What's Your Authority?

[eazyduzit]

Eazy,

Since the topic of Purgatory has come up again, I would like to point you (or anyone else who feels like answering) back to my post # 332.

I don’t believe that I received a response to this post from anyone who denies the existence of Purgatory. Like I said, I know you have a lot of people with whom you are interacting. However, if you (or someone else) would like to think it through out loud here, I think you might be surprised to find that you do indeed have a concept of a post mortem purification; albeit, maybe not identical to our doctrine of Purgatory.

So if anyone would look back to my “Johnny” from that post and answer, or answer the following questions, I feel it could be of benefit.

Here are 3 questions:

1.) Do you believe that most Christians are still sinning at the end of their lives or that they still have attachments to sins at the end of their lives?

2.) Do you believe there will be any Christian in Heaven who is still sinning or who has attachments to sin?

3.) If you answered yes to 1, and no to 2, how do you explain this? What happens after death to those people who fall into 1 above so that 2 can be true?

Thanks,

Nick

To answer your questions, I have only the Bible to go on. Heb. 10:14 says: “For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”. This says I already have perfection. Should I disbelieve it? Do I still sin? Yes, because I am still in the flesh, but when I die, I will thankfully leave that behind. In my spirit, I will never need to be made more perfect, because Jesus has done it. After the second Coming, I will receive a new body which will not sin.
1Jn3:2 clarifies, Beloved, now we are the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is".

I’m sorry if this makes no sense to the Catholic, for it leaves no place for Purgatory.

 

[eazyduzit]

You don’t have to take my word for it… The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation in John 3:5.

And Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, “Baptism now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21),

Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), “We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”

Erich, you’re doing it again. Jesus never used the word baptism in all of ch. 3. You are adding to His words.
He uses water again as an illustration in 4:14 but its not about baptism just because the word “water” is used.
Again in 7:38, water is used as an illustration of the Spirit, but it doesn’t refer to baptism just because of the word “water”.

Your interpretation of Peter makes him contradict himself. In1:23 he says “Being born again…by the word of God”

Again in 2Pt 3:5 “The Lord is…not willing that any should perish,but that all should come to repentance”. (NOT Baptism)

The Bible does not contradict. It is an errant interpretation that makes it seem so.

 

[LionHeart777]

To answer your questions, I have only the Bible to go on. Heb. 10:14 says: “For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”. This says I already have perfection. Should I disbelieve it? Do I still sin? Yes, because I am still in the flesh, but when I die, I will thankfully leave that behind. In my spirit, I will never need to be made more perfect, because Jesus has done it. After the second Coming, I will receive a new body which will not sin.
1Jn3:2 clarifies, Beloved, now we are the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is".

I’m sorry if this makes no sense to the Catholic, for it leaves no place for Purgatory.

(emphasis mine.)

I think you answered, and this is one possible answer I believe I anticipated (maybe because I once held a similar belief as a Protestant).

I think the bigger issue, to pan out some, would be the differences in belief on justification (panning out even further, the bigger issue is authority.) Also, perhaps differences in anthropology? (What do you believe man is composed of–body & soul? Or more?)

So it would appear that we have more to discuss before coming to some sort of agreement on this topic; it appears your view absolutely disallows for a post mortem purification of the soul (or does it?)

I’ll come back, but I wanted to comment on a couple of things first:

1.) It seems you think that it is the body itself (the literal flesh & blood) that hinders a Christian soul from entering Heaven immediately. Once the Christians’ body and soul are separated at death, the soul can enter (so it seems in your view.)

2.) Hebrews also speaks about “…the spirits of the just…” being “…made perfect…” (12:23) (Emphasis mine). St. Peter speaks about Christians being “…made partakers of the divine nature…” (1 Pt. 1:4) This (latter verse at least) refers to the process of theosis/divinization which entail God not just declaring a man just, but actually making him so (with our cooperation in the process of course.) As St. Athanasius famously put it when speaking of the Incarnation: “‘For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.’” (CCC Par. 460 citing De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.)

Along with Orthodox Christians (Eastern and Oriental) we believe that the process of sanctification can continue post mortem if it has not been completed on this side of the grave.

But yet we might still find some agreement. Do you believe in a sanctification process? If so, do you believe it ends at death?

 

[eazyduzit]

Interesting assertion. But you’ve failed to provide any explanation for even one of the citations provided being in the Bible if your assertion is correct.

False dichotomy.
Christ’s sacrifice is applied to us through God’s grace alone, by the means He has prescribed.

Just as in the OT: only God could miraculously cure Leprosy.

Check out 2Kings 5.

The water was the MEANS by which God cured Naaman.

It’s not the water doing the job; it’s the following of Jesus’ command.

Water was not the means by which God cures. God does everything by the power of His word. Water was only the MEANS by which God TESTED the obedience of Naaman.

Jesus command is for all men everywhere to repent, and then be baptised.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Water was not the means by which God cures.

God uses lots of things to heal, easy.

Did Jesus make mud to heal someone of blindness? :yup:

John 9:6-7
6 After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. 7 “Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

Did people take handkerchiefs which Paul had touched to heal others? :yup:

Acts 19:11-13
11 God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.

God does everything by the power of His word. Water was only the MEANS by which God TESTED the obedience of Naaman.

Jesus command is for all men everywhere to repent, and then be baptised.

Yep. He has chosen to forgive us through the washing of rebirth in baptism.

 

[Erich]

To answer your questions, I have only the Bible to go on. Heb. 10:14 says: “For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”. This says I already have perfection.

Eazy, you’re doing it again. Rom. 3:23 tells us, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” This says that all (or, almost all… there are clear exceptions) here on earth are *not *perfect.

And, how are we to be united with Christ and made perfect? At the beginning of Romans 6, St. Paul actually explains how we share in the death and new life of Christ: It is through baptism. This idea that we are made one with Christ through baptism is reiterated by Paul in Colossians 2:12, and in Galatians 3:27 he likens baptism to “being clothed with Christ.” Furthermore, the fuller idea of salvation being a union with Christ fits with much more of the New Testament, which speaks time and again of being in a profound union with the living Lord—rather than simply being saved or justified by a personal belief in Christ.

The passage in Romans 6 (backed up by Colossians 2) is not the only evidence from the New Testament that baptism is effective and therefore necessary for salvation. The apostles Peter and John confirm St. Paul’s teaching. In Acts 2, when St. Peter is preaching at Pentecost, his hearers ask what they must do to be saved, and he replies, “Repent and be baptized.” In 1 Peter 3, Noah’s ark is referred to as a type of baptism, and Peter writes, “In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:20-21).

The most famous New Testament evidence for the efficacy and necessity of baptism is in John’s Gospel. When Nicodemus comes to visit Jesus by night, Jesus says that a person cannot enter the kingdom of God without being born again. Nicodemus asks how a man might enter again into his mother’s womb and Jesus corrects him, saying, “No one can enter the kingdom of heaven unless he is born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:3-5). From the earliest days of the Church this passage has been understood to refer to baptism, and this interpretation is virtually unanimous down through history. By what authority do you claim that the Church has gotten it wrong all these millennia?

You may object that Romans 10:9-10, Acts 16:31, Luke 23:43, and passages like them say nothing about baptism… but actions speak louder than words. For example, Acts 16:33 says that “immediately they were baptized.” Baptism therefore seems to be the Biblical way one makes the faith commitment. This is just one example from the Acts of the Apostles where faith is accompanied by baptism, and it is assumed that both are necessary. Two other clear accounts are Philip’s encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, and Peter’s immediate baptism of Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. The pattern in Acts is consistent: preaching, repentance of the hearers, belief in Christ, and immediate baptism. Why would this be the case if the apostles did not believe that baptism was both effective and necessary for salvation?

That said, simply having water poured over one’s head with the Trinitarian formula does not mean a person is instantly saved forever. Baptism incorporates the individual into the Body of Christ, and within the whole life of the Church an individual’s baptism must be accompanied by faith. The developing faith of the individual is empowered by the grace of baptism, and nurtured by the whole Church, but if the Christian faith is rejected or never positively affirmed, the baptism is not magically effective.

 

[eazyduzit]

Yes I agree that Rm.3:23 applies to everyone, but no longer to those who are saved. We now inherit the righteousness and perfection of Christ. Does Rome not believe this?

And yes, I agree that according to Rm6, we are baptised into the death of Christ. Why? Death will free us from sin, that is, in the flesh, for we have already received a new spirit,which is without sin, but the only thing to be done with the “flesh” is to crucify it (v.6), and let it be “buried with Christ”(V.4) But then it also explains that we should live with Him. In what way? V.5 says it will be in the “likeness of His resurrection”. What did Jesus have in the resurrection? I hope you will agree it was a “glorified body”. So this is a promise that we must believe in for the future. This is what we call the “salvation of the body” that we receive when Christ “shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation”(Heb9:28).

So then we see that the “salvation” in Rm6 is not the same salvation as that in ch. 10.
It is for the body, not for the spirit.

Once again you offer me 1Pt.3:21 as a proof of baptismal regeneration and once again I will explain why it doesn’t qualify as a proof text, because it can be seen another way. You

always insist on ignoring the “BUT” in this verse. The reason for the use of the word “but” is
that it changes or modifies the meaning of what is before and supplants it with what follows.
Meaning that the "baptism that now saves us " is now “the answer of a good conscience toward God”. In other words, repentace and turning to Christ. Do you see that by the use of logic that this could be a meaning for the verse?

Secondly, as I said before, your interpretation makes Peter contradict himself. This is simply not acceptable.

As I have said before, Jn.3 does not even mention baptism so this has no chance to qualify as a proof text. The word Water can just as easily mean “Spirit”, as it does in other times in John’s Gospel. The verse can also read: “be born of the water which is the Spirit”

Baptism is not the means of salvation as proved in Acts 10:44 “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the word”. Then after this they were baptised. Luke then explains in ch.11:18 that God “granted repentance unto life”. He did not grant baptism unto life.

Here is a list of verses that connect “believing” with salvation.

Jn:12, 3:15, 3:16, 3:18, 4:14, 5:24, 6:40, 6:47
Acts 2:21, 3:19, 11:14, 10:44
Rm. 1:16, 3:25, 8:9,10
1Cor.15:2
1Pt.1:23, 2Pt. 3:9
1Jn.1:9

The preponderance of evidence is on my side.
The Bible is clear that a man can receive nothing from God except it be by faith.
If your goal is to create even a shade of doubt that I am wrong, you will need many more verses for even the ones you present are dubious.

 

[eazyduzit]

(emphasis mine.)

I think you answered, and this is one possible answer I believe I anticipated (maybe because I once held a similar belief as a Protestant).

I think the bigger issue, to pan out some, would be the differences in belief on justification (panning out even further, the bigger issue is authority.) Also, perhaps differences in anthropology? (What do you believe man is composed of–body & soul? Or more?)

So it would appear that we have more to discuss before coming to some sort of agreement on this topic; it appears your view absolutely disallows for a post mortem purification of the soul (or does it?)

I’ll come back, but I wanted to comment on a couple of things first:

1.) It seems you think that it is the body itself (the literal flesh & blood) that hinders a Christian soul from entering Heaven immediately. Once the Christians’ body and soul are separated at death, the soul can enter (so it seems in your view.)

2.) Hebrews also speaks about “…the spirits of the just…” being “…made perfect…” (12:23) (Emphasis mine). St. Peter speaks about Christians being “…made partakers of the divine nature…” (1 Pt. 1:4) This (latter verse at least) refers to the process of theosis/divinization which entail God not just declaring a man just, but actually making him so (with our cooperation in the process of course.) As St. Athanasius famously put it when speaking of the Incarnation: “‘For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.’” (CCC Par. 460 citing De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.)

Along with Orthodox Christians (Eastern and Oriental) we believe that the process of sanctification can continue post mortem if it has not been completed on this side of the grave.

But yet we might still find some agreement. Do you believe in a sanctification process? If so, do you believe it ends at death?

#1. Right, it is clear that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom”.

Man is body, soul, and spirit. We were made in God’s image. This reflects the Trinity. I also see it in 1Thes.5:23, and Heb.4:12.

#2. The verse in 1Pt. means that we share in the Zoe life of God or that we can experience life as God knows it. It does not mean that we “become God”. That is a new age deception.

Yes, I believe in a sanctification process and I also believe that the salvation of the soul is progressive, but not the the spirit. We are given a renewed spirit(born again), but not the body or soul. We must work to save our soul. (Lk. 9:23) Do a search of the Greek word Psuche and it will be more clear.

I don’t believe sin is an issue after death. Do you disbelieve 1Jn.3:2? The theif on the cross next to Jesus went to Paradise, not purgatory. What I think is that for some, their will need to be a lot of reeducation after death, but sin has been fully and completely dealt with. God doesn’t even remember it.

 

[Ron_Obvious]

**Interesting, eazy. There are countless denominations and faith communities out there that are doing just that, they “read what scripture says.” Interesting how many of them arrive at different, contradictory conclusions to the meaning behind, “what scripture says” on countless issues.

Eazy, every time you and the rest of our protestant breathren, “read what scripture says,” and come to different, contradictory interpretations on baptism (for example), whose right? By what authority do you declare them right? Like this thread was suppose to be about, it all comes down to authority. Where do you get your authority to authentically interpret the scriptures, eazy (because that is what you are doing, despite your denial above) ? Do you have a divine mandate to tell anyone their interpretation is wrong? I don’t expect an answer to this because you’ve been ducking the issue of authority, understandably. **

BTW, the issue of authority is addressed in scripture despite your failure (or unwillingness) to see it, as myself and other posters have alluded to.

You still haven’t addressed the issue of authority, eazy. Now you’re back to arguing baptism doesn’t save you, despite 1 Peter 3:21 saying it does. After all, that’s, “what scripture says.” Why can’t you just admit that you are interpreting the scriptures, and placing that interpretation above the very Church that is responsible for you having the scriptures? Address the authority issue and stop ducking it.

You said,

“The preponderance of evidence is on my side.” Clearly it is not, but you apparently have yourself convinced.

“The Bible is clear that a man can receive nothing from God except it be by faith.” **More private judgement theology. And you’re wrong again. **

“If your goal is to create even a shade of doubt that I am wrong, you will need many more verses for even the ones you present are dubious.” **You are wrong, eazy, as it is clear to so many of us. It will not take “many more verses”, but maybe a little help from the Spirit and a dose of humility on your part to convince you, because you don’t have the final say when it comes to scriptural interpretation, even though you seem to think you do. Rather than trusting your own understanding of scripture, you should be listening to the leaders Jesus left behind, the apostles and their successors.

“HE WHO HEARS YOU HEARS ME.” (LUKE 10:16)
**

 

[Ron_Obvious]

You still haven’t addressed the issue of authority, eazy. Now you’re back to arguing baptism doesn’t save you, despite 1 Peter 3:21 saying it does. After all, that’s, “what scripture says.” Why can’t you just admit that you are interpreting the scriptures, and placing that interpretation above the very Church that is responsible for you having the scriptures? Address the authority issue and stop ducking it.

You said,

“The preponderance of evidence is on my side.” Clearly it is not, but you apparently have yourself convinced.

“The Bible is clear that a man can receive nothing from God except it be by faith.” **More private judgement theology. And you’re wrong again. **

“If your goal is to create even a shade of doubt that I am wrong, you will need many more verses for even the ones you present are dubious.” **You are wrong, eazy, as it is clear to so many of us. It will not take “many more verses”, but maybe a little help from the Spirit and a dose of humility on your part to convince you, because you don’t have the final say when it comes to scriptural interpretation, even though you seem to think you do. Rather than trusting your own understanding of scripture, you should be listening to the leaders Jesus left behind, the apostles and their successors.

“HE WHO HEARS YOU HEARS ME.” (LUKE 10:16)
**

Please address the issue of authority. Tell us where you get your authority to tell anyone your interpretation is correct, and those who disagree with you are wrong. Answer that directly, please.

 

[JMM1957]

I don’t believe sin is an issue after death. Do you disbelieve 1Jn.3:2? The thief on the cross next to Jesus went to Paradise, not purgatory. What I think is that for some, their will need to be a lot of reeducation after death, but sin has been fully and completely dealt with. God doesn’t even remember it.

As I have said before, purgatory is not defined in terms of how long a period of time we experience it, it could be instantaneous. Therefore, in that case, the thief on the cross next to Jesus surely could be in heaven that very day.

 

[LionHeart777]

#1. Right, it is clear that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom”.

Would you mind explaining what you think that verse means?

Man is body, soul, and spirit. We were made in God’s image. This reflects the Trinity. I also see it in 1Thes.5:23, and Heb.4:12.

So then we do have a difference in anthropology because, if I am not mistaken, the teaching of the Catholic Church is that man is composed of body & soul. As the CCC says:

“367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people ‘wholly’, with ‘spirit and soul and body’ kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 ‘Spirit’ signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238”

Thus, Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary (1859 ed.) comments of 1Thes.5:23:

“Ver. 23. Spirit, and soul. The former marks the understanding, the latter the will: hence these two terms give the two principal faculties of the soul. (Bible de Vence):”

Why do you think it is that more often body and soul alone are used in various Bible passages? (2 Machabees 6:30, Wisdom 9:15, Micheas (Micah) 6:7, Ecclesiasticus 31:37, Matthew 10:28, Tobias (Tobit) 4:3, Wisdom 1:4, 3 Kings (1 Kings) 17:21, Isaias (Isaiah) 51:23, Ecclesiasticus 30:15)

#2. The verse in 1Pt. means that we share in the Zoe life of God or that we can experience life as God knows it. It does not mean that we “become God”. That is a new age deception.

Do you believe that St. Athanasius, that hero who so valiently defended the Trinity against the Arain heresy, was duped by a “new age deception”? No, he is referring to the Church’s teaching on divinization which is something else. His words may need explaining to some of our ears of course, but that is all he is teaching.

Yes, I believe in a sanctification process and I also believe that the salvation of the soul is progressive, but not the the spirit. We are given a renewed spirit(born again), but not the body or soul. We must work to save our soul. (Lk. 9:23) Do a search of the Greek word Psuche and it will be more clear.

When do you believe the sanctification process is complete? According to your view, what happens to the renewed spirit of the one who’s soul ends up not being saved?

I don’t believe sin is an issue after death. Do you disbelieve 1Jn.3:2? The theif on the cross next to Jesus went to Paradise, not purgatory. What I think is that for some, their will need to be a lot of reeducation after death, but sin has been fully and completely dealt with. God doesn’t even remember it.

Just to clarify, I agree with the CCC, that teaches:

"1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592 The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul–a destiny which can be different for some and for others.593

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification594 or immediately,595 – or immediate and everlasting damnation.596

At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.597"

I do not disbelieve 1 Jn.3:2, but I’m not sure what point you are trying to make by referencing it. If God “doesn’t even remember” our sins (as you seem to be saying), how will He judge us?

 

[eazyduzit]

You still haven’t addressed the issue of authority, eazy. Now you’re back to arguing baptism doesn’t save you, despite 1 Peter 3:21 saying it does. After all, that’s, “what scripture says.” Why can’t you just admit that you are interpreting the scriptures, and placing that interpretation above the very Church that is responsible for you having the scriptures? Address the authority issue and stop ducking it.

You said,

“The preponderance of evidence is on my side.” Clearly it is not, but you apparently have yourself convinced.

“The Bible is clear that a man can receive nothing from God except it be by faith.” **More private judgement theology. And you’re wrong again. **

“If your goal is to create even a shade of doubt that I am wrong, you will need many more verses for even the ones you present are dubious.” **You are wrong, eazy, as it is clear to so many of us. It will not take “many more verses”, but maybe a little help from the Spirit and a dose of humility on your part to convince you, because you don’t have the final say when it comes to scriptural interpretation, even though you seem to think you do. Rather than trusting your own understanding of scripture, you should be listening to the leaders Jesus left behind, the apostles and their successors.

“HE WHO HEARS YOU HEARS ME.” (LUKE 10:16)
**

I will address the authority issue (as I have done before), but only from a biblical perspective. I am not an authority, the scripture and the H.S. are the authority. The reason people get deceived by cults is that they listen to men claiming authority.

The passage that best describes how the apostles are to conduct themselves is in Mt. 23. Jesus describes how the scribes and Pharisees set themselves up as authorities. Does Jesus then tell them: “You shall likewise have authority over others”. No, Its quite the opposite. What He really said was “But be ye not called rabbi, for one is your master even Christ”; and all ye are brethren".(v.8) That is, no one is superior. And then in the next verse, they are not to choose one person on the earth to single out to call “father”. And then, they are not to be called “masters”.

This is an unmistakable teaching on the authority issue.
As St. Peter said “As EVERY man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God”(1Pt.4:10,11a).

I do not just flat out judge someone as wrong as you do. That is the job of scripture and an open mind. I seems to me you are determined to be closed minded. You keep using 1Pt.3:21as your proof text while refusing to see the “but” in the middle of the sentence. You do not need to rely on me here but ask an English teacher what difference it makes. You seem to ignore whatever you want. And as I have pointed out before, it is wrong to assume that Peter contradicts himself. We must at least operate within commonly accepted rules of logic?

 

[eazyduzit]

Would you mind explaining what you think that verse means?

So then we do have a difference in anthropology because, if I am not mistaken, the teaching of the Catholic Church is that man is composed of body & soul. As the CCC says:

“367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people ‘wholly’, with ‘spirit and soul and body’ kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 ‘Spirit’ signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238”

Thus, Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary (1859 ed.) comments of 1Thes.5:23:

“Ver. 23. Spirit, and soul. The former marks the understanding, the latter the will: hence these two terms give the two principal faculties of the soul. (Bible de Vence):”

Why do you think it is that more often body and soul alone are used in various Bible passages? (2 Machabees 6:30, Wisdom 9:15, Micheas (Micah) 6:7, Ecclesiasticus 31:37, Matthew 10:28, Tobias (Tobit) 4:3, Wisdom 1:4, 3 Kings (1 Kings) 17:21, Isaias (Isaiah) 51:23, Ecclesiasticus 30:15)

Do you believe that St. Athanasius, that hero who so valiently defended the Trinity against the Arain heresy, was duped by a “new age deception”? No, he is referring to the Church’s teaching on divinization which is something else. His words may need explaining to some of our ears of course, but that is all he is teaching.

When do you believe the sanctification process is complete? According to your view, what happens to the renewed spirit of the one who’s soul ends up not being saved?

Just to clarify, I agree with the CCC, that teaches:

"1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592 The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul–a destiny which can be different for some and for others.593

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification594 or immediately,595 – or immediate and everlasting damnation.596

At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.597"

I do not disbelieve 1 Jn.3:2, but I’m not sure what point you are trying to make by referencing it. If God “doesn’t even remember” our sins (as you seem to be saying), how will He judge us?

The point in 1Jn.3:2 is that to “become like him” according to this promise, seems to depend on simply beholding Him in His glory rather than being reformed by suffering or torture or other purgatorial persuasions.

CCC1021 seems strange to me. If one is truly born again, he has already accepted everything that is of Christ and bears the mark of the Spirit.

Secondly, death does not “put an end to human life”, only the physical part. Human life continues in the soul because the soul is the life force. When it departs, the physical ceases to function.

How will God Judge us? He has already judged our sins in Christ and the penalty has already been satisfied. Judgement cannot happen a second time. However, our work will be strictly judged. This has greatly concerned me of late(since hearing a prophetic word of warning). I believe many will see their works burn, and I would like to discuss it but it might be better to try a new thread. What does the CCC mean by “different destinies”? The bible speaks only of heaven or hell.

I do not believe in a “particular judgement” (1022). Jn.3:18 states that “He who believes on Him is not condemned, (judged) but he that believeth not is condemned already”. What need is there of another judgement? Destiny has already been determined.

I would also like to discuss spirit, soul and body, but perhaps on a another thread. If you would check out the book “Salvation of the Soul” by Watchman Nee it would tell you in advance where I am coming from.

Eazy

 

[Ron_Obvious]

I will address the authority issue (as I have done before), but only from a biblical perspective. I am not an authority, the scripture and the H.S. are the authority. The reason people get deceived by cults is that they listen to men claiming authority.

**The Church is not an authority? Scripture seems to disagree with that notion. The Church is the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3:15) Jesus told his apostles, “He who hears you hears me.” (Luke 10:16) And then there’s the great commission (Matthew 28: 18-20) **

The passage that best describes how the apostles are to conduct themselves is in Mt. 23. Jesus describes how the scribes and Pharisees set themselves up as authorities. Does Jesus then tell them: “You shall likewise have authority over others”. No, Its quite the opposite. What He really said was “But be ye not called rabbi, for one is your master even Christ”; and all ye are brethren".(v.8) That is, no one is superior. And then in the next verse, they are not to choose one person on the earth to single out to call “father”. And then, they are not to be called “masters”.

What Jesus actually said in Matthew 23 is, "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach and do not practice." (Matthew 23:2-3)

Eazy, those who sat in Moses’ seat had legitimate authority, given by God. You are misunderstanding that verse if you think they “set themselves up as authorities.” Their instruction was not to be disregarded. They may have been hypocrites and their conduct was not to be accepted, but their authority was legit. Nothing has changed today.

This is an unmistakable teaching on the authority issue.
As St. Peter said “As EVERY man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God”(1Pt.4:10,11a).

This verse talks about ministering to one another and building up the Church. This verse doesn’t address authority. Why don’t you deal with the verses that actually do instead of cherrypicking verses you like because you think they support your position?

I do not just flat out judge someone as wrong as you do. That is the job of scripture and an open mind. I seems to me you are determined to be closed minded. You keep using 1Pt.3:21as your proof text while refusing to see the “but” in the middle of the sentence. You do not need to rely on me here but ask an English teacher what difference it makes. You seem to ignore whatever you want. And as I have pointed out before, it is wrong to assume that Peter contradicts himself. We must at least operate within commonly accepted rules of logic?

**I’m not trying to judge you as wrong (though I did say that, sorry) but the fact is the Church has spoken on a number of issues, baptism being one of them. The Church has that authority because she received it from Christ. You say “its the job of scripture”. Who’s understanding of scripture, eazy? Are you trying to say even though the verse says “Baptism saves you” it doesn’t really mean that? Are you saying the Church is wrong, and eazy is right? Is there something the Church has missed on that verse? Or is it possible that your understanding could be flawed? Is it possible, eazy?

And in actuality, you came to a judgement in a prior post when you said the Church, “went off the rails.” You say you’re not an authority, but have no problem placing your interpretation of the scriptures ahead of the Church that is responsible for you having them. Please address that.**

 

[eazyduzit]

**I’m not trying to judge you as wrong (though I did say that, sorry) but the fact is the Church has spoken on a number of issues, baptism being one of them. The Church has that authority because she received it from Christ. You say “its the job of scripture”. Who’s understanding of scripture, eazy? Are you trying to say even though the verse says “Baptism saves you” it doesn’t really mean that? Are you saying the Church is wrong, and eazy is right? Is there something the Church has missed on that verse? Or is it possible that your understanding could be flawed? Is it possible, eazy?

And in actuality, you came to a judgement in a prior post when you said the Church, “went off the rails.” You say you’re not an authority, but have no problem placing your interpretation of the scriptures ahead of the Church that is responsible for you having them. Please address that.**

Your reply to Mt.23 revealed something for me. You said “It is the same today”. Now I understand where your coming from. Having the Holy Spirit with us and in us would seem to make no difference for you. For me, it makes all the difference. I can trust the leading of the Spirit. The Spirit is not partial to any man. He does not give more to the Pope. He fills anyone to the degree that he is willing to empty himself.

Returning to the test case of baptismal regeneration I have pointed to several problems for you:

I have shown from Acts 10 that the Spirit was given before baptism.

I have shown how your interpretation of 1Pt. is contradictory.

I have shown that Rm. 6 is not about the new birth.

Yes, I realise you are only repeating the historic position of the Church. That worked well 700 years ago when most people did not have free access to the Bible and all the teaching and info on TV and internet, but today you need to be more logical if you expect folks to believe what you say.

Here’s the the thing about infallible authority, it locks one into a position that you can’t change or modify. For example, we see how in this time God is using and raising up women in the church but Rome cannot follow the Spirit because it is locked into it’s own history.
Then what about new questions such as gay marriage? Will Rome remain biblical on this?Many liberal churches have caved to the culture. If you have enough liberals in power in Rome, will they stray from the bible also? We don’t know. They have infallible power to do as the want. Do you see how this can lead to danger? I am not alone. Malachi Martin who knew much more about the Church than most, thought that it had already lead itself into apostasy. Can you know for sure that you’re right?

 

[onenow1]

I have skimmed over these this thread, maybe I am out of order hear; if I understand, ezyduzit correctly all Christians were given the keys to the kingdom; and in respect to the Lords passion and death he is correct. The problem as I see it, and right in front of our faces is. So many Christian sects without an authority, that follow there own terms of morality without the wisdom of the Church. Another problem, so many Catholics that follow there own moral prescription for one reason or another Not following the wisdom of the Church. God in the beginning gave us a leaders{Moses} to follow; today and for 2000yrs. Peter is his name. We are the sheep that Jesus spoke of Peter, about feeding His sheep. Jesus does not want His flock wandering off into their own PRIDE; in the religious things of God, namely the ten commandments and the new covenant in His Blood.

God Bless

 

[LionHeart777]

The point in 1Jn.3:2 is that to “become like him” according to this promise, seems to depend on simply beholding Him in His glory rather than being reformed by suffering or torture or other purgatorial persuasions.

I still don’t understand why you think 1 Jn.3:2 contradicts Purgatory. I don’t agree. The verse says:

“Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is.”



Here is Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary.

Here is St. Augustine on 1 John 3:2 (scroll down)

CCC1021 seems strange to me. If one is truly born again, he has already accepted everything that is of Christ and bears the mark of the Spirit.

Secondly, death does not “put an end to human life”, only the physical part. Human life continues in the soul because the soul is the life force. When it departs, the physical ceases to function.

When Par. 1021 of the CCC says “Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ…”, I believe it means by “death”, that moment when the body is separated from the soul. I think you taking the text to be saying something it’s not.

How will God Judge us? He has already judged our sins in Christ and the penalty has already been satisfied. Judgement cannot happen a second time. However, our work will be strictly judged. This has greatly concerned me of late(since hearing a prophetic word of warning). I believe many will see their works burn, and I would like to discuss it but it might be better to try a new thread. What does the CCC mean by “different destinies”? The bible speaks only of heaven or hell.

I do not believe in a “particular judgement” (1022). Jn.3:18 states that “He who believes on Him is not condemned, (judged) but he that believeth not is condemned already”. What need is there of another judgement? Destiny has already been determined.

In the Nicene Creed, it says that Jesus Christ, “…shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead…” This refers to the general judgement (to my understanding.) To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia, “The Catholic doctrine of the particular judgment is this: *that immediately after death the eternal destiny of each separated soul is decided by the just judgment of God. *” (Bold mine) (To see this doctrine proved from Scripture, you can click the link I gave.) In Catholic teaching, there are only two eternal destinies; Heaven and Hell. If you look at Par. 1022 of the CCC (which I also cited above), it says:

"1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification594 or immediately,595 – or immediate and everlasting damnation.596

At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.597"

This paragraph, if I understand correctly, is referring to the particular judgement I just spoke of. By “death”, I believe it means when the soul becomes separated from the body. Here we see the two destines; Heaven and Hell. The post-mortem “purification” spoken of is Purgatory; it is not an eternal destiny. While some refer to Purgatory as a “place”, I believe that the concept of purgatory as a “place” is an acceptable Theological opinion; it is not a part of the dogma (cf. this Catholic Answers tract). That is why I believe the CCC doesn’t refer to it as such.

I would also like to discuss spirit, soul and body, but perhaps on a another thread. If you would check out the book “Salvation of the Soul” by Watchman Nee it would tell you in advance where I am coming from.

Eazy

Sure, feel free to open another thread. There are others who are more knowledgable on this forum than I. Also, I would like to welcome the moderator(s) to split this threat if they would like (not that my invitation is needed), as Purgatory is not the point of this thread. Here is a (2 part) question though that is related to authority, that might help pick up the thread some.

1.) Does there exist an authority that determines which Books belong in the Bible? Where can one find that authority?

–Nick

 

[Ron_Obvious]

I can trust the leading of the Spirit. The Spirit is not partial to any man. He does not give more to the Pope. He fills anyone to the degree that he is willing to empty himself.

**Interesting eazy. There are countless non-Catholic Christian communities that would say something similar to this. They are all going to, “trust the leading of the Spirit.” Problem is people claiming to be led by the “spirit” are coming to contradictory positions on numerous issues (Baptism, once saved always saved, etc. etc. etc.) The holy spirit is not the author of confusion. Jesus promised to send the Spirit to guide his Church to all truth. The promise to be guided to all truth was a promise that was not made to every single person who picks up a bible and starts reading. **

Yes, I realise you are only repeating the historic position of the Church. That worked well 700 years ago when most people did not have free access to the Bible and all the teaching and info on TV and internet, but today you need to be more logical if you expect folks to believe what you say.

**Why? The historic position of the Church comes with the authority of Christ. Your private interpretation bears no authority whatsoever. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). She is the authentic interpreter of the scriptures, not me or you. When one pulls the bible out of the Church (where it belongs) and starts interpreting it outside the tradition and teaching authority of the Magisterium, then nothing but confusion and error result. Why do you deny the authority of the Church, when scripture clearly shows it? **

Here’s the the thing about infallible authority, it locks one into a position that you can’t change or modify. For example, we see how in this time God is using and raising up women in the church but Rome cannot follow the Spirit because it is locked into it’s own history.
Then what about new questions such as gay marriage? Will Rome remain biblical on this?Many liberal churches have caved to the culture. If you have enough liberals in power in Rome, will they stray from the bible also? We don’t know. They have infallible power to do as the want. Do you see how this can lead to danger? I am not alone. Malachi Martin who knew much more about the Church than most, thought that it had already lead itself into apostasy. Can you know for sure that you’re right?

**You clearly don’t have a proper understanding of infallibility. It does not mean “power to do as they want”. You might want to do some reading on that. Christ established a Church, and He gave that Church real authority. That is biblical, that is truth. The keys were given to Peter with the promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail. He told them, “He who hears you, hears me.” (Luke 10:16) He promised to send the Spirit to guide his Church to all truth. Christ is still in charge of His church. He will not allow her to fall, that much was promised in Matthew 16.

Each individual, with a bible in hand, claiming the Spirit is guiding them, is a recipe for confusion and division. The fact that there are thousands of communities out there reading the same bible coming to different understandings is proof of that. As for me, I think I’ll stick with the Church Christ founded. **

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Water was not the means by which God cures. God does everything by the power of His word. Water was only the MEANS by which God TESTED the obedience of Naaman.

Ummm, that’s what I said.

And thus, because God ordained it to be that way, it was BY the water the Naaman was cured. As it is by the waters of Baptism that we are made children of the second Adam.