purgatory

[moondweller]

Again, this is extremely close to what Catholic theology is. Do you recognize this? Put the word “works” in for fruit and is almost exactly what Catholics.

Works and fruit are VERY different. Works are performed for a wage (read Rom. 4:4-5). Fruit is what someone or something naturally (even unconsciously) bears and has nothing to do with receiving a wage or reward. In the plant world pruning is a technique used for bearing more fruit. This technique is applied spiritually by God to true believers (who, btw, are already saved by grace through faith). Pruning produces greater fruit, not salvation.

What is the difference between a Catholic view of Salvation and an Evangelical who believes you can lose your Salvation?

In that limited sense, nothing, they’re both wrong.

(Other than how it is obtained)

Bingo!

I don’t see a whole a lot of difference. Because for each, faith is required but also action is required.

The only “action” required for the GIFT of salvation is faith. Why? Because God gifts it “by grace.” That’s HIS grace (unmerited favor) “through faith” …“not as a result of works”

Fundamentally, if a Evangelical who says you can lose your salvation, it does come down to what you do (action) after you are saved. How come the Once Saved Always Saved crowd doesn’t accuse them of trying “earn” their way to Heaven?

I’ve pointed this out often to those I’ve taught. More often than not when it’s theologically exposed to them they readily understand their error and repent of it - and I must say, with GREAT JOY! Those who refused correction invariably had a fundamental problem with Divine GRACE.

 

[Thing]

Works and fruit are VERY different. Works are performed for a wage (read Rom. 4:4-5). Fruit is what someone or something naturally (even unconsciously) bears and has nothing to do with receiving a wage or reward

This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent.
Our work is to believe, and we are paid a wage for that?

 

[Dominicanis]

Works and fruit are VERY different. Works are performed for a wage (read Rom. 4:4-5). Fruit is what someone or something naturally (even unconsciously) bears and has nothing to do with receiving a wage or reward. In the plant world pruning is a technique used for bearing more fruit. This technique is applied spiritually by God to true believers (who, btw, are already saved by grace through faith). Pruning produces greater fruit, not salvation.

Thank you. You have just proven that when James said “works” in his letter, he did not mean “fruit”. And let’s go past Ephesians 8-9 to verse 10, where Paul wrote: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Eph. 2:10) Walk in “them”? The only plural thing in that sentence is the word “works”. So, Paul said that before justification, no works of man can save him, but after justification, we are to walk in the good works that we were created in Christ Jesus to do for God, the works He had prepared for us beforehand.

The only “action” required for the GIFT of salvation is faith. Why? Because God gifts it “by grace.” That’s HIS grace (unmerited favor) “through faith” …“not as a result of works”

Again, salvation is a GIFT. The Catholic Church teaches that we DO NOTHING TO MERIT JUSTIFICATION. Once we are justified, God crowns His mercies in us by giving us His works to do. If we don’t cooperate with His Will and do His works, we forfeit salvation. Obey and be good children by doing Our Father’s Will for us, or be put out of His house. Very simple.

Yours in Christ’s Love,
Dominicanis

 

[paul_c]

Works and fruit are VERY different. Works are performed for a wage (read Rom. 4:4-5). Fruit is what someone or something naturally (even unconsciously) bears and has nothing to do with receiving a wage or reward. In the plant world pruning is a technique used for bearing more fruit. This technique is applied spiritually by God to true believers (who, btw, are already saved by grace through faith). Pruning produces greater fruit, not salvation.In that limited sense, nothing, they’re both wrong.**Bingo!**The only “action” required for the GIFT of salvation is faith. Why? Because God gifts it “by grace.” That’s HIS grace (unmerited favor) “through faith” …"not as a result of works"I’ve pointed this out often to those I’ve taught. More often than not when it’s theologically exposed to them they readily understand their error and repent of it - and I must say, with GREAT JOY! Those who refused correction invariably had a fundamental problem with Divine GRACE.

You are greatly decieved and unfortunately, it appears you are in turn deceving others. What are they joyous about? That you have convinced them that they no longer need concern themselves with doing good works and that sin doesn’t matter? Are they joyous because their only responsibility is to say they believe in Jesus but that they don’t actually have to do what he says? If so, it is very empty joy.

Jesus called us to love. Pure and simple. Love your enemies, Be merciful to others, Love each other as I’ve loved you. The commandments are summed up by his great commandment: Love god and love your neighbors as yourself. And love is an action word. Every Christian knows that God is Love. Where is that in your theology? Don’t you realize that Paul condemns you with the words, " if I have faith enough to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing"? And do you not realize that the wages of sin is death. Words that are not put into action are meaningless. Surely you must understand that.

 

[moondweller]

The Law is actually more of a guide to lead us to the Teacher, Who is God.

And here is the theological error on which you continually try to build your argument. But “error begets error” just as “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.”

The Law was a covenant made with national Israel. Only Jews were under the covenant of Law. Hence, only a Jew could fulfill it; and only ONE Jew ever did: the Man Christ Jesus. The only Jew who ever could.

The Law, for righteousness (not salvation) ended with Christ (Rom. 10:4). It was not simply a guide to lead one to “the Teacher, Who is God,” butGal 3:24-25 Therefore the Law has become our (Jews, and the Gentiles through them) tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we (Jews) are no longer under a tutor."Again, the covenant of Law ended with Christ; His sacrificial work and subsequent bodily resurrection. All men are now called, through the gospel, to believe in the Person and finished work of Jesus Christ for the free gift of salvation (Eph. 2:8-9) and eternal life (Rom. 6:23).

As for being “under grace”, there is no difference between what that seems to mean in this context and what the Catholic Church teaches; namely, that we are saved by God’s grace.

Except that the fundamental difference is that the one who is now “under grace” is so through FAITH in Christ alone.

Jesus didn’t say it was impossible to keep the Law;

He didn’t have to. He pointed this out to the Jewish lawyer and the lawyer knew it. That’s why he tried to justify himself by asking Jesus who his neighbor was. You fail to understand the spirit of the passage.

He said do so and you will live.

And simultaneously revealed to him that he couldn’t. It was never the purpose of the Law in the first place.

And no teaching of the Catholic Church says that man can do anything on his own for his salvation, so I fail to see why that point was even raised.

Catholicism teaches a salvation through “faith” (undefined) plus “works of grace.” That’s why you qualified your statement with “do anything on his own.” But the Scriptures speak nothing concerning “works of grace” that merit salvation, but rather explicitly teach that salvation is gifted by God “by grace through faith…not as a result of works” (Eph. 2:8-9). And that those who are saved by grace through faith are now “created in Christ Jesus FOR good works,” but not BY them (Eph. 2:10). Works FOLLOW salvation but one is never saved by them. The Scriptures are clear on this.

As for what Paul said in Romans 7, he also said: “Wherefore the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good…I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the Law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the Law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” He is talking about two different laws, the one of God which is good and the one of sin, which is inclination to sin resulting from our fallen state. He is telling us that we need Christ’s help to fight against the “law of sin”.

This is a false conclusion. Paul cries out, “who shall DELIVER me from this body of this death.” He answers his own cry of frustration: “Jesus Christ our Lord.” Paul didn’t cry for “help,” but deliverance. He received it though the redemption which is in Christ Jesus upon faith in Him.

I already said that we cannot boast in any good works we do after justification. James is indeed telling those who are already Christian that they must act on their faith or it is a dead faith. (More on that later.) As for doing “good works in order to get saved” I already said that good works cannot earn our salvation; failing to them can, however, forfeit it,

That, my friend, is a contradiction.

In other words, just saying you believe is not enough to save you.

Which is James’ point in total. And one must interpret what he goes on to say in that context.

Having a “Gospel of grace” does not absolve us of our responsibility to obey God, nor does it allow us to ignore our neighbors’ needs. God sends His grace and expects us to cooperate with Him to do His Will.

No. God saves us giftwise, “BY grace THROUGH faith.” He doesn’t “send” grace, He saves the believer BY it. Your use of the word “send” is attached to your erroneous doctrine of “works of grace” for the purpose of salvation

“Earning one’s salvation”? Salvation is a GIFT. Who are you talking to here, because it isn’t me.

Sure it is! You need to agree that salvation is gifted by God, period.

Nor is it addressing anything the Catholic Church teaches.

It most certainly does!

Are you really responding to what the Church teaches or some anti-Catholic distortion of it?

He’s addressing the fundamental difference between what is revealed in Scripture about GRACE, FAITH and salvation and what is taught in the CCC about “works of grace” and salvation. According to Scripture: “…not as a result of works,” period!

 

[TheWay]

moondweller, Paul’s teachings recorded in the bible are the Catholic Church’s teachings today. Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace you have been saved (past tense) through faith; and this is not of your own doing, it is the gift of God - not because of any works, lest any man should boast.”. The fact that Paul says “you have been saved” and not “we are saved” indicates that he was referring to an initial justification in the past, not a doctrine of OSAS. The teachings of the Catholic Church are also scripturally consistent in light of Paul saying that Christians are also “saved through sanctification” (2 Thessalonians 2:13). How can salvation be through sanctification if a believer is assured of his or her salvation based on a one-time event in the past? OSAS is highly problematic in light of the New Testament. The Catholic position is the most scripturally consistent position in my opinion.

 

[moondweller]

moondweller, Paul’s teachings recorded in the bible are the Catholic Church’s teachings today. Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace you have been saved (past tense) through faith; and this is not of your own doing, it is the gift of God - not because of any works, lest any man should boast.”. The fact that Paul says “you have been saved” and not “we are saved” indicates that he was referring to an initial justification in the past, not a doctrine of OSAS. The teachings of the Catholic Church are also scripturally consistent in light of Paul saying that Christians are also “saved through sanctification” (2 Thessalonians 2:13). How can salvation be through sanctification if a believer is assured of his or her salvation based on a one-time event in the past? OSAS is highly problematic in light of the New Testament. The Catholic position is the most scripturally consistent position in my opinion.

Catholicism ADDS the word “initial” in its teachings on salvation and justification. But you won’t find it in the Scriptures.

 

[paul_c]

And here is the theological error on which you continually try to build your argument. But “error begets error” just as “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.”

The Law was a covenant made with national Israel. Only Jews were under the covenant of Law. Hence, only a Jew could fulfill it; and only ONE Jew ever did: the Man Christ Jesus. The only Jew who ever could.

The Law, for righteousness (not salvation) ended with Christ (Rom. 10:4). It was not simply a guide to lead one to “the Teacher, Who is God,” butGal 3:24-25 Therefore the Law has become our (Jews, and the Gentiles through them) tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we (Jews) are no longer under a tutor."Again, the covenant of Law ended with Christ; His sacrificial work and subsequent bodily resurrection. All men are now called, through the gospel, to believe in the Person and finished work of Jesus Christ for the free gift of salvation (Eph. 2:8-9) and eternal life (Rom. 6:23).Except that the fundamental difference is that the one who is now “under grace” is so through FAITH in Christ alone.He didn’t have to. He pointed this out to the Jewish lawyer and the lawyer knew it. That’s why he tried to justify himself by asking Jesus who his neighbor was. You fail to understand the spirit of the passage.And simultaneously revealed to him that he couldn’t. It was never the purpose of the Law in the first place.Catholicism teaches a salvation through “faith” (undefined) plus “works of grace.” That’s why you qualified your statement with “do anything on his own.” But the Scriptures speak nothing concerning “works of grace” that merit salvation, but rather explicitly teach that salvation is gifted by God “by grace through faith…not as a result of works” (Eph. 2:8-9). And that those who are saved by grace through faith are now “created in Christ Jesus FOR good works,” but not BY them (Eph. 2:10). Works FOLLOW salvation but one is never saved by them. The Scriptures are clear on this.This is a false conclusion. Paul cries out, “who shall DELIVER me from this body of this death.” He answers his own cry of frustration: “Jesus Christ our Lord.” Paul didn’t cry for “help,” but deliverance. He received it though the redemption which is in Christ Jesus upon faith in Him.That, my friend, is a contradiction.Which is James’ point in total. And one must interpret what he goes on to say in that context.No. God saves us giftwise, “BY grace THROUGH faith.” He doesn’t “send” grace, He saves the believer BY it. Your use of the word “send” is attached to your erroneous doctrine of “works of grace” for the purpose of salvationSure it is! You need to agree that salvation is gifted by God, period.It most certainly does!He’s addressing the fundamental difference between what is revealed in Scripture about GRACE, FAITH and salvation and what is taught in the CCC about “works of grace” and salvation. According to Scripture: “…not as a result of works,” period!

Moondweller. we have told you the catholic view on salvation for over a year now, yet you continue to argue against strawmen Be intellectually honest here. Here is what we believe:

We beleive you are saved by Grace: God gives us the grace to be saved
We are saved by faith: If we do not have faith in Jesus, we can not be saved
We are saved through Baptism, which is the sacrament that frees us from prior sin, gives us sufficient grace to gain eternal life and makes us part of the Chruch
We remain saved when we do the good works God calls us to do and we avoid turning away from him in sin. Note, sins can be for omission (things we should have done but failed to do) and commission (things we did that were against God’s will)
If we sin, we can be reconciled to him through the sacrament of reconciliation.

Now, given that, what do you have a problem with? Don’t argue against what you think we believe. Argue against what we actually believe.

 

[TheWay]

moondweller, that’s okay so long as it is accurate, but you didn’t answer my question above.

 

[Dominicanis]

And that those who are saved by grace through faith are now “created in Christ Jesus FOR good works,” but not BY them (Eph. 2:10). Works FOLLOW salvation but one is never saved by them.

Again, the Catholic Church never taught that one is ever saved by works. Works follow justification, which comes to us by the grace won for us by the sacrifice of Christ.

Again, the covenant of Law ended with Christ; His sacrificial work and subsequent bodily resurrection. All men are now called, through the gospel, to believe in the Person and finished work of Jesus Christ for the free gift of salvation (Eph. 2:8-9) and eternal life (Rom. 6:23).

Again, an attempt to assign to the Catholic Church a position she does not hold, that the Law can be a substitute for the Gospel. I already said that the Law can only (if lived out as Christ told the scholar) prepare one to accept the Gospel. It cannot be used in place of the Gospel or added to it, nor is it necessary for men to follow it to accept the Gospel. But for those who do, like the Jews, it can lead them to accept Christ as their Messiah and therefore make them Christians.

Catholicism teaches a salvation through “faith” (undefined) plus “works of grace.” That’s why you qualified your statement with “do anything on his own.” But the Scriptures speak nothing concerning “works of grace” that merit salvation, but rather explicitly teach that salvation is gifted by God “by grace through faith…not as a result of works” (Eph. 2:8-9).

Unfortunately for that point, again, the Church does not teach that works merit salvation. Salvation is a GIFT FROM GOD. And we can indeed forfeit it by not doing God’s works, as Ephesians 2:10, James 2, and Matthew 25:31-46 make very clear. That’s not a “contradiction”; it’s a warning from God-inspired and inerrant Scripture.

Paul cries out, “who shall DELIVER me from this body of this death.” He answers his own cry of frustration: “Jesus Christ our Lord.” Paul didn’t cry for “help,” but deliverance. He received it though the redemption which is in Christ Jesus upon faith in Him.

Right. Christ is the only One Who can deliver anyone from sin. To whom is that addressed? Or is it just rhetoric to attempt to assign error to the Catholic Church where none exists, since she already teaches that only Christ can deliver us from sin?

God saves us giftwise, “BY grace THROUGH faith.” He doesn’t “send” grace, He saves the believer BY it. Your use of the word “send” is attached to your erroneous doctrine of “works of grace” for the purpose of salvation.

Again, you try to chop logic. God sends us His grace so we can be saved by it. He offers us a gift so we can accept it.

He’s addressing the fundamental difference between what is revealed in Scripture about GRACE, FAITH and salvation and what is taught in the CCC about “works of grace” and salvation. According to Scripture: “…not as a result of works,” period!

Again, the Catholic Church teaches that God alone saves us by His gracious gift of salvation. All you are doing is repeating a position, claiming that the Church teaches something else, and attacking your straw men. It is clumsy and transparent, and in the end, much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Yours in Christ’s Love,
Dominicanis

 

[yankee_drifter]

Again, this is extremely close to what Catholic theology is. Do you recognize this? Put the word “works” in for fruit and is almost exactly what Catholics. Yes, we see the term born-again as meaning something different, but that’s essentially it. Do you understand this.

This is exactly what why teach! Not to be rude, but how many times do we have to explain this? And not just to you.

What is the difference between a Catholic view of Salvation and an Evangelical who believes you can lose your Salvation? (Other than how it is obtained) I don’t see a whole a lot of difference. Because for each, faith is required but also action is required. Fundamentally, if a Evangelical who says you can lose your salvation, it does come down to what you do (action) after you are saved. How come the Once Saved Always Saved crowd doesn’t accuse them of trying “earn” their way to Heaven?
Thanks

Let me ask you a question: what does the catholic church mean by born-again? Its a term rarely used by catholics. Is this something that happens as soon as an infant is baptized?

On being born-again. John wrote: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). Notice that those who are born-again “believe in His name.” Is it possible for an infant to believe or have faith in anything? Those who are born-again are born of God not of any human initiative. You can not be born-again because you were born into a Christian family, or because of self-will or because of your parents’ decision to baptize you. It is God who calls and draws those He has chosen (Eph. 1:4; John 6:44; Rom. 8:30). The Holy Scriptures teaches that anyone (Catholic or non-Catholic) who has not been born-again will not enter the kingdom of God, but instead suffer everlasting torment in the eternal lake of fire.

 

[Dominicanis]

Please bear in mind also the distinction between the reality of justification and our theological theories about that reality. As a Roman Catholic, I will trust no less in Jesus as my Savior, nor more in my own works, than I have as a Lutheran. I’m certainly fallible and thus capable of trading in a better theory of justification for a worse one, but I urge my Protestant brethren to remember, before making any judgments about the state of my soul, that sinners are justified by trusting in Jesus and not by believing a theory of justification. ~ Dr. Robert C. Koons (former Lutheran)

Wise words. And an important reminder to those who keep insisting that Catholics believe they are “saved by works” that we really believe that we are saved by our trust in Jesus Christ as our Savior.

Yours in Christ’s Love,
Dominicanis

 

[JacobG]

Jacob if thats what you think I meant you did not understand what I was saying. I would never mock God. I know he paid for our sin, original sin, but I also know because we are human we have actual sin. And if we sin we must repent and confess our sins. Thats why Jesus left us the sacraments. And I also know we will have our own personal judgement on our last day. That is what I meant. MD does not agree with us. She does not believe that the Priest can give us forgiveness for mortal sin on this earth, and she does not believe that if we die with the stain of actual sin we cannot get into heaven until we have our final purfication. She denys this, that is what this thread is about.

The Holy Scriptures do not teach that a priest can forgive sins. If he could totally absolve you, then why is it you still need to do acts of penance and piety?

When we read about Peter and Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8, this man wanted to buy from the apostle, the power of laying on of hands to give others the Holy Spirit. But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could acquire God’s gift with money! You have no share or part in this matter because your heart is not right before God! Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that he may perhaps forgive you for the intent of your heart. For I see that you are bitterly envious and in bondage to sin.” But Simon replied, “You pray to the Lord for me so that nothing of what you have said may happen to me.”

If Peter was pope or had authority, why then didn’t he just hear the Sorcerers confession and absolve him?

Where in Scriptures do we read that Jesus gave us a sacramental system? Where did He institute the mass with its priest, victim and sacrifices?

The Bible is clear that unbelievers will spend eternity in hell. Of this I think we can all agree on. But from the catholic church’s traditions and their reliance of non-canonical books, the Catholics have developed the doctrine of purgatory. We find purgatory nowhere mentioned in the NT. Purgatory, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, is a “place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.” On the other hand, Protestants believe that because we are justified by faith in Christ alone, and that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us – when we die we will go straight to heaven to be in the presence of the Lord (Corinthians 5:6-10 and Philippians 1:23). This is in accordance with the Scriptures.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Holy Scriptures do not teach that a priest can forgive sins. If he could totally absolve you, then why is it you still need to do acts of penance and piety?

1 John 1:9
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

We should confess our sins, and God will forgive us, but do we confess our sins to God alone? No!

James 5:13-16
13 Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. 14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.

Here the word of God tells us to call the elders (the Greek word is presbuteroi, or “presbyter”, from which the English word “priest” is derived). So, in this context, James is telling us to send for the priests who will pray over someone who is sick, and if he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Recalling the passage from Leviticus above, we see there is a strong parallel between the priests of the Old Testament who made atonement for sin and the presbyters or priests of the New Testament to whom we confess sins for forgiveness. But this sounds like blasphemy! Can men really forgive sins? This same question is asked in the New Testament.

Mark 2:5-7
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Who can forgive sins but God alone? This question is often asked by those who seek to deny the sacrament of confession. However, note that this question is asked by the scribes who did not accept Jesus. Those who quote this passage find themselves on the side of those who rejected the Messiah. There’s more to the story, however; let’s consider the same incident from the book of Matthew.

Matthew 9:1-7
1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!” 4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

The Bible teaches that God had given the authority to forgive sins “to men”. Note that this is not “to a man” but “to men” – plural. So, it is not only Jesus who has authority to forgive sins – “men” have this authority, also. This sounds like a “hard teaching”…is there confirmation of this in the Bible?

John 20:21-23
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

How did God send Jesus into the world? With the authority to forgive sins as we saw in Matthew 9:6. How does Jesus send the Apostles? In the same way that the Father had sent Him…with the authority to forgive sins as we have just seen in John 20:23. How could the Apostles obey the commandment of Jesus to forgive sins unless they heard these sins confessed? Thus, scripture records that people did confess their sins aloud.

Acts 19:18 (New International Version)
18Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds.

 

[Randy_Carson]

When we read about Peter and Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8, this man wanted to buy from the apostle, the power of laying on of hands to give others the Holy Spirit. But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could acquire God’s gift with money! You have no share or part in this matter because your heart is not right before God! Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that he may perhaps forgive you for the intent of your heart. For I see that you are bitterly envious and in bondage to sin.” But Simon replied, “You pray to the Lord for me so that nothing of what you have said may happen to me.”

If Peter was pope or had authority, why then didn’t he just hear the Sorcerers confession and absolve him?

He just did…the part in red indicates that Peter obviously knew the details of the sin and contains Simon’s admission that he had done wrong. That’s confession and an act of contrition. What we don’t know for sure is whether Peter gave him absolution because a priest may choose NOT to absolve someone if he determines that the person is not truly repentant.

Where in Scriptures do we read that Jesus gave us a sacramental system?

When he acknowledged and/or instituted each of the seven sacraments.

Where did He institute the mass with its priest, victim and sacrifices?

At the last supper.

The Bible is clear that unbelievers will spend eternity in hell. Of this I think we can all agree on. But from the catholic church’s traditions and their reliance of non-canonical books, the Catholics have developed the doctrine of purgatory. We find purgatory nowhere mentioned in the NT. Purgatory, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, is a “place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.” On the other hand, Protestants believe that because we are justified by faith in Christ alone, and that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us – when we die we will go straight to heaven to be in the presence of the Lord (Corinthians 5:6-10 and Philippians 1:23). This is in accordance with the Scriptures.

You have a false understanding of Purgatory.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. (Catechism 1030)

Here’s a simple illustration of what Catholics believe is Purgatory’s place in the scheme of things. (Please imagine an arrowhead at the end of the line pointing from Purgatory to Heaven, and ignore the dots I am forced to use as spacers.)

…Heaven (eternal)
…/
…/…
…/…
…Earth------>Purgatory (temporary)
…
…
…
…Hell (eternal)

Catholics believe that some people go straight to Heaven, which is also what Evangelicals believe. It would be very cool to go straight to Heaven. Let’s pray for each other for that. The Church believes that Purgatory is a place to clean up the effects of “Venial Sin” (not Mortal Sin which if un-repented, leads to eternal punishment - hell). If we were to put it in Evangelical terms, Purgatory would be where the backslider would get cleaned up before joining the wedding banquet of the Lord - so he wouldn’t be thrown out (Mat 22:12). For nothing unclean can enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27). Purgatory does not remove sin itself. Jesus did that on the Cross. Purgatory removes the effects of sin. An imperfect way to look at it is to think of a nail hammered into a piece of wood. My father would pull the nail out of the wood (sin) but there would still be a dent in the wood. Purgatory is the process of straightening out the wood (the effect of sin). Certainly Jesus can and does the clean up. He is a merciful God but he is also a ***just ***God.

People who rebelliously refuse to believe that Jesus is Lord and who do not yield to Him don’t go to Purgatory. They go to hell.

 

[moondweller]

Dominicanis:

Again, the Catholic Church never taught that one is ever saved by works. Works follow justification, which comes to us by the grace won for us by the sacrifice of Christ.

Scripture doesn’t say that one is saved by the grace won for us by Christ, but that God is the One who Himself saves “by grace (unmerited favor) through faith.” Because of the selfless, expiatory, sacrificial work of Christ He has the power to do so and to remain just when He does (Rom. 1:16-17 3:26).

Again, an attempt to assign to the Catholic Church a position she does not hold, that the Law can be a substitute for the Gospel. I already said that the Law can only (if lived out as Christ told the scholar) prepare one to accept the Gospel.

Again, you fail to understand the Scripture. Jesus was pointing out to the lawyer, via the story of the compassionate Samaritan, that he failed to fulfill the Law. He did the same with the Jewish rich man who asked Him the same question regarding eternal life (Lk. 18:18ff). Jesus, knowing the heart, exposed their failures in respect to the Law. The lawyer failed to love his neighbor as himself, and the rich man loved his money more than God.

It cannot be used in place of the Gospel or added to it, nor is it necessary for men to follow it to accept the Gospel. But for those who do, like the Jews, it can lead them to accept Christ as their Messiah and therefore make them Christians.

The Law was given to define sin and to expose those who were under it as sinners by the FACT that they transgressed definite Commandments: “thou shalt not…”. It exposed those under it to be not only sinners by nature (in Adam) but transgressors of Law as well. As Paul says in Rom. 7:13: “so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.” No man ever became righteous through the Commandments stated in the Decalogue.

The Law did not lead men to accept Christ as their Messiah, making them “Christians,” but “to Messiah” that they may be justified by faith (Gal. 3:24). IOW, not as their Messiah but their SAVIOR (the words are not synonymous - Jesus is both Messiah and Savior). Some Jews understood Jesus to be their promised Messiah, testified by the miracles He performed and the Words He spoke to them with all authority. But they still needed to believe in Him as SAVIOR through the preaching of the gospel concerning the word of the cross.

Unfortunately for that point, again, the Church does not teach that works merit salvation. Salvation is a GIFT FROM GOD. And we can indeed forfeit it by not doing God’s works, as Ephesians 2:10, James 2, and Matthew 25:31-46 make very clear. That’s not a “contradiction”; it’s a warning from God-inspired and inerrant Scripture.

The contradiction you’re making, Dominicanis, is that you say no man is saved by works, nonetheless, men are eternally condemned for lack of them. Though you will vehemently deny it, what you’re stating in your contradictory statement is that, ultimately, salvation is based on works: No works, no salvation. Salvation, you say, is only potential, yet to be sealed by works. Point being, if, according to the Scriptures, one is not at all saved “as a result of works,” then it should be clearly logical to you that one certainly cannot “forfeit” salvation for lack of them.

Those who are created in Christ Jesus for good works in Eph. 2:10 are those who were (as identified in vss. 8-9) “saved by grace through faith, …a gift of God, not as a result of works.”

I won’t again hash over James with you, but Matt. 25:31-46 is a separation (not salvation) based on identity.

Right. Christ is the only One Who can deliver anyone from sin. To whom is that addressed? Or is it just rhetoric to attempt to assign error to the Catholic Church where none exists, since she already teaches that only Christ can deliver us from sin?

You also teach that you will be delivered from sins via sacrament and finally by the “purifying fires” of your purgatory. Scripture, however, reveals to us that the true believer, now “in Christ,” is “freed from sin” having died “to sin,” once for all, with Christ; now raised, positionally, to new life in the risen Christ. Therefore Paul exhorts the Roman believers with the pertinent question: “How shall we who have died TO sin still live in it” (Rom. 6:2) The true believer’s relationship to sin is now as the risen Christ’s, “dead to it,” as revealed in the theopneustos Scriptures. Wholly a work of God through Christ. (Note: He doesn’t say that the believer, while on this earth and in these yet unredeemed bodies, is freed from sinning. But read what Paul says in 1 Cor. 6:11).

Again, you try to chop logic. God sends us His grace so we can be saved by it. He offers us a gift so we can accept it.

Not true, my friend. GRACE is the means by which He Himself saves, and that through faith. He doesn’t “offer” us a gift, hoping we’ll do Him a favor and accept it. It’s gifted “though faith” in Christ…“not as a result of works.” Salvation is offered through the preaching of the gospel of Christ, it’s GIFTED by God (in all of its Scripturally revealed facets) upon believing it (Acts 16:31).

 

[TheWay]

Dominicanis, I read a paper by Dr. Koons entitled “A Lutheran’s Case for Catholicism.” I came across it by accident while searching google. It has apparently been removed from the web. My hope is that he is writing a book, because he is an intellectual leviathan and can do much to further Protestant/Catholic dialogue, and he can do a lot of good for the Catholic Church.

 

[TheWay]

moondweller, hopefully this doesn’t come across as rude, but do you selectively read and selectively answer questions? I truly am curious as to how you reconcile a OSAS doctrine with 2 Thessalonians 2:13, that is, how salvation can be a one-time past event for believers who are “saved through sanctification” according to Paul.

 

[moondweller]

moondweller, hopefully this doesn’t come across as rude, but do you selectively read and selectively answer questions? I truly am curious as to how you reconcile a OSAS doctrine with 2 Thessalonians 2:13, that is, how salvation can be a one-time past event for believers who are “saved through sanctification” according to Paul.

Oh no, not rude at all. I don’t selectively read and answer questions. I’ve posted a lot on this thread but sometimes it moves far too fast for me to keep up. Plus, one response can trigger several of you to respond and I hope my response to one answers the same question or comment posted by others.

I’m pretty sure I addressed 2 Thess. 2:13 in a previous post, nevertheless:2 Thess 2:11-13 "For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. ¶ But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth."Notice Paul does not say one chosen for salvation “by” sanctification but “through” it, “by the Spirit and FAITH in the truth.”

Sanctified means to have been set apart. Every saved person “has been (a one time event) sanctified.” and that “in Christ.” Paul writes to the believers in Corinth:1 Cor 1:2 ¶ To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling…"In the body of his letter he identifies those who will not inherit the kingdom of God (6:9-10). But of the believer he says:1 Cor 6:11 "Such were some of you; but 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."And the attitude of the believer, now sanctified (set apart) in Christ, is that though all thing are lawful to him, he should know that not all things are profitable (i.e., for spiritual growth). Though all things are lawful, like Paul, they should be mastered by nothing. But instead free to serve Christ and worship God in Spirit and truth (1 Cor. 6:12). Nor do all things edify, writes Paul, either themselves or others who “have been sanctified in Christ” (10:23).

Though it is true that the saved are experientially being sanctified in their faith walk on earth, objectively they’ve been sanctified, once for all (a one time event), in the risen Christ:Acts 26:18 "…to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’

Heb 10:10 "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."Experiential sanctification is an everyday struggle for the believer, but positional sanctification, as revealed in the Scriptures (now and forever set apart in the risen Christ), is a one time act of God according to His GRACE through Christ Jesus.

Does this adequately answer your question?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

The Holy Scriptures do not teach that a priest can forgive sins. If he could totally absolve you, then why is it you still need to do acts of penance and piety?

When we read about Peter and Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8, this man wanted to buy from the apostle, the power of laying on of hands to give others the Holy Spirit. But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could acquire God’s gift with money! You have no share or part in this matter because your heart is not right before God! Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that he may perhaps forgive you for the intent of your heart. For I see that you are bitterly envious and in bondage to sin.” But Simon replied, “You pray to the Lord for me so that nothing of what you have said may happen to me.”

If Peter was pope or had authority, why then didn’t he just hear the Sorcerers confession and absolve him?

Where in Scriptures do we read that Jesus gave us a sacramental system? Where did He institute the mass with its priest, victim and sacrifices?

The Bible is clear that unbelievers will spend eternity in hell. Of this I think we can all agree on. But from the catholic church’s traditions and their reliance of non-canonical books, the Catholics have developed the doctrine of purgatory. We find purgatory nowhere mentioned in the NT. Purgatory, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, is a “place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.” On the other hand, Protestants believe that because we are justified by faith in Christ alone, and that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us – when we die we will go straight to heaven to be in the presence of the Lord (Corinthians 5:6-10 and Philippians 1:23). This is in accordance with the Scriptures.

I am glad you asked. But I cannot answer that question because don’t know why Jesus said we must CONFESS AND REPENT but he did. Now if Jesus said we must do both why would you think a Priest would disobey him? A Priest did not write the rules he just obeys them like we do. By the way a Priest can totally absolve you. Remember John 20:21-23 Not only can he forgive them he can retain them also. What are you saying you don’t believe Jesus when he said this???

But why do you think that when we ask God forgiveness we do not have to repent. Where did repent get wiped out of the bible. We must repent and pray sincerely to God BEFORE we enter the confessional. I can see you have no clue about the confession according to the RCC.