Purification by the WORD of GOD!

[Magicsilence]

Originally Posted by LSK
Thank you so much, my brother in Christ, for posting what you did!

You may not know this, but my Church, the Catholic Church, is the institution that gathered the Holy Scripture together in the Book so that all Christians could read it. We are more than aware of what is in the Holy Scriptures and thank you again for posting the holy words as you did.

Catholics Christians are not Children of the Book, however, we are Children of the Word, the Word Incarnate. For as it is written in the Holy Scripture, not everything Jesus did or said was written down (John 21:25). This is why we hold fast to Sacred Tradition, as instructed by St. Paul (1 Cor 11:2 and 2 Thess 2:15).

Remember, my brother in Christ, St. Peter cautions us that St Paul was so learned that his letters could be difficult to grasp and interpret (2 Pet 3:15-16) which is why as faithful members of the Body of Christ and the Holy Mother Church we rely upon not just our own interpretation - oh, no! We could so easily fall into the heresies that plagued the early Church and plague the Church today! No, my brother, we rely upon the learned, faithful men of the magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit to teach us and lovingly guide us so that we may remain true to the Teachings and Traditions of the Church founded by Christ HIMSELF.

You post here because you are hungry for the TRUTH…cast aside your ego and the demons that plague you and join us at the banquet table!

he came, he saw, he was conquered.

I dont think i have ever seen a better post LSK!!!

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

bloodsanctified:

Dearest Robert in SD,

Just by looking by the SPIRIT of GOD, you love the WORD enough to copy and past MUCH WORD into your post. Praise the WORD of GOD. and I do love to see other searching OUT the truth IN the WORD of GOD!
BUT …
… Only they who are still "working out their OWN salvation with fear and trembling" get things ALL mixed up, and OUT of GODLY Order, and than they try to “deceive the elect if it were possible”

Huh?

Your posts may be more helpful if you stick to one point at a time and avoid the overuse of boldface and italics. The above is very confusing to follow, but I think I see your point - by faith alone are we “purified” (saved) and after that comes “good works.” I’ve heard this argument before - many times. It just does not comport with the Scriptures.

When St. Paul says, “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law,” he is teaching that the works of the Old Testament Mosaic law, such as circumcision, could not bring salvation. In the New Testament, faith does bring salvation, provided that it is made alive by charity. Saving faith is active: it is faith working through love. Gal. 5:6.

In 1 Cor. 13:2, St. Paul states faith without love (charity) is nothing (it cannot save). Charity means love of God, and Jesus clearly states that if we love Him we will keep His commandments (Jn 14:21). When the rich man asks Jesus what he must do to be saved, Jesus answers, “keep the commandments.” (Mt 19:16-17). It is, therefore, clear from the scriptures that faith alone is not enough for salvation. We must also have charity and keep God’s commandments.

St. James condemns the idea that we are saved by faith apart from good works: “See that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. … For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.” (Jam 2:24, 26). Clearly, this passage absolutely contradicts the idea that faith alone is sufficient for salvation.

The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by God’s grace alone. Grace enables us to have the saving faith that works in love (Eph 2:8-10). All good works must be done in the grace of God to have any supernatural and salvific value.

-Peace

 

[LovedOne]

bloodsanctified:

Well blessing to you ,

Did the WORDS that is not correct to assume that I never placed and such words as “Catholics are bound for Hell.” Do youy mind coping and pasting that quote for all to see where that came from? Thanks?

Hower the assumption that I would . . .quote . . ." however, blaze on in AND quote "start ‘instructing’ us right off the mark is also somewhat incorrect…as you should know that GOD HIMSELF said (without forum rules) in 2Ti 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

1. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God!"
2. "is profitable for doctrine"
3. "for reproof
4. "for correction!"
5. "for instruction in righteousness."
   Blessings

Nowhere does scripture say or teach that scripture alone is “sufficient” and the ONLY authority.
Nowhere.
It DOES however say that the “pillar and foundation of truth is the CHURCH.”
The church came first.
From her came the New Testament - 4 centuries later mind you.

Did you ever stop to ask yourself just WHY you accept the New Testament as truth and the inspired Word of God?
WHO told you it was?
And why do you trust them? On what “authority” did they select just WHICH of the gospels, epistles etc. were the “true inspired Word of God” and therefore would be part of what eventually became known as the “New Testament?”

Here’s a hint my friend - The Catholic Church.
It’s simply a matter of indisputable history.
And you TRUST them that much to lay **your ** faith in the books of the New Testament *THEY * say are the true ones.

How can you put so much trust in the Catholic Church in this instance - and denounce her in all other aspects?

It is a serious question you must answer.

It all boils down to AUTHORITY.
And it always will.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

LovedOne:

It is a serious question you must answer.

It all boils down to AUTHORITY.
And it always will.

Well said LovedOne. :clapping:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

bloodsanctified:

Well blessing to you

And to you.

bloodsanctified:

Did the WORDS that is not correct to assume that I never placed and such words as “Catholics are bound for Hell.”

This is not a sentence and therefore I have difficulty understanding it. Given that, are you saying that it is not correct to put words in your mouth? If so, I agree. However, I have not put words in your mouth.

I have merely drawn your attention to the reality that many of us have encountered many posters who blaze onto this forum – without so much as hanging around for a bit to get to know the forum – without so much as visiting the main page on which the Library is located – without so much as visiting the Ask an Apologist forum. Then they lecture us in the absence of any understanding of how we have responded to Salvation over the course of 2000 years. They ignore our responses, never deviating from message to consider what we actually believe.

How do I know this? Because the content of their posts betrays a lamentable paucity of knowledge with respect to what the Catholic Church actually teaches. All too often their posts betray anti-Catholic prejudice and downright untruths which have been spread about the Catholic Church. And that is hurtful to us. We often receive these lectures as a discourtesy and as a disrespect of the devotion which we bring to bear toward our God, our Church, and our walk of faith.

I offer this not as an accusation against you personally, but as an explanation of our caution.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

When visiting a Catholic website and starting a thread on the Word of God, I am sure you would agree that it is common courtesy and profound wisdom to first do some research as to what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the Word of God. Do you not agree?

Many of us have long lists of reference sites which we would be happy to share with you so that you can get to know us better and therefore get to know the history of the Christian Church better. One very good one is New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. On that site you can read their entry on the Word of God. It is a long entry; here are some excerpts:

The word Logos is the term by which Christian theology in the Greek language designates the Word of God, or Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Before St. John had consecrated this term by adopting it, the Greeks and the Jews had used it to express religious conceptions which, under various titles, have exercised a certain influence on Christian theology…

It touches on Hellenist, Stoic, and Jewish concepts of logos and then moves on to the New Testament.

What is the precise value of this concept in the writings of St. John? The Logos has not for him the Stoic meaning that it so often had for Philo: it is not the impersonal power that sustains the world, nor the law that regulates it; neither do we find in St. John the Platonistic concept of the Logos as the ideal model of the world; the Word is for him the Word of God, and thereby he holds with Jewish tradition, the theology of the Book of Wisdom, of the Psalms, of the Prophetical Books, and of Genesis; he perfects the idea and transforms it by showing that this creative Word which from all eternity was in God and was God, took flesh and dwelt among men.

Logos therefore is Jesus.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

bloodsanctified:

Do you mind coping and pasting that quote for all to see where that came from?

Why, yes, bloodsanctified. Now that you ask, I do mind. I mind because I made no claim to such a quote, as I have explained above. Pointing to such a quote on your part is an example of a strawman assertion.

bloodsanctified:

Hower the assumption that I would . . .quote . . ." however, blaze on in AND quote "start ‘instructing’ us right off the mark is also somewhat incorrect.

I was not aware that something could be ‘somewhat’ incorrect. Is what I say incorrect or is it correct, in your opinion? As for instructing us: that is exactly what you have done, in my opinion. The editorial choices you have made concerning which passages of the Bible to quote are about the written truth contained in the Bible. You dispel any doubt about that when you say in Post #11:

bloodsanctified:

If any soul is NOT Purified already, than that is the Purpose of this “written” subject matter (by the WORD of GOD not me… Since I did NOT write the WORD of GOD… but the WORD of GOD wrote it, NOT me, i just copied and pasted it!

You say *written *subject matter, not the subject matter which is the Person of Jesus. I would think it would be a very challenging exercise to copy and paste Our Lord. Then, in Post #12, you impugn carnal translators. Then you go down the list of justification by works and faith, which by the way is off topic.

Scripture is part of the truth, but Scripture is not the complete truth. The complete truth is the revelation found in Tradition (with a capital T not a small t) *and *Scripture. Here is some background reading on Tradition and Scripture.

Apart from writing in the sand when the woman was taken in adultery, Jesus left nothing in writing for us – at least not according to Scripture and Tradition. He was most certainly literate as evidenced by his ability to teaching on the Torah to the rabbis. His own teachings were not only oral – and not written – but personal in that they took place in His Real Presence. In this respect, His teachings were transformative not merely informative.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Consider these passages:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.(Matt 16:18 DRC).

I will not leave you orphans: I will come to you. (Jn 14:18 DRC)

From New Advent:

From the testimony of St. Irenæus alone there can be no reasonable doubt that the Canon of the Gospel was inalterably fixed in the Catholic Church by the last quarter of the second century.

From New Advent:

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process… which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.

From New Advent:

[The Church] is the appointed witness and guardian of revelation. From her alone we know what books belong to the Bible. At the Council of Trent she enumerated the books which must be considered “as sacred and canonical”. They are the seventy-two books found in Catholic editions, forty-five in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New. Protestant copies usually lack the seven books (viz: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and I, II Machabees) and parts of books (viz: Esther 10:4-16:24, and Daniel 3:24-90; 13:1-14:42) which are not found in the Jewish editions of the Old Testament.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Now please consider the following:

1.0 If Jesus did not abandon us and

2.0 if the Canon was not established until the second century and

3.0 if approximately 90% of the Church was illiterate for most of Her history and

4.0 if the Guttenberg press was not invented until 1450 and therefore even if 100% of Christians could read (which they could not), then they could not afford to read the precious illuminated Bibles which were kept chained to the front of the Church to safeguard against theft,

then in what form did Jesus instruct his Church for 15 centuries? Hint: it could not have been in written form.

I look at the WORD of GOD and HE RULES and what HE says I DO and I follow the WORD of GOD rather than men asI do believe that the “forum” rules follow the WORD of GOD! RIGHT! That was not a question…

I am having difficulty following the form of your writing. Do you respect the forum rules or not?

bloodsanctified:

Thanks NOW back toi the TOP{IC …when were you “sanctified” to the WORD of GOD?
The reason I “asked” is I did not see any WORD of GOD refered to as a basis for any of your statements …just asking as Purification is the topic of this tread!

I was baptized. I was confirmed. Sanctification is not a point in time, it is a process. As for being on topic, please do allow me to give you some feedback. Your thread title refers to the Word of God.

Your comments, however, drift from once-saved-always-saved, faith-alone, bible-alone, and so on. You can hardly fault me for not knowing to which I am being asked to respond. I chose the Word of God since that is in the title of your thread.

Catholicism is about personal relationship. Written language is conceived of as serving the personal relationship between Jesus and His Church. The Church decided to write the teachings down to prevent corruption of the teachings over the centuries. This was in response to the proliferation of heresies and just plain misunderstandings which occurred when people interpreted for themselves in the absence of apostolic authority. The crux of the matter is that the Church is the rightful interpreter of the teachings of Jesus, whether those teachings are oral or written.

Now I have spent time reading and considering your comments, bloodsanctified. This is evidenced by the number of links I have provided you and in the depth of explanation of I have brought to bear in response to subjects which you raise. In return, I expect you to spend time reading and considering my comments too. This is common courtesy and expected in a discussion forum.

If your responses to this post betray a lack of familiarity with what I have actually said, then I will likely conclude that you have indeed blazed onto this forum to lecture us. In that case I would have serious questions in my mind as to the possibility of you having violated the following two forum rules:

Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.

Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

Agreed? Thank you for taking the time to read my response. Ani

…end of post

 

[bloodsanctified]

Blessing to you all here via the WORD of GOD,
(Bold added for emphasis in clarity only and not a form of “emotion”)

First of all I believe that the forum rules follow the WORD of GOD and I follow the WORD of GOD. DO the forum rules follow the WORD of GOD or not as you should know better than I correct.

Secondly Sanctification or Purification / Heart Purity is NOT a process ( as discussed before )

1. Since sanctification is completed **“by faith” ** Act 26:18 You will open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light and from Satan’s control to God, so that they might receive the forgiveness of sins and a share among those who are sanctified by faith in me. Acts 26: 18 And as you know justification is completed "by faith" than according to your doctrine justification is a process also (which it is NOT)

As stated before. . . 1Co 6:11 but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God

1. And such were some of you." Were is a Past tense situation which equals NO MORE!
2. "ARE Washed" Present perfect possessive tense First!
3. "ARE Sanctified" Present perfect possessive tense came second and than came…
4. "Justified" and only in that is the only godly ORDER and there is no other order with GOD … washed … sanctified … than justified . .

Since the GOD / WORD I serve can not countradict HIMSELF than this WORD is the final decision to the subject of sanctification and justification. Washed by the Blood of the Lamb, that was (was and were = the same Past Tense verbage) as Christ states First Washed . . . Secondly . . .“Sanctified” than Thirdly . . . "Justified."

Second witness (as if the ONE WORD of TRUTH was not enough to believe in) And unlike the “process servers” of the mistranslations the Original Greek to English stated Heb 10:10 "By [HIS] will we are sanctified ( 37, From G40; made holy, that is, (ceremonially) purified or consecrated; (mentally) to venerate: - hallow, be holy, sanctifed) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

When “was” the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." that true believers "sanctified through the offering"

Just why would anyone NOT believe in these WORDs of the WORD!
Why would anyone in there right mind NOT believe GOD when HE HIMSELF said (thru Christ) "By [HIS] will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

The "offering was 2000 years ago and that "offering of the body of Jesus Christ was the Sanctification of real believers!

Third witness is Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because that the worshippers once purged ( 2508, From G2513; cleansed, that is, (specifically) to prune ) should have had no more conscience (4993 form of G4894; co-perception, that is, moral consciousness) of sins."

The only reason that any of you believe that Sanctification is a “process” is that you learned that doctrine from some un-sanctified, working on their “OWN” purification instead of believing the WORD of TRUTH that "we" were sanctified by one offering and than justified by that same One offering!

Question # 1. . . Do any of you here believe the WORD of GOD can heal? And do you go and find ALL the verses that “Keep you sick” when you want healing? NO? Wouldn’t that be "ignorant?
Queations # 2-3 Than if you REALLY wanted to be holy as your Father in heave is holy! Why in GOD’s Holy Name would go and find, and minister any verses whatsoever that disagreeded with your "sanctification by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for ALL? Unless you, deep down really did NOT want be holy and sanctified!, purged and pure!

I beg of you all why not just follow the WORD of GOD, and just be **"sanctified! ** it does not take any More faith than the assumption of “justification.” On one drop more faith in GODs WORD…

The just ( 1342 From G1349; equitable (in character or act); by implication innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively) shall live by faith." Just believe and live it!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

bloodsanctified:

Blessing … and live it!

I can see that you have completely ignored the responses which others and myself have made to you and have repeated your onslaught of lecturing us.

This seems discourteous to me.

 

[LovedOne]

Robert in SD:

Well said LovedOne. :clapping:

Thank You.

 

[TTM]

bloodsanctified:

As stated before. . . 1Co 6:11 but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God

Yes, that’s consistent with our faith - that we were saved, sanctified and justified by Jesus’ sacrifice, through Baptism.

I think the question is - can you lose that sanctity? I think the most reasonable answer is “yes”. Committing adultery, for example, can taint your soul. We believe that through repentence, we may still be justified and sanctified through the same, one sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

God bless,
TTM

 

[Courtneyjo]

What is a troll?

Originally posted by yochumjy on Aug. 26, 2004:

“A person who is just trying to cause trouble. An example is logging into a catholic forum, saying that the Church is the Whore of Babylon, and then using absurd arguments to back it up and completely ignoring anyone else’s evidence. They do it for fun and to make others angry…”

 

[Tonks40]

Courtneyjo:

What is a troll?

Originally posted by yochumjy on Aug. 26, 2004:

“A person who is just trying to cause trouble. An example is logging into a catholic forum, saying that the Church is the Whore of Babylon, and then using absurd arguments to back it up and completely ignoring anyone else’s evidence. They do it for fun and to make others angry…”

Ya beat me to it!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello again BS;

You wrote:

bloodsanctified:

…Just believe and live it!

This final statement of your contradicts everything that preceded it in your post. I would concur with your conclusion: “Faith working in love” = “Believe and live it.”

No Catholic would dispute the necessity of faith, but the issue, as stated by others on this thread, is whether that justification (or purification as you call it) can be thrown away by one after it is received. Catholics say yes, and that understanding is supported by the Bible. Serious sin separates us from the grace of God. Repentence and reconciliation with God restores that grace.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

TTM:

Yes, that’s consistent with our faith - that we were saved, sanctified and justified by Jesus’ sacrifice, through Baptism.

I think the question is - can you lose that sanctity?

Where is this thread going? Is this about Scripture/Tradition versus Bible Alone. Or is about everything? I think this thread has seriously gone off topic.

If bloodsanctified wants to introduce the idea of Once-Saved-Always-Saved, then I think he should start a new thread.

Also, I underline my reminder to him that it is only common courtesy for him to respond to our specific points. There are many specific points which we have made which he has ignored. This is discourteous.

Moreover, if he continues to not respond to our points, then I will conclude that he has conceded our points; that is, he agrees with our points.

As it stands, his claim to respect the rules is in question. Since he has not responded to our specific points, he gives the impression that he does not respect the Catholicism of this board. Moreover, he gives the impression that he is singlemindedly promoting an agenda. In avoiding our points and escalating with peripheral questions, he has also gone off topic.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I’m similarly perplexed Ani. I think it’s time to write this one off.

 

[montanaman]

Robert in SD:

I’m similarly perplexed Ani. I think it’s time to write this one off.

It’s a hit and run, folks. I wonder how often that actually works.

 

[JimO]

Bloodsanctified,

I love the Word of God, as do most of the Catholics on these fora. I also love Jesus as my precious Savior, as do most of the Catholics on these fora. I know that I am saved by God’s Grace through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, not by any effort on my part, as do most of the Catholics on these fora. I seek God’s Will in my life and pray that the Holy Spirit will guide me in His perfect will, as do most of the Catholics on these fora.

My point is that you probably don’t understand or appreciate what a faithful Catholic believes and that is why you feel motivated to take the approach you have. I believe that you are sincere in your concern, but you should realize that your approach is a bit presumptuous in that you seem to assume that we Catholics do not love the Word of God and/or do not have saving personal relationships with Christ.

Having said all this, I also have a question for you. In developing your understanding of the Word of God, which translation are you relying on? You mention the possible flaws introduced by a “carnal translator”. Are you saying that you understand ancient Hebrew and Greek fluently or are you yourself relying on a “carnal” translator?