Obtaining God's Forgiveness

[Gadgeteer]

Hi!

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

You are COMPLETELY welcome.

I fear that I may be monopolizing the thread; if someone thinks so, I ask forgiveness. All are welcome, especially someone like you who posts with much wisdom.

…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).

—that was my perception. What I quoted just sounded …divergent…

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.

While I may define “the Sacrament of Confession” a little differently than you, I believe we are in agreement.

…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).

Amen again. The secret to “Christianity”, is it is GOD who is at work in us, both to will and to work according to His great purpose. (Philipp2:13) — thus, our works (as James eloquently said), demonstrate our faith. Those who belong to Jesus, have to have good works; it’s unavoidable. And as Peter said (2:1:5-11), and Paul echoed (2Cor13:5), we can know where we are in Jesus by looking at our own works.

…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.

See? That’s precisely what I said! :hug3:

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.

Here you and I will agree again – we “be holy”, by drawing near to HIM. James4:6-10!!!

 

[Gadgeteer]

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…

I was trying to understand how some sins can still associate a believer after death, so that further “sanctification” is required in a place like Purgatory.

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.

Hence all of the urging to “abide in Jesus and in salvation” — Jude says, “building yourselves in holy faith, keep yourselves in the love of God”. Heb6 says “you need diligence so that when you have done the will of God you may receive the promise”. John says in 1:2:26-28 “abide in Him SO THAT we not shrink-in-shame (from sin) at His return”. Paul says in 2Tim1:12-14 “…retain the standard of sound words …guard, by the Spirit who indwells you the treasure entrusted to you”. It’s the same as 1Tim4:10, “abide in …the teachings and …save yourselves”. There are many like these…

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!

It is belief (Acts16:31) — but it is qualified belief. It’s all His power, His payment and sacrifice, His work; but it operates through our continued faith. there are many verses warning to “continue in faith”…

“If you Love Me…”

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

No!:

Please look at all of the verses which couch “believe”, in the present active participle. Jn3:16 is one, 1Jn5:1 is another. I really like Rom1:16 (and 17). “The gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who IS BELIEVING. His righteousness is revealed from BEGINNING faith to ENDING faith, the righteous shall live BY faith!”

…so Believing in Christ necessitates Being in Christ (we must Walk in the Light).

Correct – Col2:8!

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

YES!!! This is our whole pursuit — not “pursuing refraining-from-sinning”, but pursuing INTIMACY with Jesus that we have NO ROOM in our hearts for sin! The closer we are to Him, the farther we are from sin!

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.

It’s fellowship with a real conscious person of Jesus; what I want to promote most whether in Protestant circles, or in Catholic circles, is that we really do have a union with a real, conscious Savior. Some (many, I’ve found in Protestantism, and many I also perceive in Catholicism), drive down their “roads of life” with Jesus, the Spirit, faith, perseverance, and other things wrapped packaged and stored on the seat next to them if needed. And I’m convicted by verses like Gal2:20 – this is the essence, not a “nice desirable goal but not really necessary”.

 

[Gadgeteer]

The Church is the pillar of Truth because it contains within her everything that Christ Brought to man.

Okay. But what I have within my grasp to interrogate, is a collection of writings by the Apostles. In embracing “the authority of Scriptures”, the Catholic Church agrees there are verses authoritative.

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”

Yes — however, I was furious when TV preacher Joyce Meyer spoke on Luke10:17-19, and totally missed verse 20, the key! Jesus won ALL our battles from the Cross; if only we pursue HIM, and let His overcoming displace our sinfulness. The closer we are to Him (wait, I said that before!)

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!

He’s a real person; so is the Spirit. Do you know I tell many people that if they really do want to know the truth, ASK Him? I am completely convicted in my heart and spirit that is a valid challenge. For I myself once did that – “God, are You real, and do you want me?” Anyone who asks Him and means it, He will answer!

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?”

It’s my understanding that the Spirit was not personally available as such, until then. In Jn14 “When I will go I will send a helper, the Holy Spirit…”

I think that your emphasis is not that there’s no Parousia but that, for the Believer, Jesus abides in him/her

Exactly!

–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…’

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)

Well, there is an “amen” SMILEY here, so it’s not completely offensive!

 

[Della]

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.

Oh, but you do believe in the Trinity because of the decisions of Church Councils and the Early Church Fathers. I’ll explain further in answer to your other points…

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…

And they, and the heretics the Church ruled against in Church Councils, also had/have the same verses and were fluent in Greek, because it was their native tongue.

Nontrinitarian views differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Various nontrinitarian views, such as Adoptionism, Monarchianism and Arianism existed prior to the formal definition of the Trinity doctrine in AD 325, 360, and 431, at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, respectively.

You read the Trinity into certain verses because you already believe in the Trinity–it’s full definition, which was defined by Church Councils–not merely by individuals reading the Bible.

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).

continued next post…

 

[Della]

I’m afraid nothing you’ve written here is evidence for the Scriptures being their own authority. They do not speak for themselves. Indeed, depending on what beliefs you already bring to them, the Scriptures can be interpreted in many ways using the same verses/passages/books. It’s why Luther dumped the Catholic canon in favor of the Jewish canon of Scripture–because certain books/passages/verses didn’t match his ideas about salvation, etc.

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 have thought, deeply. I have to tell you that you don’t understand the difference between what we Catholic call the four “Ds” of Catholic belief and practice. First there is dogma and doctrine. They cannot be changed and will never be changed because they are the teachings of Christ which the Church cannot and will not change. Doctrines may be raised to dogmas, but dogmas have always been believed, not invented along the way. The other two Ds are devotions and disciplines. Devotions are things like the rosary, which although very popular, is a private devotion which Catholics are free to employ in their prayer life or not, as they see fit. Disciplines are things such as deciding which day a solemnity will be celebrate in a diocese and fasting/abstinences, etc., which is why the rule concerning eating meat on Fridays in Ordinary Time was changed.

**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:

I bolded part of you comments because it goes to the heart of authority. So, the question is–who do we trust to determine our morals, our beliefs? Ourselves alone, merely by reading the Bible? Certainly people can come to a rich understanding of who Christ is and what he accomplished for us whose hearts are open. I see that you have. However, you are misunderstanding some vital things merely because you have never heard of them. You are either unaware or been blinded to the fact that Christ founded a Church which is universal, holy, and one, and gave it the authority to teach and preach and baptize in his name. That Church is the Catholic Church which (besides the Orthodox churches and Coptic churches, and perhaps a few others that were disconnected from full union with the Catholic Church due to circumstance) can trace its origins all the way back to Christ himself. The Church’s Councils were vital in retaining and maintaining the truths you accept, which you may or may not have discovered on your own through reading the Bible–the Bible whose books the Church compiled and which it guarded and kept for posterity or you and I wouldn’t have it to read today.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Oh, but you do believe in the Trinity because of the decisions of Church Councils and the Early Church Fathers. I’ll explain further in answer to your other points…

Hi, Della.

Jehovah’s Witnesses (as an example of “authority”) have changed John10:33, “You are blaspheming—you are a man, but you make yourself out to be a god”. Little “g” god. That’s not what it says – “You make Yourself out to be (the!) God!” JW’s even footnote Jn10:33 with Jn5:18, correctly connecting with with “you call God Your own Father, making yourself equal to God”. Zero consistency; by linking the two verses it clearly proves Jn10 was asserting His deity. They are literally sitting at a table with a bottle of white-out rewriting Scripture to fit their doctrine!

Does Jn5:18 assert authority towards the idea that “Jesus-is-God”? Yes it does. And JW’s cannot just dismiss this saying, “I do not accept your authority over Scriptures” — no external authority needs to be asserted.

And they, and the heretics the Church ruled against in Church Councils, also had/have the same verses and were fluent in Greek, because it was their native tongue.

I will always be sorry that I did not take up a university professor’s offer to allow me to take his Greek course at no charge; the subtleties, idioms and grammar would be useful to understand. Nevertheless, even those in Greek can conflict what the Apostles plainly wrote.

Have you read A.T.Robertson, “Word Pictures of the New Testament”? He is usually good, having taught graduate-level Greek for years. But consider the phrase “ei-dunatos” — akin to “dynamo”, power. Ability. “If possible”, implying true ability. In Acts20:16 the absolute meaning is, "Paul hurried to be in Jerusalem for the Pentecost, IF HE COULD".

Now, we read the same expression in Matt24:24 — “The false will deceive even the elect, if possible” — here Robertson inserts his own understanding violating what Jesus said. Robertson declares “it implies that deceiving the elect is not possible”. That is not what Jesus said or Matthew wrote — “They will deceive even the elect, IF THEY CAN”

So here is an example of a Greek Scholar inserting his own understanding over a Scripture — do you agree that Acts20:16 disproves Robertson? (“Ei dunatos” also appears in Matt26:29, Mk14:35, Rm12:18, and Gal4:15—can anyone deny they all state “if he/they/it/you can”?

Jesus said, “If it can pass Me by”. And, “If You will remove this cup”. Ei-dunatos, if it can, if You will…

Nontrinitarian views differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Various nontrinitarian views, such as Adoptionism, Monarchianism and Arianism existed prior to the formal definition of the Trinity doctrine in AD 325, 360, and 431, at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, respectively.

You read the Trinity into certain verses because you already believe in the Trinity–it’s full definition, which was defined by Church Councils–not merely by individuals reading the Bible.

I disagree (you knew I was gonna say that!). As I cited above, verses like Jn10:33 and 5:18 really have Jesus asserting His equality with God. Consider too John6 — in saying, “I came down out of Heaven”, He once more was equating Himself with God! The Jews were furious — “Is this not Jesus, whose father and mother we know?”

"Who does He think He IS, saying He came down out of Heaven?!"

Over and over the Jews screamed against Him calling Himself “God”. Jn8:58-59!

continued next post…

 

[Della]

Hi, Della.

Jehovah’s Witnesses (as an example of “authority”) have changed John10:33, “You are blaspheming—you are a man, but you make yourself out to be a god”. Little “g” god. That’s not what it says – “You make Yourself out to be (the!) God!” JW’s even footnote Jn10:33 with Jn5:18, correctly connecting with with “you call God Your own Father, making yourself equal to God”. Zero consistency; by linking the two verses it clearly proves Jn10 was asserting His deity. They are literally sitting at a table with a bottle of white-out rewriting Scripture to fit their doctrine!

Does Jn5:18 assert authority towards the idea that “Jesus-is-God”? Yes it does. And JW’s cannot just dismiss this saying, “I do not accept your authority over Scriptures” — no external authority needs to be asserted.

Can’t you see that the very fact that any group can interpret Scripture however they please means that the Scriptures cannot always speak for themselves? Please go here: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#115 to read how the Church interprets Scripture.

I will always be sorry that I did not take up a university professor’s offer to allow me to take his Greek course at no charge; the subtleties, idioms and grammar would be useful to understand. Nevertheless, even those in Greek can conflict what the Apostles plainly wrote.

Have you read A.T.Robertson, “Word Pictures of the New Testament”? He is usually good, having taught graduate-level Greek for years. But consider the phrase “ei-dunatos” — akin to “dynamo”, power. Ability. “If possible”, implying true ability. In Acts20:16 the absolute meaning is, "Paul hurried to be in Jerusalem for the Pentecost, IF HE COULD".

Now, we read the same expression in Matt24:24 — “The false will deceive even the elect, if possible” — here Robertson inserts his own understanding violating what Jesus said. Robertson declares “it implies that deceiving the elect is not possible”. That is not what Jesus said or Matthew wrote — “They will deceive even the elect, IF THEY CAN”

So here is an example of a Greek Scholar inserting his own understanding over a Scripture — do you agree that Acts20:16 disproves Robertson? (“Ei dunatos” also appears in Matt26:29, Mk14:35, Rm12:18, and Gal4:15—can anyone deny they all state “if he/they/it/you can”?

Jesus said, “If it can pass Me by”. And, “If You will remove this cup”. Ei-dunatos, if it can, if You will…

If a scholar can insert his own understanding then can’t you see that it means that Scripture does not interpret itself?

I disagree (you knew I was gonna say that!). As I cited above, verses like Jn10:33 and 5:18 really have Jesus asserting His equality with God. Consider too John6 — in saying, “I came down out of Heaven”, He once more was equating Himself with God! The Jews were furious — “Is this not Jesus, whose father and mother we know?”

"Who does He think He IS, saying He came down out of Heaven?!"

Over and over the Jews screamed against Him calling Himself “God”. Jn8:58-59!

Particular teachings are not the issue here, my friend, but authority regarding biblical interpretation–who has the authority to interpret Scripture and who doesn’t.

Again, if the Scriptures were as clear on all points as you seem to think, there would be no disagreements between Protestant bodies as to what they mean. Christ didn’t establish many churches, he established one and gave the leaders of that one Church his authority to speak in his name on all matters of faith (doctrine/dogma) and morals. You cannot get around that by saying Scripture is plain and clear on vital issues, when is mostly certainly isn’t.

 

[Gadgeteer]

I’m afraid nothing you’ve written here is evidence for the Scriptures being their own authority.

What will you tell Calvinists about 1Cor2:14? It’s really the only verse they have that they think proves “regeneration must come before belief”. Does the context (verse twelve!) authoritatively assert that one must RECEIVE the Spirit in order to GET the “things” of verse 12? It does, undeniably and authoritatively. Calvinists have no defense — they have to REMOVE 1Cor2:14 from their doctrine!

And — verse by verse, proven almost always by context, the verses Calvinists thought promoted “Sovereign Predestined Salvation”, do not. I mentioned Jn12:40-41, which cites Isaiah6:10 — Calvinists are convinced Jesus taught that God CAUSED WICKEDNESS in those whom He created so He could hate, He created them to be wicked. What did you think of Matt13:15? It also cites Is6:10, but Jesus said they close their OWN eyes and ears against salvation!

Is Jesus’ statement clear and undeniable, therefore — “authoritative”? Or isn’t it?

They do not speak for themselves. Indeed, depending on what beliefs you already bring to them, the Scriptures can be interpreted in many ways using the same verses/passages/books.

If I may impose on your patience (and you have been patient with me so far, thank you!) — in this post I’ve cited 1Cor2:14, Jn12:40-21; previously I showed Robertson’s error on Matt24:24 (he gets the GREEK right “if-possible”, but wrongly reverses it into “implies it is NOT possible”). Do you agree, or not, that 1Cor2:12, and Matt13:15, and Acts20:16 are clear and undeniable?

It’s why Luther dumped the Catholic canon in favor of the Jewish canon of Scripture–because certain books/passages/verses didn’t match his ideas about salvation, etc.

Sadly, I’ve not studied that enough. I’m not closed to reading the “tossed letters”; what writings you and I have in common, are they sufficiently clear? By now you know me pretty well, and you know that I think 1Cor2:12 destroys Calvinistic interpretation of verse 14. Matt13:15 destroys Calvinistic interpretation of Jn12:40-41 and Is6:10. 2Cor3:16 destroys Calvinistic interpretation of 2Cor4:3-4. And on and on, nearly sixty cited verses!

I have thought, deeply.

(I didn’t mean to imply that you have not; all of us can always benefit from continued considerations…)

I have to tell you that you don’t understand the difference between what we Catholic call the four “Ds” of Catholic belief and practice. First there is dogma and doctrine. They cannot be changed and will never be changed because they are the teachings of Christ which the Church cannot and will not change. Doctrines may be raised to dogmas, but dogmas have always been believed, not invented along the way. The other two Ds are devotions and disciplines. Devotions are things like the rosary, which although very popular, is a private devotion which Catholics are free to employ in their prayer life or not, as they see fit. Disciplines are things such as deciding which day a solemnity will be celebrate in a diocese and fasting/abstinences, etc., which is why the rule concerning eating meat on Fridays in Ordinary Time was changed.

I think Protestants sometimes do not indulge enough in things like “Disciplines”; I attended a Bible study based on the book, “A Celebration of Discipline”. Very interesting…

 

[Gadgeteer]

I bolded part of your comments because it goes to the heart of authority.

My comment was on how we define our identity, our validation; do we build our self-worth on Him, or on things or people of the world? He’s so much more solid of a foundation!

So, the question is–who do we trust to determine our morals, our beliefs? Ourselves alone, merely by reading the Bible?

What I have striven to do (strived? strove???) — is to cite verses used by Calvinists to exemplify “wrong interpretations”. How would you or I convince them that their interpretation — is wrong?

I believe verses have been cited that are “authoritative”; if anyone thinks different, the challenge is to show they are not authoritative, that is to show there is any other meaning possible. Take 1Cor2:9-14 — in absolute terms “receive-the-Spirit” precedes “understand-the-things” ---- can anyone (especially Calvinists) support the idea that “lambano-receive the Spirit”, does not absolutely denote salvation"? Can an unsaved practicing-sin reprobate receive the Holy Spirit? Really? Or are there TWO “lambano-receives” (one fully indwelling accompanying repentance and belief, another that does NOT necessitate repentance or belief)?

In what Universe does “receive-the-Spirit” in verse 12, not authoritatively place salvation before “given-the-things”? The Calvinist says, “No, the things must be given and understood BEFORE one believes and receives the Spirit”. Is Scripture solid and absolute towards the opposite?

So, for anyone to say “the Scriptures do not speak for themselves”, or “Scriptures are not authoritative”, or “any verse can be interpreted to mean anything” — one would have to prove that specific verses (starting with those cited in this post!) do NOT teach absolutes. Do you disagree?

I’ve debated Calvinism for a long time; I try to pin down Calvinistic brothers and sisters, listing all possible “interpretations” and requiring them to pick one (or even write their own!). But they will not; because they have none that are credible or authoritative…

Certainly people can come to a rich understanding of who Christ is and what he accomplished for us whose hearts are open. I see that you have. However, you are misunderstanding some vital things merely because you have never heard of them. You are either unaware or been blinded to the fact that Christ founded a Church which is universal, holy, and one, and gave it the authority to teach and preach and baptize in his name. That Church is the Catholic Church which (besides the Orthodox churches and Coptic churches, and perhaps a few others that were disconnected from full union with the Catholic Church due to circumstance) can trace its origins all the way back to Christ himself. The Church’s Councils were vital in retaining and maintaining the truths you accept, which you may or may not have discovered on your own through reading the Bible–the Bible whose books the Church compiled and which it guarded and kept for posterity or you and I wouldn’t have it to read today.

The “authority of the Church” might be an interesting discussion, although I think it might create “disputes factions and dissensions”, and not be profitable (especially on a Catholic board). I do not embrace all things Catholic, else I would be Catholic. Am I hostile to all things Catholic? No. I consider each person here to be a saved brother or sister in Christ, and I confess to being BLESSED by each of you, and cherish what we have in common. And we have a lot in common, the more we discourse and fellowship and study Scripture together!

 

[Gadgeteer]

Can’t you see that the very fact that any group can interpret Scripture however they please means that the Scriptures cannot always speak for themselves?

Hi again! (You beat me, before I posted the second half!)

I eagerly await your thoughts on what I said about 1Cor2:9-14, especially verses 12-14. Did Paul solidly place “receive-the-Spirit”, before “getting-the-things/understanding”? It is absolute, he did. “We receive the Spirit THAT we may know the things”.

So when talking with a Calvinist (for instance), he or she will say, “By what AUTHORITY do you deny 1Cor2:14 teaches unregenerates cannot understand salvation, believe and be saved?” And the correct answer is, “Paul said the received Spirit is how we get those very things referred to in verse 14; do you deny that one can only receive the Spirit THROUGH SALVATION, before getting the THINGS?”

And no one has asserted any authority, the only authority present is asserted by PAUL.

Right? Wrong? “Off-base”???

Please go here: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#115 to read how the Church interprets Scripture.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

“Literal’ – meaning conveyed by words of Scripture, discovered by exegesis, following rules of sound interpretation”.

Rules of sound interpretation – in 1Cor2:12-14, no “rules-of-sound-interpretation” are required beyond simply reading what Paul wrote. “Receive-the-Spirit”, is absolutely before “getting-the-things” (understanding). That destroys Calvinists’ claims that “understanding precedes salvation”!

See Acts11:15-17, "God gave them also the same gift of the Holy Spirit as He did us, AFTER BELIEVING" — verse 10:47, “they RECEIVED the Spirit JUST AS WE did”. Lambano-received, exactly the same as 1Cor2:12.

It’s completely objective, no subjectivity is possible. Yes? No?

If a scholar can insert his own understanding then can’t you see that it means that Scripture does not interpret itself?

I cited most all occurrences of “ei-dunatos” — is there any basis to subjectively reverse Matt24:24 while Acts20:16 is objective? Is the Scripture solid in all occurrences of “ei-dunatos” (if-they-can, if-it-can, if-you-will) — or isn’t it?

It’s the same thing in John3:3, when Calvinists claim “see” means PERCEIVE. No, it’s conspicuously “idein”, BEHOLD (experience). All thirty-nine occurrences of “idein” means behold/experience. Had John meant (or Jesus said) “perceive”, it would have been “OIDA”.

Particular teachings are not the issue here, my friend, but authority regarding biblical interpretation–who has the authority to interpret Scripture and who doesn’t.

That you consider me a friend, pleases me greatly; may our friendship last forever! :hug3:

The issue is — are there verses outside of certain persons’ authority-to-interpret? I think we’re discussing several. “Receive-the-Spirit”, is after belief — Acts10:47, 11:15-17. In plain terms by PAUL’S authority, 1Cor2:12-14 places “get-the-things/understanding”, after salvation. Calvinists can only respond, “…uhmmmm…”

(unless they flat ignore Paul’s words and pretend it still says what it does not…)

Again, if the Scriptures were as clear on all points as you seem to think, there would be no disagreements between Protestant bodies as to what they mean.

Ohhh, I didn’t say “all points”. I said, “there are SOME points where Scripture is clear, and the writer’s authority stands”…

Christ didn’t establish many churches, he established one and gave the leaders of that one Church his authority to speak in his name on all matters of faith (doctrine/dogma) and morals. You cannot get around that by saying Scripture is plain and clear on vital issues, when is mostly certainly isn’t.

If you and I agree that Scripture is clear on SOME things, then let’s celebrate our agreement!

 

[Gadgeteer]

\Certainly people can come to a rich understanding of who Christ is and what he accomplished for us whose hearts are open. I see that you have.

I perceive the same about you.

:hug3:

(…and I perceive the others here also love Jesus and understand His sacrifice!)

 

[Della]

Dear Gadgeteer, please forget about Calvin and RT interpretations, etc. It doesn’t matter one whit what he or the Calvinists think this verse or that verse or whole books mean. Why? Because they have no authority to interpret them.

The point is simple. Calvin had NO authority to decide matters of doctrine based on anything at all–not Scripture or little blue fairies or himself. None of us do.

St. Paul didn’t have any authority of his own to speak about anything, either. His authority came from Christ, when he was called to be an Apostle, and from his ordination/confirmation in that calling. An Apostle wasn’t merely another elder in a local church–he had the authority, from Christ, to speak in Christ’s name.

That same authority now lies in all the bishops of the Church in union with the pope–the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Magisterium means “teaching body.” They only have their authority to teach in Christ’s name because he gave it to them–they don’t have it in themselves otherwise.

The same with Scripture. Yes, it is the inspired word of God, but it is not the Word of God–the Word of God is Christ himself. As I stated before, authority does not lie in things–books or written words–it lies in persons. In the case of the Church a Person gave the Church his authority. He gave it only to men, not to written words, no matter how inspired. For only men can say what those written words mean, and only men given the authority to speak in God’s name have that authority.

This is the issue here–who has the authority to speak in Christ’s name and decide matters of faith and morals, in part, in how they interpret Scripture, but Scripture is not the end-all and be-all of the Christian faith. It’s one part, but not the whole.

Indeed, the Church definitely interprets only a handful of verses, and those all deal with doctrine/dogma. Otherwise, we are free to read, study, pray with, have devotion for the written word of God. But no one has the authority to say what verses/passages/books mean doctrinally except the Magisterium of the Catholic Church because Christ set things up that way.

I don’t write these things so plainly to be in any way combative, but merely to try to help you see that your idea that the Scriptures are, of themselves alone, authoritative, is simply in error. You do not know that it is in error because you haven’t been taught proper Church history nor know anything about how the Church formed the Bible and for what purpose. It wasn’t to seek out verses to create doctrine. Rather, the Scriptures are the witness to the life of Christ and the Church in her infancy. The Bible is not a theological tome–nor was it ever intended to be by it’s various authors, nor the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was poured out on persons not on a book. I urge you to read: Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church. It is a simple, brief, clear treatise on the history of the Bible–what it is, what it isn’t, and what it means in the life of the Church, the Body of Christ.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Dear Gadgeteer, please forget about Calvin and RT interpretations, etc. It doesn’t matter one whit what he or the Calvinists think this verse or that verse or whole books mean. Why? Because they have no authority to interpret them.

Hi, Della. Again, thank you for your reply.

When a Calvinist, or any other person, does not have “the authority to interpret Scriptures”, how will you convince them they do not? That’s what I am trying to convey. If we consider a particular verse, then what if we list all of the “possible understandings”?

With such a list, we then look for other verses on the same subject; if an “other verse” plainly states something opposite to one of those understandings, would you not say “the understanding/interpretation has been overturned” (therefore, he who made that interpretation, has been proven to not have had authority)? I used a Calvinistic example, because it was easiest and clearest to demonstrate. A person (in my example, a Calvinist) feels authoritative about 1Cor2:14. But then someone (perhaps you!) holds up verse 12, and in plain words Paul places “receive-the-Spirit”, absolutely before “getting-that-understanding”. What authority exists there? Certainly not the Calvinistic. But you held up the verse – are YOU asserting “authority”? No. Paul said, “receive-the-Spirit-SO-THAT (hina, in-order-that!) we may know the things”. It’s rock-solid, no authority on Earth can change what Paul said. Do you understand now what I’ve been trying to convey?

The point is simple. Calvin had NO authority to decide matters of doctrine based on anything at all–not Scripture or little blue fairies or himself. None of us do.

While you are right, is there any way that what Paul said in verse 12, can be reversed? “Receive-the-Spirit, IN-ORDER-THAT we may know the things”.

All that’s left to show everyone (including your Calvinistic friend), is that “receive-the-Spirit”, 100% denotes salvation. Unsaved people do not lambano-receive the Spirit, not ever.

Okay — “no one has authority to interpret Scripture”. You’re right. AND — “saved people receive the Spirit and THEN are taught the things that natural men do not understand”. Here Paul writes specific conspicuous words, they are not ambiguous, they are not interpretable. Where does the “authority”, lie? With Calvin? With me? With you?

When a verse is unambiguous, the authority of the verse is 100%. How could such a statement be rejected? I’m also not being “combative”. Paul said “receive-the-Spirit”, which (by Acts10:47 & 11:15-17 and others), absolutely denotes salvation. Paul said “the received Spirit THEN teaches those VERY THINGS”. It’s unambiguous, inflexible, undeniable. No question of authority, to deny “salvation-then-things”, one would have to dispute Acts10 & 11, Rom8:15, and many others.

This is the whole issue – are there absolutes given in Scripture, or is every point negotiable?

St. Paul didn’t have any authority of his own to speak about anything, either. His authority came from Christ, when he was called to be an Apostle, and from his ordination/confirmation in that calling. An Apostle wasn’t merely another elder in a local church–he had the authority, from Christ, to speak in Christ’s name.

I agree with that. And now we have Christ’s intent, written down for us by the Apostles. Can any teaching from them be clear, or do we consider that we “do not have the authority to discern clear positions from what they wrote”?

That same authority now lies in all the bishops of the Church in union with the pope–the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Magisterium means “teaching body.” They only have their authority to teach in Christ’s name because he gave it to them–they don’t have it in themselves otherwise.

And if “all the bishops” state that “salvation and receive-the-Spirit precedes getting the THINGS which natural men do not understand”, then everyone accepts that it is “correct teaching”.

What if one bishop says, “No, receive-the-Spirit does NOT denote salvation” — or, “there are different things so that SOME things like Jesus’ Gospel must be imparted first before salvation is possible”, would anyone else (like you or me) be able to question his authority, based on Paul’s wording “receive-the-Spirit-SO-THAT-we-get-the-things”? Paul in absolute words writes of the same things in verses 9-14; the “deeper thoughts of God”. The words are simple and direct, there is no question of “authority”.

You see, Della — without the ability to discern clear teaching from Scripture, we become subject to being “tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine”. And we have no defense against the charge, “I reject your AUTHORITY to tell anyone what the words meant to say”. When I wrote the book, I listed every verse specific views claimed; and then the reader follows in the journey to examine each of those verses in context with very specific OTHER verses.

Take the idea of “Pre-Trib Rapture” (an appendix in my book) — Pre Tribbers think Rev3:10 indicates “we the saved will be removed FROM the Tribulation”. The reader is asked to read Jesus’ words in John17:15:

“Father, I ask that You not remove-them-from the Earth, but that you would keep-them-amidst the evil one.”

“Remove-them-from”, is airo autos ek. “Keep-them-from” (meaning “guard-them-amidst”), is tereo autos ek. The question is simply when Rev3:10 states “He will TEREO-EK them from the hour of testing” — how can it reverse meaning from what Jesus said in John17:15? Why did John write “tereo” in Rev3:10, and not “airo”?

Without the ability to discern clear teachings from the Apostles, what good does it do to even discuss anything?

 

[Gadgeteer]

This thread is on “obtaining God’s forgiveness”; Fred quoted verses like Matthew 6:15 Matthew 18:15-17, and Matthew 18:32-35. Excellent verses that plainly state if we do not forgive others, neither will God forgive us. But how can we even quote those verses, if we have no defense against, “You have no authority to say what ANY Scripture teaches”?

Is there no verse in Scripture, which is clear and not interpretable?

The same with Scripture. Yes, it is the inspired word of God, but it is not the Word of God–the Word of God is Christ himself.

If it really is “inspired by God” (2Tim3:16 says “God-breathed”), is there no defense against someone who says something different than what an Apostle said? Did they never say anything clearly?

As I stated before, authority does not lie in things–books or written words–it lies in persons. In the case of the Church a Person gave the Church his authority. He gave it only to men, not to written words, no matter how inspired. For only men can say what those written words mean, and only men given the authority to speak in God’s name have that authority.

Okay, I have no problem accepting the Churches authority (meaning, the Catholic church). Unless I were to see something that went opposite to words from an Apostle. I mean “clearly opposite”, based on a presumption that there are absolute facts they intended to write down.

John said in 20:31 that he wrote the testament to persuade readers Jesus is the Messiah; and believing, they may then have life in His name. John wanted the facts, to convince us of Jesus’ reality! But how convincing would that be if someone said, “You have no authority to say that John really did teach Jesus was the Messiah”!

How would you answer such a person?

This is the issue here–who has the authority to speak in Christ’s name and decide matters of faith and morals, in part, in how they interpret Scripture, but Scripture is not the end-all and be-all of the Christian faith. It’s one part, but not the whole.

You said it yourself!
“St. Paul didn’t have any authority of his own to speak about anything, either. His authority came from Christ, when he was called to be an Apostle, and from his ordination/confirmation in that calling. An Apostle wasn’t merely another elder in a local church–he had the authority, from Christ, to speak in Christ’s name.”

Okay – Paul was given authority from Jesus, so was John. And Paul and John wrote things down. WAS Jesus “The Messiah”? Can an unsaved person receive the Holy Spirit? Can we answer no theological question with “yes” or “no”, in light of what the Apostles wrote?

Indeed, the Church definitely interprets only a handful of verses, and those all deal with doctrine/dogma. Otherwise, we are free to read, study, pray with, have devotion for the written word of God. But no one has the authority to say what verses/passages/books mean doctrinally except the Magisterium of the Catholic Church because Christ set things up that way.

Then none of us can confront Mormons, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Calvinists, or Pre-Trib-Rapture people, Antinomianists, or Universalists, or any number of other “unscriptural doctrines”. How would we be able to?

I don’t write these things so plainly to be in any way combative,

I know you don’t…

…but merely to try to help you see that your idea that the Scriptures are, of themselves alone, authoritative, is simply in error.

Respectfully, to make that statement, one would have to explain how “receive-the-Spirit” in 1Cor2:12 does NOT denote “full salvation”. Or that “things” in verse 12 are not the same things as in verse 14 (different things between verses 9-14).

I have written chapters on “Antinomianism”, and “Eternal Security” (unlimited atonement), and “Reformed Theology” (limited sovereignly-predestined salvation), and “Universalism”, and “Pre-Trib-Rapture”, and “Mormonism”, and “Jehovah’s Witnesses”, and other ideas. Each chapter lists the majority of verses that each adherent uses; each verse is examined in context. The whole writing is useless if NO absolutes can be discerned from what the Apostles wrote, if every point can be rejected “because no one has the authority”.

I have appendices on four letters, Galatians, Hebrews, James, and 2Peter; entire letters warning against “forsaking one’s salvation”. Chapter by chapter each of those (especially Hebrews!) warns over and over and over against “becoming hardened by deceitful sin to falling away from God”. Warns US, the saved. Where does the authority come from to convey those principles, which you and I (and anyone who reads my book) find in the Apostles’ words?

You do not know that it is in error because you haven’t been taught proper Church history nor know anything about how the Church formed the Bible and for what purpose. It wasn’t to seek out verses to create doctrine. Rather, the Scriptures are the witness to the life of Christ and the Church in her infancy. The Bible is not a theological tome–nor was it ever intended to be by it’s various authors, nor the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was poured out on persons not on a book. I urge you to read: Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church. It is a simple, brief, clear treatise on the history of the Bible–what it is, what it isn’t, and what it means in the life of the Church, the Body of Christ.

I’m not arguing “Church authority” or history; I’m asking whether or not there are things in what the Apostles wrote that are clear.

Aren’t there books written by Catholics, conveying clear Scripture teachings?

 

[Gadgeteer]

I have written chapters on “Antinomianism”, and “Eternal Security” (unlimited atonement), and “Reformed Theology” (limited sovereignly-predestined salvation), and “Universalism”, and “Pre-Trib-Rapture”, and “Mormonism”, and “Jehovah’s Witnesses”, and other ideas. Each chapter lists the majority of verses that each adherent uses; each verse is examined in context. The whole writing is useless if NO absolutes can be discerned from what the Apostles wrote, if every point can be rejected “because no one has the authority”.

Not just Apostles. I’ve quoted extensively from the OT. And noted connections between the OT, and the NEW – for instance, Paul connects directly with Deut30, in Rom10. Rm10:6 cites Deut30:12, Rm10:8 cites Deut30:14.

When a Calvinist says “God has to PUT saving-faith in specific person’s hearts, only then can (will!) such a played-favorites-person believe and be saved” — that completely violates Deut30:12, “The word-of-faith is not far, it is not in Heaven that one must go GET it and GIVE it to us to make us hear it that we may observe it”!

No, the word-of-faith (which Paul says is the SAME “faith” as by which we are saved through Jesus!), is in hearts and mouths NOW. It’s in the hearts and mouths of those who can “confess believe and be saved” (Rm10:9-10), and it’s in the hearts and mouths of those who can turn away disbelieve and perish (Deut30:17-18).

Is there enough authority in how these words present themselves to convince a Calvinist, or not?

This thread is on “obtaining God’s forgiveness”; Fred quoted verses like Matthew 6:15 Matthew 18:15-17, and Matthew 18:32-35. Excellent verses that plainly state if we do not forgive others, neither will God forgive us. But how can we even quote those verses, if we have no defense against, “You have no authority to say what ANY Scripture teaches”?

Fred quoted some good verses, which plainly state “we will not be forgiven if we do not forgive others”. They’re not interpretable, they’re not negotiable, they’re clear. If we operate from the belief that “scripture AND the Church lead us spiritually and doctrinally”, then how does the authority lie only on one side and not the other?

 

[Della]

The whole crux of the matter lies in the fact that no matter who we are we read Scripture, through a particular lens. Now, that lens might be as clear as clear can be or might be biased–according to what we want to see in Scripture, as many do, and come up with some very wrong answers.

As I wrote, perhaps I wrote too much so that it got lost along the way, there are only a handful of verses that the Church (Magisterium) has defined as meaning just one thing–doctrinal things vital to the faith, such as redemption, salvation, etc.

No one bishop is the Magisterium–it’s consists of all of them in union with the pope, so no one bishop or his interpretation of anything, decides matter of faith and morals for the whole Church.

This is what Church Councils are–all the bishops deciding matters of faith and morals–by examination of Scripture, surely, but that’s not the only criteria, nor does it have to be, for Scripture alone doesn’t give us the whole of the Christian faith. It doesn’t intend to do that. Certainly, it tells us a lot, and can persuade people to salvation, but it doesn’t stand on it’s own authority. If it did, Calvin and others could never have been misguided in their thinking/beliefs, but we see that that’s not the case.

Even your examples of clear meaning verses isn’t as clear as you think. You are reading into verses what they do not say and overextending what they do say. This is why we need the Church to tell us what they do mean–what they mean to our faith and practice of the faith.

For example, Jesus said, “If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood, you cannot have life within you.” Now, did he means exactly that or do you read it as metaphorical? And if you do read it metaphorically, why do you read it that way? Even the Church doesn’t say that everyone must receive the Eucharist in order to “have life within” us. Why can the Church decide that? Because Christ founded the Church to make just that kind of decision.

Jesus never commissioned anyone write anything (unless you want to cite Revelation). The Apostles and some of their disciples/companions wrote what they did mainly to answer false writings by others outside the Church who were circulating bogus gospels/preaching other gospels and confusing people. St. Paul wrote largely to correct problems, not to set out theological precepts.

You need to stop thinking of the Bible as an entity unto itself and see it within the historical/ecclesial context in which the various books were written. The Church already existed. They didn’t look to anything written by the Apostles to form the Church.

The First Council of Jerusalem is the very model of the Church Councils that followed it down through the centuries. And what did they do at that First Council? They tackled a problem about which Jesus had said nothing directly, looked at the OT (which is all they had), and decided that certain ordinances were no longer in force. In other words, they decided matters of doctrine on the authority Christ gave them, not by adhering to any “clear reading” of any verses.

 

[Gadgeteer]

The whole crux of the matter lies in the fact that no matter who we are we read Scripture, through a particular lens. Now, that lens might be as clear as clear can be or might be biased–according to what we want to see in Scripture, as many do, and come up with some very wrong answers.

Hi again Della – I really appreciate you, and am honored by your time.

You speak “in general”; I was trying to interact with specifics, with one or two verse examples.

As I wrote, perhaps I wrote too much so that it got lost along the way, there are only a handful of verses that the Church (Magisterium) has defined as meaning just one thing–doctrinal things vital to the faith, such as redemption, salvation, etc.

No one bishop is the Magisterium–it’s consists of all of them in union with the pope, so no one bishop or his interpretation of anything, decides matter of faith and morals for the whole Church.

When speaking with someone like a Calvinist, he or she will not accept the “authority of the Catholic Church”. Would it be possible to answer him or her with what Paul wrote? Or Matthew, or Mark, or the others?

This is what Church Councils are–all the bishops deciding matters of faith and morals–by examination of Scripture, surely, but that’s not the only criteria, nor does it have to be, for Scripture alone doesn’t give us the whole of the Christian faith. It doesn’t intend to do that. Certainly, it tells us a lot, and can persuade people to salvation, but it doesn’t stand on it’s own authority. If it did, Calvin and others could never have been misguided in their thinking/beliefs, but we see that that’s not the case.

Again, you speak in generalities. I began with 1Cor2:12-14. Although I have not looked up what the Councils perceive on this passage, it’s so absolute and clear I have complete certainty they will agree fully with how I understand it.

Now – the Councils read the passage, and came to a decision. But will that “fly” when talking with a non-Catholic? If the same validity which decided the Councils will also decide (former!) Calvinists or others, why is that a wrong approach?

Even your examples of clear meaning verses isn’t as clear as you think. You are reading into verses what they do not say and overextending what they do say.

Tell me how?

Calvinist: “God must give spiritual things FIRST, only THEN can they understand believe and be saved.”

Biblical Apologist: “One has to believe in Jesus and receive the Spirit first, only THEN are the deeper spiritual things given.”

Catholic Council of Bishops: “They (vs13) are SPIRITUAL PEOPLE, the Spirit teaches about what God has done in them.”
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/2/

• [2:13] In spiritual terms: the Spirit teaches spiritual people a new mode of perception (1 Cor 2:12) and an appropriate language by which they can share their self-understanding, their knowledge about what God has done in them. The final phrase in 1 Cor 2:13 can also be translated “describing spiritual realities to spiritual people,” in which case it prepares for 1 Cor 2:14–16.
• [2:14] The natural person: see note on 1 Cor 3:1.
• [3:1–4] The Corinthians desire a sort of wisdom dialogue or colloquy with Paul; they are looking for solid, adult food, and he appears to disappoint their expectations. Paul counters: if such a dialogue has not yet taken place, the reason is that they are still at an immature stage of development (cf. 1 Cor 2:6).
• [3:1] Spiritual people…fleshly people: Paul employs two clusters of concepts and terms to distinguish what later theology will call the “natural” and the “supernatural.” (1) The natural person (1 Cor 2:14) is one whose existence, perceptions, and behavior are determined by purely natural principles, the psychē (1 Cor 2:14) and the sarx (flesh, a biblical term that connotes creatureliness, 1 Cor 3:1, 3). Such persons are only infants (1 Cor 3:1); they remain on a purely human level (anthrōpoi, 1 Cor 3:4). (2) On the other hand, they are called to be animated by a higher principle, the pneuma, God’s spirit. They are to become spiritual (pneumatikoi, 1 Cor 3:1) and mature (1 Cor 2:6) in their perceptions and behavior (cf. Gal 5:16–26).

We see that the Council of Bishops agrees completely with what I said, those in 12-13 are SAVED; it is to saved people that the “things”, are taught.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Now, the Council comments on 14 that they are “carnal” – saved persons who need to become spiritual. Looking at the Council’s comment on Hebrews5-6:
Council of Bishops:

usccb.org/bible/hebrews/5

• [5:11–6:20] The central section of Hebrews (5:11–10:39) opens with a reprimand and an appeal. Those to whom the author directs his teaching about Jesus’ priesthood, which is difficult to explain, have become sluggish in hearing and forgetful of even the basic elements (Heb 5:12). But rather than treating of basic teachings, the author apparently believes that the challenge of more advanced ones may shake them out of their inertia (therefore, Heb 6:1). The six examples of basic teaching in Heb 6:1–3 are probably derived from a traditional catechetical list. No effort is made to address apostates, for their very hostility to the Christian message cuts them off completely from Christ (Heb 6:4–8). This harsh statement seems to rule out repentance after apostasy, but perhaps the author deliberately uses hyperbole in order to stress the seriousness of abandoning Christ. With Heb 6:9 a milder tone is introduced, and the criticism of the community (Heb 6:1–3, 9) is now balanced by an expression of confidence that its members are living truly Christian lives, and that God will justly reward their efforts (Heb 6:10). The author is concerned especially about their persevering (Heb 6:11–12), citing in this regard the achievement of Abraham, who relied on God’s promise and on God’s oath (Heb 6:13–18; cf. Gn 22:16), and proposes to them as a firm anchor of Christian hope the high priesthood of Christ, who is now living with God (Heb 6:19–20).

Here the Bishops agree on how I understand Heb5-6 — taking “immature-milk-eaters” (carnal!) to be APOSTATES (unsaved!). This is inconsistent with their comment on 1Cor2:14, that the “immature can be saved”. Carnal milk-eaters are either saved, or they are not.

But that’s another discussion; the American Council of Bishops say pretty much the same thing on 1Cor2:12-13 as I said. And that ruins the Calvinistic understanding of verse 14…

This is why we need the Church to tell us what they do mean–what they mean to our faith and practice of the faith.

For example, Jesus said, “If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood, you cannot have life within you.” Now, did he means exactly that or do you read it as metaphorical? And if you do read it metaphorically, why do you read it that way? Even the Church doesn’t say that everyone must receive the Eucharist in order to “have life within” us. Why can the Church decide that? Because Christ founded the Church to make just that kind of decision.

Jesus never commissioned anyone write anything (unless you want to cite Revelation). The Apostles and some of their disciples/companions wrote what they did mainly to answer false writings by others outside the Church who were circulating bogus gospels/preaching other gospels and confusing people. St. Paul wrote largely to correct problems, not to set out theological precepts.

John said his motivation was to persuade people that Jesus is the Messiah (20:31), so they would become saved. John wrote his First Letter to confront Gnosticism. (That agrees with what you said…)

Paul did write alot about “correcting problems”; and he wrote theological principles. See Rom6 – “Shall I continue in sin that grace may abound? Never! How shall we who have died to sin, still live in it?”

You need to stop thinking of the Bible as an entity unto itself and see it within the historical/ecclesial context in which the various books were written. The Church already existed. They didn’t look to anything written by the Apostles to form the Church.

The First Council of Jerusalem is the very model of the Church Councils that followed it down through the centuries. And what did they do at that First Council? They tackled a problem about which Jesus had said nothing directly, looked at the OT (which is all they had), and decided that certain ordinances were no longer in force. In other words, they decided matters of doctrine on the authority Christ gave them, not by adhering to any “clear reading” of any verses.

I look forward to your thoughts on what I quoted from the “Council of Bishops”.

 

[jcrichton]

You are COMPLETELY welcome.

I fear that I may be monopolizing the thread; if someone thinks so, I ask forgiveness. All are welcome, especially someone like you who posts with much wisdom.

Hi, G!

…it’s been a while… but I have been chastised for responding when another person was being addressed…

…I think this is the only place where “monopoly” is a good thing–if there are no other contributors! The Word of God is not meant to be set aside or in a closet! :getholy::getholy::getholy:

Amen again. The secret to “Christianity”, is it is GOD who is at work in us, both to will and to work according to His great purpose. (Philipp2:13) — thus, our works (as James eloquently said), demonstrate our faith. Those who belong to Jesus, have to have good works; it’s unavoidable. And as Peter said (2:1:5-11), and Paul echoed (2Cor13:5), we can know where we are in Jesus by looking at our own works.

…though man does fall into folly by equating “good” or “goodness” which is practiced for self-gain as good works… that’s why Jesus warned not to be seek man’s praise but rather that we yield to God’s demand of Justice (St. Matthew 6 & 5:20).

One particular passage that seems troubling, because of the grave demands, is St. Luke’s 14:26-27:

26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27 And whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

…so until and unless we are willing to Come to God in such a way we cannot become Vessels for God’s Glorification and the Edification of Christ’s Body!

…we “be holy”, by drawing near to HIM. James4:6-10!!!

…which is a big fat whole in that confused theology… no wonder some wanted to remove St. James from the Canon!

How can man draw (come) near to God if he is not able to exercise his freewill to choose to be Obedient to God’s Call?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I was trying to understand how some sins can still associate a believer after death, so that further “sanctification” is required in a place like Purgatory.

Hi!

…because we are in Fellowship with Christ we have at our disposal that which He Brought to the Church… which includes the Sacraments and that purification spoken of in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15–when a Believer is not able (or stubbornly refuses) to avail him/herself of the Sacrament of Confession (unexpected death or incapacity), after sinning against God, or the residual of imperfect Contrition (Confession due to fear of death or of loss of Heaven instead of regretting having hurt God through the act/s of unrighteousness) that/those unconfessed sins or rebellion must still be purged since nothing impure can enter into the New Jerusalem (Heaven).

It is arguable that the purging could happen instantly or (since there’s no linear time for God) from the moment we experience the first death until the Day of the Lord.

Hence all of the urging to “abide in Jesus and in salvation” — Jude says, “building yourselves in holy faith, keep yourselves in the love of God”. Heb6 says “you need diligence so that when you have done the will of God you may receive the promise”. John says in 1:2:26-28 “abide in Him SO THAT we not shrink-in-shame (from sin) at His return”. Paul says in 2Tim1:12-14 “…retain the standard of sound words …guard, by the Spirit who indwells you the treasure entrusted to you”. It’s the same as 1Tim4:10, “abide in …the teachings and …save yourselves”. There are many

like these…
…yes, but the Call to perfection does not equate “being perfect;” that is, though we are Called to put away the old man (the flesh and its appetites) it does not mean that we actually are able to simply put on the new man (the Spirit) and remain sinless for the rest of our lives…

It is belief (Acts16:31) — but it is qualified

belief. It’s all His power, His payment and sacrifice, His work; but it operates through our continued faith. there are many verses warning to “continue in faith”…

Please look at all of the verses which couch “believe”, in the present active participle. Jn3:16 is one, 1Jn5:1 is another. I really like Rom1:16 (and 17). “The gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who IS BELIEVING. His righteousness is revealed from BEGINNING faith to ENDING faith, the righteous shall live BY faith!”
…hence the admonition to the Believers to persevere in the Faith… to be Doers of the Word not just listeners… to Walk in the Light!

Correct – Col2:8!

YES!!!

This is our whole pursuit — not “pursuing refraining-from-sinning”, but pursuing INTIMACY with Jesus that we have NO ROOM in our hearts for sin! The closer we are to Him, the farther we are from sin!

It’s fellowship with a real conscious person of Jesus; what I want to promote most whether in Protestant circles, or in Catholic circles, is that we really do have a union with a real, conscious Savior. Some (many, I’ve found in Protestantism, and many I also perceive in Catholicism), drive down their “roads of life” with Jesus, the Spirit, faith, perseverance, and other things wrapped packaged and stored on the seat next to them if needed. And I’m convicted by verses like Gal2:20 – this is the essence, not a "nice desirable goal but not really necessary".
…this misunderstanding is why man fails; it is not about fighting against sin or “knowing” about the Good News but of abiding in Christ… if we abide in Christ, Christ will abide in us (St. John 15:4-8)–again, it is not about Christ dying for all sin (BC thru AD and into the Parousia) but about being the Temple of the Living God:

16 Know you not, that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 But if any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are.

(1 Corinthians 3:16-17)

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (2 Corinthians 6:16)
Christ’s Call is that we Love Him; we show that we Love Him if we Obey His Command!

Maran atha!

Angel