G
GKC
Guest
Purgatory would be avoided only if a plenary indulgence was granted. But sure, it implies an earlier entrance to Heaven, even if a partial indulgence is involved.
GKC
- Status
GKC
E
Eternaly_Secure
Guest
The books of the Apocrypha are not included in the Holy Bible because God gave men discernment to know that they were gnostic writings and have no place in the Bible.
God promised to preserve his Word and God cant lie.
The new testament is full of old testament prophecy, fulfilled and some yet to be fulfilled and they both agree with each other because they were both inspired by the Holy Spirit.
I dont know why Luther did annything, but he is not my authority, God is.
K
kalt
Guest
I’m glad that you read the intervening posts on Purgatory and indulgences and now understand that the Catholics who were buying indulgences weren’t side-stepping Confession.
But I’m still sure that some Catholics died unrepentant. Some, like those who buy off-sets today, probably thought that they could “get away” with more if they bought some time off. If those people had commited mortal sins and weren’t truly sorry (didn’t have perfect repentance) because they thougth that the punishment in Purgatory woudln’t be as long, they might be in a bit of trouble.
And aren’t those who believe in OSAS in the same precarious position? More so, I think.
Catholics don’t take sin lightly.
Will you post the doctrine by the pope who taught that selling indulgences was licit?
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, it’s disputed by me and probably by most Reformation scholars. It’s quite clearly untrue, as I see it. Luther seems to have been worried about the distortions of late medieval theology for some years before he showed any interest in the indulgence issue.
Edwin
G
Ginger2
Guest
Absolutely, if they believe in OSAS as defined by Catholics. That is indeed a false doctrine that is just as dangerous as those who mistakenly believe confession is a free pass to sin.
The Bible is clear one must repent to be forgiven.
Ginger
C
Contarini
Guest
That last sentence is a huge leap. Where do you get from “we haven’t always listened to the Holy Spirit perfectly” to “the Holy Spirit has never been involved”? That’s like saying that my wife and I don’t have a marriage because I don’t always listen to her. It presupposes a ridiculous and untenable level of perfectionism.
No, he didn’t. (Actually this could apply to both sentences in the quote. I don’t think he had sound theology. I don’t even think his Eucharistic theology was entirely sound, though from my perspective it was perhaps just barely acceptable. But he certainly did not say that the Eucharist was merely a symbol. He believed that in the Eucharist believers are lifted to heaven and eat the glorified Body and Blood of Christ truly though spiritually.)Calvin had sound theology???He taught that the Eucharist is only a symbol
Edwin
K
kalt
Guest
The OT that Jesus and the Jews in his area used the Greek OT (the Septuagint) which did include the books you call apocrypha. In about 100 AD (after Jesus died) the Hebrew canon was set and didn’t include those books.
How did God give men discernment, and by men you mean Luther, to know that the books had no place in the Bible?
How does God guarantee that the Bible you have is correct?
God promised to preserve his church, yet Luther changed the canon that was established in the 4th century. Specifically, he changed the OT that Jesus himself used.
How is that justified? How do you believe that God would approve of changing the OT he used?
C
Contarini
Guest
Right. But the difference is that no Catholic priest or theologian has ever taught that the sacrament of confession is effective without a sincere intention on the part of the penitent to turn from sin. There are a number of Baptists who do openly and explicitly teach that a person who willfully and persistently commits serious sin after having “accepted Jesus” will still go to heaven even if they never repent. I have heard this doctrine preached from the pulpit. It’s not just a misunderstanding by confused individuals.
Edwin
K
kalt
Guest
The Catholic Church teaches about “good Confession”. If anyone has doubts about what Confession is, the Catechism is a good place to start to educate himself.
As I understand OSAS, as described to me here by many, once a person has accepted Jesus as his savior, there is nothing he can do that would result in eternal damnation, including being an unrepentant murderer.
If there is another, more sensible, explanation of OSAS, I would love to hear it.
R
reteeks21
Guest
Is this your interpretation or can you point to a post that has explicitly stated that?
G
GKC
Guest
E
Eternaly_Secure
Guest
Please stop using Luther against me as I know little about him and I only follow Christ.
Its not easy explaining things sometimes as I will say that the Holy Spirit gives men discernment and I know you will say something like, how do I know who the Holy Spirit gives discernment to and round and round we go.
I trust that the scriptures in my Bible are the only ones that should be there and anything else is not scripture.
All other writings are agnostic and go against other sciptures.
To know this you need one of two things, or both and that is the Holy Spirit ,or, if it is possible a huge amount of study behind you comparing scripture with these other writings.
God has given us his Word, if you dont believe that, I cant help you.
K
kalt
Guest
I don’t know if I can find a post on it, but I asked open questions about OSAS and sin, and that’s the answer I (without exception) got.
It seems that OSAS really doesn’t make sense when you actually pull it apart and examine it.
It probably makes people feel good, but it doesn’t make sense.
Sometimes the response what that a person who is an unrepentant murderer is actually repentant or that God will save him anyway.
Other times, more often, the fact that the person murdered someone is seen as proof that the person was never saved to begiin with.
So we ask how someone who has accepted Jesus as his savior can suddenly become unsaved. How could he have thought he accepted Jesus but really didn’t. How, then, can anyone be sure? You think you’ve accepted Jesus, but maybe you didn’t.
And does that person have to be baptized again, because the first on didn’t take? If baptism is an outward sign of an internal state (as I think the OSAS believe it to be), how can an unsaved person be baptized? Is baptism, then, sometimes a false sign?
You see, there are all kinds of logical problems with the OSAS postiion. And no one here has been able to define it so that it makes sense.
Can you?
B
bobregan
Guest
You might be misunderstanding me, Edwin. My point is Christ did guarantee Peter in Matt: 16 “that what you bound on earth will be bound in Heaven.”, the Holy Spirit will be there. Read the other posts. Is the Catholic Church right and correct on it’s doctrines?..yes. We have to trust the HS.
Can the Catholic Church be wrong on disiciplines of the Church? Yes.
C
Contarini
Guest
All proponents of OSAS agree that nothing a person does after “salvation” affects the person’s eternal destiny. But they differ among themselves as to whether a “saved” person might possibly commit serious, habitual sin and remain in it without repentance. There are varying views on this. Only a few OSAS proponents would say that a person who had been saved could totally reject the call to follow Jesus. But pretty much all of them would say that a saved person could commit a serious sin at some point. Such a person would not need to worry about dying before they got a chance to repent. But most OSAS proponents (particularly those who hold to full-blown Calvinism, but even many who do not) would say that a saved person would never be happy or comfortable in their sin and would eventually repent if given the time. Indeed, some traditional Calvinists (and even some non-Calvinist fundamentalists) have a very high expectation of just how holy a life a truly regenerate person will live, allowing for the occasional lapse.
In other words, Calvinists believe that regeneration affects how you live. It doesn’t guarantee that you will never sin, but it does make you the kind of person who sins only through momentary weakness and whose life on the whole is characterized by a hatred of sin and a love of holiness. Many Baptists and other American evangelicals have abandoned the Calvinist belief in predestination but still believe in OSAS. But most of them still want to say something like the above.
Edwin
R
reteeks21
Guest
What about Catholics who don’t cooperate with grace? It ispractically the same concept. I have stated several times that people can ride on clouds of grace and get away with whatever they feel like doing. Anyone who says so is grossly mistaken. Doesn’t scripture speak to people saying one thing and doing the opposite? That is the same thing I and others have said. There is no contradiction in that. Continuing to say that OSAS implies freedom to sin away and still make it to heaven is dishonest.
C
Contarini
Guest
I understand that Catholics think that trust in the Holy Spirit guarantees that the Catholic Church will be correct in its doctrines. My point is that denial of infallibility by Protestants does not constitute a denial of the presence of the Holy Spirit with the Church. The phrase “what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” does not self-evidently refer to doctrinal infallibility. (In fact, it doesn’t self-evidently refer to anything–its meaning is disputable, like so many other things in Scripture, as Catholics are fond of reminding naive Protestants but sometimes seem to forget themselves when it’s convenient!)
Edwin
K
kalt
Guest
You have to talk to Luther, because he is the one who changed the Bible. Jesus used one version of the OT and you are using another. You are using another, because Luther decided to change it.Please stop using Luther against me as I know little about him and I only follow Christ.
Its not easy explaining things sometimes as I will say that the Holy Spirit gives men discernment and I know you will say something like, how do I know who the Holy Spirit gives discernment to and round and round we go.
I trust that the scriptures in my Bible are the only ones that should be there and anything else is not scripture.
All other writings are agnostic and go against other sciptures.
To know this you need one of two things, or both and that is the Holy Spirit ,or, if it is possible a huge amount of study behind you comparing scripture with these other writings.
God has given us his Word, if you dont believe that, I cant help you.
How can you say, then, that Luther is immaterial to this discussion.
And I am not using him “against” you. I am discussing the canon of the Bible–specifically how it was changed by Luther.
You are claiming that the books Luther removed are not inspired. Would Jesus have used a version of the OT that wasn’t inspired?
How do you know that the NT books are inspired? The canon was determined in the 4th century by the Catholic Church? Why do you accept this canon?
I do believe that all of the books of the Bible are inspired, and I have the assurance that God gave to his church to know that the canon is correct.
If you don’t believe that God gave this assurance to his Church, how do you know that the canon you accept is correct?
You know nothing of Luther, so how do you know that he was protected from error when removing some of the OT books from the canon that was decided in the 4th century by the Church that Jesus founded and gave his assurances to?
K
kalt
Guest
Catholics don’t believe that a person who is once saved is always saved. There is no assurance of salvation. Jesus redeemed us all on the cross, and salvation is offered to all.
If you can explain what OSAS really is, I would appreciate it. So far everyone has said that once you’re saved, either you won’t sin (which is rubbish) or that there is no penalty for sin (which is also rubbish).
You seem to have a different understanding of OSAS. Will you explain it here?
- Status