believer contribute partly to his own sanctification?

“Sanctified”, is made holy (righteous). “Justified” is declared holy/righteous.

2Cor5:21 says that through Jesus we become the righteousness of God.

Is it by something we do? Or is it a gift that Jesus did by Himself? If we can contribute to our own righteousness, then what purpose did the Cross serve? Rom3 tells us that “none are righteous, not one”. I perceive our righteousness, is all HIM in us, nothing of ourselves. Sufficient and complete, wrought on the Cross.

Where you and I have perfect agreement is that “sanctification”, is part of a location in which we must ABIDE. Heb10:26-29 warns us if we continue willfully sinning, Jesus’ Cross no longer covers us; and a man who was once sanctified by Jesus’ blood can turn away and scorn that very blood, can trample Jesus with whom he once fellowshiped, and can insult the Spirit who once indwelt him.

What I’m not understanding, is how “sanctification” can be …incompletely received. I acknowledge that not everyone is spiritually mature all at once; yet, “sanctification” seems a done deal in verses like 1Cor6:11. It is absolutely forfeitable as our “abiding-in-Christ” is rejectable. But when one abides in Christ, is there any way he is not fully “sanctified/made-holy-righteous”?

:

Hi, Gadgeteer…nice name…are you into gadgets?

Anyway, do not much time to respond to your responses to me…will do later.

But I do want to provide this journal, that distinguishes the different understanding of sanctification in Catholic and Protestant thougths:

chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/salvation.pdf

I would like to call your attention to the article by Dr. Marshner, a former protestant. I learned quite a bit fro his article, which I cite an excerpt below:

Justification By Faith
By Dr. William Marshner

Stages of Justification
Catholic and Protestant views on the respective roles of grace, faith and works cannot be compared meaningfully, unless one specifies what stage of the justificational process one is talking about. In the preparatory stage, for instance, in which prevenient graces first stir a person towards an interest in religious truth, towards repentance, and towards faith, Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists are at one in saying “sola gratia.”2 A second stage is the very transition from death to life, which is the first stage of justification proper. Here the parties are at one in saying “sola fide,” though they seem to mean different things by it. Protestants tend to mean that, at this stage, by the grace of God, man’s act of faith is the sole act required of him; Catholics mean that faith is the beginning, foundation and root of all justification, since only faith makes possible the acts of hope and charity (i.e. love-for-God) which are also required.3 However, since most Protestants have a broad notion of the act of faith, whereby it includes elements of hope and love, it is often hard to tell how far the difference on this point is real and how far it is a matter of words. Finally, however, there comes a third stage, that of actual Christian life, with its problems of growth and perseverance. The man justified by faith is called to “walk” with God, to progress in holiness. It is at this stage that the parties sharply diverge. Catholics affirm, and Protestants strenuously deny, that the born-again Christian’s good works merit for him the increase of grace and of the Christian virtues. As a result, Protestant piety has no obvious place for the self- sacrifices, fasts, and states of perfection which are prominent features of Catholic piety. At each stage, neither the apparent agreements nor the apparent disagreements can be understood without looking at certain metaphysical quarrels, the chief of which is over the very existence of what
Catholics call “grace.”

 

[Della]

Hi, Della. I do see these things spelled out in Scripture. Yes, “tri-unity” is a term invented by us; but – “there is only one God”, and “Jesus is God and has always existed” are Scriptural and only a tri-unity fits.

Of course the Trinity is scriptural, that’s not my point. Rather, my point is, that if the Church hadn’t fought against heresies, that denied Jesus’ divinity, in Church Councils, we might not believe in the Trinity as you and I do. Indeed, there are bodies of believers who do not believe in the Trinity or the divinity of Christ, as defined by Church Councils. Such believers base their beliefs solely on the Bible. The point is that the Bible alone is not our final arbiter of faith and morals–the Church is.

Isn’t our ability to forgive others (even our enemies who do NOT repent of how they have hurt us), really a reflection of how real He is to us? You and I were born with nothing; everything here is “on loan”. Do we need anything from anyone except knowing that Jesus loved us and died for us?

I’m afraid I cannot connect our topic with your questions here. I think the Spirituality forum would be better suited to discuss your, seemingly, rhetorical questions.

 

[jcrichton]

What I would like to happen here, is for all of us to come to an agreement. Not on whether or not Puragory exists — but rather, if we all would consider the possibility that it may not exist. Therefore, salvation takes on a greater urgency.

"Behold, now is “THE ACCEPTABLE TIME,” behold, now is “THE DAY OF SALVATION” 2Cor6:2

satan uses straightforward lies. All three views of Once Saved Always Saved are simply reflecting the First Lie that satan told Eve, in the Garden — “Don’t worry, you won’t really die.”

Perhaps the Second Great Lie, is — “Oh go have fun now, you can always repent later.”

…but some people find themselves driving in traffic and realize that oncoming car IS IN THEIR LANE COMING RIGHT AT THEM!!!

And all they have time to say, is “OH!” It may be an oncoming car, a heart-attack (I had a friend who was racing motorcycles, but was DEAD yards before his cycle crossed the finish line!), it may be anything else sudden!

Now is the acceptable time, now is the day of salvation. Whether Purgatory is God’s plan or not, shall we place Him of such lesser importance that we put Him off until tomorrow? Tomorrow is not guaranteed!

And – in satan’s “Second Great Lie”, do we really have fun WITHOUT Him?

“These things have I told you, that My joy may be in you, and YOUR JOY BE MADE FULL!!!” John15:11

He is our joy, He is our strength and our song (Psalm118:14). Put Him off today to go have the fun of sin, and we discover the bitter end of sin – it isn’t fun! And tomorrow may never come, we may have unwittingly put Him off FOREVER. May it never be!

Hi!

I think that you are combining Catholic understanding of Purgatory (purging as in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15) with the erroneous practice of seeking the Sacrament of Confession at man’s determined time (death bed, impotence, old age, after near death experience…) of making himself “right” with God…

Though the urgency is today, by committing sin we determine to not “come near to God” but to the world. It is the friendship with the world that brings us into enmity with God. Sin is not the currency of only the non-Believers and the “evil” ones; sin is man’s currency. The wages of sin is death.

Now, do not misunderstand me; I understand what you are saying about Salvation being dependent upon Belief… yet, it is Christ Himself that attests that it is not enough to Believe (in the sense that man employs it); but that we must actually ABIDE IN HIM!

“If you Love Me…”

…does that statement ends with: ‘Believe in Me?’

No!:

15 If you love me, keep my commandments.

(St. John 14:15)
…so Believing in Christ necessitates Being in Christ (we must Walk in the Light).

This then, brings us to what Walking in the Light means… can man refrain from sinning?

There might be a few amongst the billions… but as in your example… a person may not have the time to read/profess a Salvation Oratory/Prayer… abiding in Christ, His Body, man is able to avail himself of everything that Christ Has Brought and Offers: Fellowship in His Body.

The Church is the pillar of Truth because it contains within her everything that Christ Brought to man. It is in this relationship that man can battle against Satan’s control/deception. It is in this relationship that man can face eternity in “today is the day of Salvation”

Though personal Salvation is between man and God–it is through Fellowship in Christ, His Body, that man is able to remain near God: heading towards the Promise with the Hope that it is hiding in Christ!

If Salvation would be simply an internal “fiat” to God, what purpose would have had the Commanding of the Eleven to Gather for Pentecost since the Holy Spirit would have acted in each of those gathered wherever they were to be found… further, what purpose would there have been for any further Gathering in the Lord’s Day since they held an internal understanding and “fiat?”

Now is the time, today is the day. Now begins our eternity! For those who belong to Jesus, there IS no SECOND COMING

— for we are already in His presence and the joy of His fellowship NOW, just as much as when He returns PHYSICALLY! It will be no different for us when He comes, we will exult in Him being here physically (and ending all of the corruption and pain in the world), but we CONTINUE with what we have had all along!
I think that your emphasis is not that there’s no Parousia but that, for the Believer, Jesus abides in him/her–though I do caution that the goal is not to hold fast to that which is yet (still) hoped for but that we hold fast to Jesus’ Command: ‘be ready/stay alert, for no one knows the day and time…’

(Is it acceptable in the world of Catholicism for someone to say, “amen”?)

The term is employed but not as a supporting commentary… more towards: ‘as the Lord Said, let it be so!’

…though there are those who, on the basis of ecumenism, join the non-Catholics version of the use of the term.

Personally, I find it quite solemn since my Spanish version of the Jerusalem Bible tells us that ‘those who wish to be Blessed will do so in the God of the Amen (Jesus).’ (paraphrased)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Oops, 2Peter1:5-11; sorry!

…yeah, I always check the quoted passages–if I find a discrepancy I search for the correct references. (It’s not always necessary to correct such minor issues–less it serves to complicate/confuse the thread.)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gadgeteer]

Gadget:

We all deserve Hell, every one of us. “All have sinned and fall short of God’s glory”.

Paul says in Eph2:3, "we were

children of wrath (orge-Hell, Rom2:5, 8)".

Who is it who stands outside of “deserving of Hell”, but is also outside of “fully ready to see Christ face-to-face”?

“He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” Matt12:30

Who is in between?

Those who have not repented of their mortal sins before death, is all I meant. Sorry for any confusion.

Hi, Della – thank you for your time and trouble!

There is an entire issue behind this; aside from “venial sins” and “mortal sins”, the issue is the essence of salvation. Can we all agree that “salvation is a union between two people” — Creator (Jesus!), and creature (you me and everyone!)?

In John8 (24) Jesus speaks of the idea of “dying-in-our-sins”. To me this reflects Luke13:3, “unless you repent you will perish”.

Salvation is not a matter of “not-doing-sins”; nor are we condemned by any sins. Salvation is being united with Jesus, a true indwelt fellowship of love. John says (1:5:12) “He who has Jesus has eternal life”.

We read in 1Jn3:10, “In Jesus there is no sin” — so if Jesus and the Spirit indwell the believer, is there any room for “practicing” or “unforgiven” sins?
definitions:

Venial Sin
According to Roman Catholicism, a venial sin is a lesser sin that does not result in a complete separation from God and eternal damnation in Hell as an unrepented mortal sin would. A venial sin consists in acting as one should not, without the actual incompatibility with the state of grace that a mortal sin implies; they do not break one’s friendship with God, but injure it.

Mortal Sin
A sin is “mortal” if it fits the following three questions:

1. Did the act involve grave matter?
2. Was the act done with full knowledge of the grave and sinful nature of the act?
3. Was the act done with full consent of the will?

If all three questions are answered in the affirmative, the criteria for a mortal sin have been met. If any one of the three questions are answered in the negative, only the criteria for a venial sin have been met. In cases of doubt regarding any of these three questions, it is assumed that the criteria for a mortal sin were not met.

Each venial sin that one commits adds to the penance that one must do. Penance left undone during life converts to punishment in Purgatory. A venial sin can be left unconfessed so long as there is some purpose of amendment. One receives from the sacrament of reconciliation the grace to help overcome venial, as well as mortal sins. It is recommended that confession of venial sins be made. Venial sins require some kind of penance.

Now, this conflicts what I was told in a Catholic Bible Study I once attended – I objected to the idea of “doing penance to pay for sins”. The leader said, “That’s not the point of penance at all; the purpose is to create a contrite heart that leads to repentance”. That answered my objection.

Contrarily, the definition above that I found on the internet really does seem to convey that “penance pays for sins in some measure”.

As such, that conflicts Scripture, especially verses like Rom11:6 (“if it be by works then grace is no longer grace”), Eph2:8, and Rom8:3 (“what weak flesh could not do, God did–sending His Son …as an offering for sin”).

You said that “Purgatory is in Heaven” — so a person goes to HEAVEN and still gets PUNISHED THERE?

Heb10:12 says “He offered one sacrifice for sins for all time” — how many sins, and for whom? It had to be “all sins, for all who receive His grace”.

So here is where my understanding may diverge from yours – I perceive that ALL or ANY sin is “mortal”, if unforgiven! And to qualify that, “repentance” is a walk, we walk in a SPIRIT of repentance, so that if we stumble and sin but die before we get the chance to confess and be forgiven, there is still the “intent of our hearts” to not walk in sin but to abide in Him. We would have repented if that boulder hadn’t fallen on us at exactly the wrong time!

Is our difference that you perceive someone as able to stand in between “being with Jesus” and “being against Jesus”, and I see it as an “all-or-nothing proposition”?

 

[Gadgeteer]

I believe we are simply coming at this issue from different directions, although I may have a small advantage in that I was once Protestant who very much believed opposite of the Catholic Church’s teachings on several things, so I have some idea where you’re coming from.

Excellent! So you may be qualified to help me understand things from the Catholic position!

Whereas, you may not know the language/expressions used by Catholics that may mean the same thing you are saying. So, we are feeling our way along, trying to find a common language and understanding, yes?

Yes.

The Church teaches that sanctification is a gift of God, but it’s one we obtain by cooperating with God’s grace. So, we do have our part to play, but it’s by the power of the Holy Spirit that we are able to cooperate with God’s grace. Cooperate is the key word. God does not impose his will on us, but we are to be open to instruction and the graces of the Sacraments in order to be sanctified.

In my previous post immediately above, I think I addressed what was causing me conflict; the idea of “harboring some sins that may be called ‘non-fatal’, as opposed to the idea that any sin breaks fellowship with God through Jesus”.

1Cor10:1-13 (especially 12-13) says that temptations-to-sin always entice us; if we take God’s gracious escape we prevail, but if we succumb to sin we fall." But in the Christian world “fall” is not the end of the film and the usher demanding “please leave the theater” — no, WHEN we sin, our hearts still long for fellowship with Him and we immediately (as fast as we can) submit ourselves to 1Jn1:9, “we confess our sins (repent!) and He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”.

In that, confession 100% embodies our heartfelt pursuit of change with God’s power that we do not do the sin again!

I highly recommend you research the Catechism of the Catholic Church for a better explanation of Church teachings. You may look up whatever topic you like by using the search engine provided on this website: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm.

I appreciate that! :hug3:

I will look at it, and archive it for future use.

Meanwhile, I still look forward to your thoughts on this post (and the previous). Again, thank you for your time and effort. Anyone spends time on me, it is a blessing!

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer…nice name…are you into gadgets?

:tiphat:

VERY much so! I confess it’s very enjoyable building something, and having it do what I wanted! Often there is a period of frustration trying to figure out “why it doesn’t work”, and what to do to correct it. Of course, family and friends often say, “Can you fix this?” Usually I can…

Anyway, do not much time to respond to your responses to me…will do later.

As I just said to someone else, any time someone is willing to spend on me, is a blessing. Thank you!

But I do want to provide this journal, that distinguishes the different understanding of sanctification in Catholic and Protestant thoughts:

chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/salvation.pdf

Goodness, 43 pages — still loading! But thank you!

I would like to call your attention to the article by Dr. Marshner, a former protestant. I learned quite a bit fro his article, which I cite an excerpt below:

Justification By Faith
By Dr. William Marshner

Stages of Justification
Catholic and Protestant views on the respective roles of grace, faith and works cannot be compared meaningfully, unless one specifies what stage of the justificational process one is talking about. In the preparatory stage, for instance, in which prevenient graces first stir a person towards an interest in religious truth, towards repentance, and towards faith, Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists are at one in saying “sola gratia.”2 A second stage is the very transition from death to life, which is the first stage of justification proper. Here the parties are at one in saying “sola fide,” though they seem to mean different things by it. Protestants tend to mean that, at this stage, by the grace of God, man’s act of faith is the sole act required of him; Catholics mean that faith is the beginning, foundation and root of all justification, since only faith makes possible the acts of hope and charity (i.e. love-for-God) which are also required.3 However, since most Protestants have a broad notion of the act of faith, whereby it includes elements of hope and love, it is often hard to tell how far the difference on this point is real and how far it is a matter of words. Finally, however, there comes a third stage, that of actual Christian life, with its problems of growth and perseverance. The man justified by faith is called to “walk” with God, to progress in holiness. It is at this stage that the parties sharply diverge. Catholics affirm, and Protestants strenuously deny, that the born-again Christian’s good works merit for him the increase of grace and of the Christian virtues. As a result, Protestant piety has no obvious place for the self- sacrifices, fasts, and states of perfection which are prominent features of Catholic piety. At each stage, neither the apparent agreements nor the apparent disagreements can be understood without looking at certain metaphysical quarrels, the chief of which is over the very existence of what
Catholics call “grace.”

Well, many of my perceptions are opposite to Lutheranism or Calvinism. I view “OSAS” exactly the same as do Catholics, and (I think) Predestination the same. We are NOT predestined sovereignly by God to either live (and be righteous) or to perish (and be wicked). It’s a volitional choice. Against the charge of “PELAGIANISM” (or Semi-Pelagianism), we do not have inherent good; but God DRAWS us to the very door (Jn12:32 “helkuo-draw/drag-forcibly”!), and makes possible salvation for every person. Acts17:26-31 is sadly undercited by both sides:

"He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
…“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

This fits perfectly Deut30:11-20 (and its hard link with Rom10:6-10), where the “word-of-faith”, the SAME faith then as now with Jesus, is in EVERY heart and mouth – both those who can confess repent believe and be saved, and those who turn away disbelieve and perish.

Now – the beginning is the question “which direction does faith-to-salvation” flow? RT’s assert it’s something God gives TO (certain favorites/pets) – but Scripture plainly says faith is our choice. 1Pet1:9 is clear, Heb11:6 is clearer. And no “we have no inherent good”; but the sincere and effective call to salvation to EVERYONE, overcomes depravity sufficiently for belief. Goodness, “COME to Me all WHO are weary” (Matt11:28-31), only works if those called, CAN come!

And it’s the same with the rest of Scriptures; all of the admonitions to “turn from evil towards God”, to “resist sin and the devil” — what is this, some great theater where God PRETENDS men have a choice but it’s all just a movie and scripted? Who’s sitting in the audience munching all the popcorn?!

 

[Gadgeteer]

Dr. William Marshner
The man justified by faith is called to “walk” with God, to progress in holiness. It is at this stage that the parties sharply diverge. Catholics affirm, and Protestants strenuously deny, that the born-again Christian’s good works merit for him the increase of grace and of the Christian virtues. As a result, Protestant piety has no obvious place for the self- sacrifices, fasts, and states of perfection which are prominent features of Catholic piety. At each stage, neither the apparent agreements nor the apparent disagreements can be understood without looking at certain metaphysical quarrels, the chief of which is over the very existence of what
Catholics call “grace.”

I hope there is sufficient information in what the Apostles wrote, that it’s not an issue of “Catholic” or “Protestant”. Della mentioned something about “authority of the Scriptures” — who has the authority to interpret correctly?

I’ve posted extensively on 1Cor2:14 — a verse RT’s are convinced teaches “Unregenerated men cannot understand Jesus’ gospel, therefore their understanding must be opened sovereignly by God FIRST—only then are they able to believe and be saved”.

But two verses earlier Paul very plainly says the Holy Spirit must be received before and in order for anyone to be taught the very things “natural” men do not understand in verse 14. A man does not receive the Holy Spirit apart from full salvation; in Paul’s words, “salvation” comes squarely before “understanding-the-things”.

(Note that “things” is one subject in verses 9-14 — “things” in 9, “them” in 10, “thoughts-of-God” in 11, “things” in 12, 13, and 14.)

So — Calvinists claim “verse 14 proves regeneration precedes belief”. But they simply cannot explain how the Holy Spirit can be received without belief in verse 12, the Spirit then teaching those things in verse 13. There is no way that “receive-the-Spirit” does not mean “belief-to-salvation”. Calvinistic authority about this passage is abolished.

By whose authority is the real meaning (“belief, salvation, receiving the Spirit, only THEN the things are taught”) — exposed? The only authority present, is PAUL’S.

And that’s the issue — are there passages in Scripture which come with their OWN solid indisputable authority? If so, then it’s a non-issue to argue “by whose authority do you interpret those verses?”

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Della – thank you for your time and trouble!

There is an entire issue behind this; aside from “venial sins” and “mortal sins”, the issue is the essence of salvation. Can we all agree that “salvation is a union between two people” — Creator (Jesus!), and creature (you me and everyone!)?

In John8 (24) Jesus speaks of the idea of “dying-in-our-sins”. To me this reflects Luke13:3, “unless you repent you will perish”.

Salvation is not a matter of “not-doing-sins”; nor are we condemned by any sins. Salvation is being united with Jesus, a true indwelt fellowship of love. John says (1:5:12) “He who has Jesus has eternal life”.

We read in 1Jn3:10, “In Jesus there is no sin” — so if Jesus and the Spirit indwell the believer, is there any room for “practicing” or “unforgiven” sins?

Now, this conflicts what I was told in a Catholic Bible Study I once attended – I objected to the idea of "doing penance to pay for sins". The leader said, “That’s not the point of penance at all; the purpose is to create a contrite heart that leads to repentance”. That answered my objection.

Contrarily, the definition above that I found on the internet really does seem to convey that “penance pays for sins in some measure”.

As such, that conflicts Scripture, especially verses like Rom11:6 (“if it be by works then grace is no longer grace”), Eph2:8, and Rom8:3 (“what weak flesh could not do, God did–sending His Son …as an offering for sin”).
You said that “Purgatory is in Heaven” — so a person goes to HEAVEN and still gets PUNISHED THERE?

Heb10:12 says “He offered one sacrifice for sins for all time” — how many sins, and for whom? It had to be “all sins, for all who receive His grace”.

So here is where my understanding may diverge from yours – I perceive that ALL or ANY sin is “mortal”, if unforgiven! And to qualify that, “repentance” is a walk, we walk in a SPIRIT of repentance, so that if we stumble and sin but die before we get the chance to confess and be forgiven, there is still the “intent of our hearts” to not walk in sin but to abide in Him. We would have repented if that boulder hadn’t fallen on us at exactly the wrong time!

Is our difference that you perceive someone as able to stand in between “being with Jesus” and “being against Jesus”, and I see it as an “all-or-nothing proposition”?

Hi!

…I know you are addressing someone else… but I thought I could throw in my twos…

…let’s see… Catholic theology does not Teach that man can “pay/buy” his way from sin. It Teaches that Christ is our Redemption (Savior from sin).

However, we are not free from sin just because we accept Christ as our Lord and Savior… that is, we remain able to sin (give into temptation); that means that when we sin we lose our state of “Grace,” (as you pointed out how Christ warned that ‘you will die in your sins’). By seeking the Sacrament of Confession we regain that Grace Granted by Christ.

…then there’s the misunderstanding of what “works” means; to Catholics works, as you’ve cited above, means that which is required by the Law… so if we gain Salvation through Christ (Faith in Christ) we are no longer dependent upon the works of the Law–however, this does not mean that we can break the Ten Commandments over and over and over… because we are no longer under the Law but under Grace (Faith).

…works in Catholic theology is that which Jesus Commands in St. Matthew 5 thru 7 and 25:31-46 (as examples)… which boils down to Love. Yet, even these works are not “payment/rescue” from sin/punishment of sin; rather, these works demonstrate that we are abiding in the Light (Walking in the Light) as we respond to Jesus’ Command to Love HIM.

Still, the Call is for perfection (be perfect/be holy); not once does Scriptures Teach that by “claiming Christ” man is Eternally Saved and is “perfect”/“holy” and forever unable to sin.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gadgeteer]

Of course the Trinity is scriptural, that’s not my point. Rather, my point is, that if the Church hadn’t fought against heresies, that denied Jesus’ divinity, in Church Councils, we might not believe in the Trinity as you and I do.

I wonder? I believe in the Trinity not because of what councils, or Early Fathers, or modern philosophers disseminate — but because I’ve read things written by Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etcetera. I’m not a Greek scholar; but I have access to Greek lexicons and commentaries.

Indeed, there are bodies of believers who do not believe in the Trinity or the divinity of Christ, as defined by Church Councils.

That’s true, there are; and they are completely unable to respond to verses like, “In Jesus dwells the fullness of GODHEAD (theotes) in bodily form.” And many others…

Such believers base their beliefs solely on the Bible. The point is that the Bible alone is not our final arbiter of faith and morals–the Church is.

You’ve read my posts about “verses which come with their own authority”. Another excellent example of “inherent authority”, is when RT’s claim 2Cor4:3-4 states that satan blinds men against salvation, their eyes have to be opened first. Just going back one chapter, verse 3:16 says “WHEN a man TURNS to the Lord, the veil over his heart is lifted”. Huh? :huh:

How can one turn to God before the veil is lifted, unless he opens his own eyes? This flows to yet another “inherent authority” — Jesus, in Jn12:40-41 cites Isaiah6:10 and RT’s are absolutely certain the intent is GOD closes eyes against Himself and causes wickedness. But when we read Matt13, especially verse 15, again Jesus cites Isaiah6:10 but blatantly says men close their own eyes and ears against believing in God. So who really causes unbelief? I really think Jesus is a credible authority; and He said “they-close-their-own-eyes-and-ears” is the same meaning.

And that’s how we come up with “Semitic View”, or “Anthropomorphism”. Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex9:34), even though two verses later (10:1) it says GOD did it. 1Sam6:6 affirms Pharaoh did it himself. Do these verses carry enough of “their own authority”? I perceive they do.

So that’s why I think certain Scriptures come with enough authority of their own to prevent some from saying “I just understand it differently” (as you said, like some groups who deny Jesus’ deity).

I don’t have an example, but the Church has changed positions on some things; if you or I found a passage which comes with its own authority, and if a Church (be it Catholic or any other) conflicted, would you or I be willing to lean towards what the Apostle wrote? (No you don’t have to answer that! Just wanting to make people think!)

I’m afraid I cannot connect our topic with your questions here. I think the Spirituality forum would be better suited to discuss your, seemingly, rhetorical questions.

I’m just sayin’ — that as Humans, you and I have a tendency to perceive “how we should be treated”. When we re-focus our identities on the single important thing – that is, Jesus loved us and died for us, it makes everything else much less important. Jesus said “they will hate you and persecute you for My namesake, and some of you will die”.

Jesus hung there in indescribable pain, gasping for breath; He watched the very ones jeering and scoffing and murdering Him — and He said — “Father, FORGIVE them, they do not know what they’re doing!” :bighanky:

You and I could never do that, it’s Humanly impossible. Except — because He really indwells us, and His heart becomes ours; He loves those who conspire to hurt us, through us. And that is well with our souls; for all that people do to us which is GOOD, and all the bad they do to us, they are really doing to Him. “Inasmuch as you do it to the least of My brothers, you do it to Me!”

May we decrease, that He increases; may His heart fill us enough that we can love even our worst enemies. Because but for his grace, there would we be with them.

:grouphug: