Donations for the month of March


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 14,450
Joined: April 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,781
Posts54,881
Members974
Most Online732
Jan 15th, 2023
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,447
Tom 4,516
chestnutmare 3,320
J_Edwards 2,615
John_C 1,865
Wes 1,856
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 4
John_C 1
Recent Posts
1 Cor. 6:9-11
by Pilgrim - Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:02 PM
Change in NRSVue text note on 1 John 5:7
by Pilgrim - Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:07 AM
Is the church in crisis
by John_C - Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:52 AM
Jordan Peterson ordered to take sensitivity training
by Tom - Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:00 PM
Should Creeds be read in Church?
by Pilgrim - Mon Mar 25, 2024 6:30 AM
Do Christians have Dual Personalities: Peace & Wretchedness?
by DiscipleEddie - Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:15 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11
#535 Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:42 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>We see that the suffering endured is not some vengence from God, as Jason appears to imply in his carefully selected words.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Scott, <br><br>Are you suggesting that through time in purgatory man does not satisfy the just requirements of God? <br><br>If Jason is correct that purgatory is the place where God's wrath against sin is propitiated then it would seem to follow that Jason's choice of words (e.g. God "inflicts" punishment) is most appropriate. <br><br>You seem to suggest that purgatory is a place of loving chastisement; however if satisfaction for sin is the result of such punishment then the wrath of God must be unmixed and void of love. After all did not God inflict pure wrath upon is Son? Don't get me wrong God loved his Son as He hung upon the tree becoming "sin for us" (his elect), however, the Son was forsaken while enduring the wrath of the Almighty. In the like manner if purgatory accomplishes what it is alleged to then those who enter into this state of purging will too experience the "infliction" of God's anger will they not? <br><br>Ron <br><br>

#536 Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:43 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13
cathApol,<br><br>I am only making a response to one portion of your post. I will leave the qoutes from the RCC catechism to those most familiar with them. The only comment I could make is "So What" church teaching is not authoritative.<br><br>My comment is on something you mentioned about the middle of the PS<br>you say:<br><br>[color:purple]"Catholicism is not a "works = salvation" system at all.<br>for without GRACE - works are nothing.<br>without WORKS there is no sanctification.<br>without SANCTIFICATION there is no justification.<br>without JUSTIFICATION there is no SALVATION."</font color=purple><br><br>I don't know about the others but I have never thought that RCC was a "works = salvation" system. The Romanist is always quick to add grace and attempt to show grace as a necessity, and that is not the contention protestants (those that are aware of the real issues) have problems with. I would think more accurately, and even shown by what you have posted in your time here, that Catholicism is a "grace + works = salvation". Sadly this is why catholicism is outside of the circle of christianity because when another gospel is preached it is no longer a gospel, and "grace + anything = nothing". I do find your 'logical' if/then scheme (I forgot the technical name for it) interesting. You are able to accomplish this unbiblical solution due to working with some false assumptions and working backwards (from sanctification back). I almost didn't catch it for it is a nicely setup strawman (one of the betters ones I've seen). If we were to set it up properly it would come out something like the following:<br><br>without Grace no salvation,<br>Grace is without works,<br>salvation is without works<br>without Faith-no salvation<br>Faith is a Gift of God,<br>Salvation is a Gift of God <br>(eph 2:8-10)<br><br>Of course all the previous clarifications included (ie christian life will have works as a fruit, this is for salvation itself, etc.). Also a note here, since gift by nature are unearnable then we see here that salvation is unearnable (even with the Grace of God). We add absolutely 0% to our become saved.<br>


By His Grace Alone,
Five Sola
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Five_sola: We add absolutely 0% to our become saved.<br><br>I agree, 100%, and so does Catholic teaching - THAT is the point you (not just you) seem to be missing.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br> <br>

#538 Thu Jun 06, 2002 8:34 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Ron askes:<br>(1) Is justification a process that encompasses sanctification?<br><br>(2) Are one's post-baptismal works meritorious in any way? <br><br>Scott answers:<br>(1) In Catholic teaching, you can find the terms justification and sanctification mixed.<br> <br>(2) Yes, if done in the state of grace, they can add to rewards in heaven. They don't "add to salvation" (as some are attempting to make the teaching say) for you either are saved or you're not - it's pretty black and white when it comes to salvation. Works contribute to that upon which we are judged. Our works will be tested by fire, and if any are burned up, we will suffer loss.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br>

#539 Thu Jun 06, 2002 10:21 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 213
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 213
Jason wrote: Purgatorial punishments by which sins are cleansed, are for the express purpose of making satisfaction for sin, inflicted by God's holiness and justice on an albeit justified person, which is necessary for the full remission of sin and to placate the divine justice due to their sin. That is, these purgatorial punishments are inflicted by God's sanctity and justice for the purpose of expiation...<br><br>Scott responds: Again, Jason overstates the case a bit, attempting to prove a point. Rather than just listen to the "opinions" Jason stated above, let's look at some real Catholic teaching on the matter...Hence we see, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that Purgatory is not an absolute necessity for all Christians to endure, for it is possible that one could reach complete purification on this earth. We see that the suffering endured is not some vengence from God, as Jason appears to imply in his carefully selected words.<br><br>Jason writes: First of all, I myself wrote Purgatory is not an absolute necessity, " So yes, the justified are still subject to the necessary wrath of God by which they make satisfactions which placate divine justice (unless they are a martyr, or somehow make enough satisfactions prior to death)"<br><br>Secondly, your criticisms against my overstating the case and as implying a kind of vengeance using "carefully selected words" is, to your chagrin, most laughable since I merely used the language of your own pope! Surely if I had put things in my own words you would have accused me of misrepresenting Catholic dogma, so I choose to use the very language of your own pope and you say I am using carefully crafted words to imply something that I never did or intended to do. Reminds me of Christ's criticism's to the Pharisees, "But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, "and saying: 'We played the flute for you, And you did not dance; We mourned to you, And you did not lament.' (Matthew 11:16-17). See, no matter how I represent the Catholic doctrine, you will be hasty to decry misrepresentation. But just to demonstrate again that my words are precisely the words of your own pope, check out my paragraph above highlighting my own words with the language of your own Chruch:<br><br><br>For this reason there certainly exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth a perennial link of charity and an abundant exchange of all the goods by which, with the expiation of all the sins of the entire Mystical Body, divine justice is placated. God's mercy is thus led to forgiveness, so that sincerely repentant sinners may participate as soon as possible in the full enjoyment of the benefits of the family of God. (Papal Encyclical, "Indulgentiarum Doctrina", Chapter 2, Article 5, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1967)<br><br>It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or "purifying" punishments (Papal Encyclical, "Indulgentiarum Doctrina", Chapter 1, Article 2, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1967)<br><br>It is therefore necessary for the full remission and -- as it is called -- reparation of sins not only that friendship with God be reestablished by a sincere conversion of the mind and amends made for the offense against His wisdom and goodness, but also that all the personal as well as social values and those of the universal order itself, which have been diminished or destroyed by sin, be fully reintegrated whether through voluntary reparation which will involve punishment or through acceptance of the punishments established by the just and most holy wisdom of God (Papal Encyclical, "Indulgentiarum Doctrina", Chapter 1, Article 2, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1967)<br><br>It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they may be released from punishments of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful according to the institutions of the Church (Council of Florence (1439), De novissimis)<br><br>That punishment or the vestiges of sin may remain to be expiated or cleansed and that they in fact frequently do even after the remission of guilt is clearly demonstrated by the doctrine on purgatory. In purgatory, in fact, the souls of those "who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but before satisfying with worthy fruits of penance for sins committed and for omissions" are cleansed after death with purgatorial punishments. (Papal Encyclical, "Indulgentiarum Doctrina", Chapter 1, Article 3, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1967)<br><br>Once again, you have wasted much time correcting non-errors by your hasty analysis and conclusions. <br><br><br>Scott writes: I must add here, the Church often uses the terms of sanctified and justified synonymously<br><br>Jason: Precisely! Which is why I wrote what I did to RefBap in the first place. You are the one who wrote, "Catholics DO believe that "saving faith" is comprised of both "faith" and "works" but it's not our works that save. Our works, done in the state of grace, lead to sanctification. Such "works" do absolutely no good to one not already on the path to salvation. I hope this helps clarify.<br><br>You are the one who attempted to make a sharp distinction between Roman Catholic Justification and Sanctification (almost making it sound Protestant, as even RefBap commented herself), and now you turn around and say they are used synonymously! Which is it Scott? Is Sanctification something that good works lead to after Justification or is it used synonymously? You made a statement about Catholicism that was couched in Protestant language, which was not clarifying as you suggest, but rather confusing, as is witnessed by RefBap's response to you. It is very interesting to compare your comments with the very words of the Catechism you quote:<br><br>Scott: Our works, done in the state of grace, lead to sanctification.<br><br>Yet neither the Council of Trent nor the catechism use such language as good works lead to sanctification, as though it were not a present reality already or as though it were something different than increasing ones justification:<br><br>CCC 2813. "In the waters of Baptism, we have been 'washed . . . SANCTIFIED . . .JUSTIFIED in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.'[2 Cor 6:11] Our Father calls us to holiness in the whole of our life, and since 'he is the source of (our) life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and . . .sanctification,' [I Cor 1:30 ; cf. 1 Thess 4:7.] both his glory and our life depend on the hallowing of his name in us and by us. Such is the urgency of our first petition. By whom is God hallowed, since he is the one who hallows? But since he said, 'You shall be holy to me; for I the LORD am holy,' we seek and ask that we who were SANCTIFIED in Baptism may persevere in what we have begun to be. And we ask this daily, for we need sanctification daily, so that we who fail daily may cleanse away our sins by being SANCTIFIED continually.... We pray that this sanctification may remain in us.[St. Cyprian De Dom. orat. 12: PL 4,527A; Lev 20:26.]"<br><br><br>Good works do not lead to sanctification in Catholic theology, they increase and preserve that sanctification, which is akin to justification, and according to which, because of the righteousness that is inherit in them, they merit eternal life. That is the teaching of Trent, which you still have not dealt with:<br><br>Scott wrote: There is no "increase in justification" for justification is the "final phase" in the economy of salvation.<br><br>The "infallible" Council of Trent wrote: Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified (Council of Trent, Decrees on Justification, Chapter 10)<br><br>CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.<br><br>So I guess you are under the anathema of Trent if you claim that good works do not increase Justification obtained. That is, of course, a good thing, but don't try and make the Catholic church more appealing to us by shrouding its dogma in language pleasant to our hearing.<br><br><br>Scott: So, I submit to both Wes and Jason that what I initially said was not merely my own opinions, but quite reflective of the teachings of the Catholic Church, which are quite Scriptural, and Scriptures themselves. I would hope that both Wes and Jason will have the integrity to apologize for falsely accusing me of posting only my opinions and not representing Church teaching.<br><br>Jason: This is one of the most ridiculous demands for an apology that I have ever seen. You accused me of misrepresenting Catholic doctrine by saying there is no increase in Justification (which you still have not dealt with according to Trent's own words teaching this) and you did so without citing any Catholic sources. I repeatedly asked you to show me my error and to provide the proof that your representation of Justification was the true one. Why in the world should I apologize for asking proof from you to backup your own claims? Up until your last post, you had only posted your own assertions without any reference to authoritative Catholic documents, and until you did, they were merely assertions! So now you go and post some and then ask for an apology because we said that you had not done so yet in our previous posts? Really Scott, if you can't comprehend earthly things, how will we discuss heavenly things? This is the silliest attempt to be the victim that I have seen in a long time.<br><br>Now if you go back and read the thread you will find that there was not an accusation of you not representing Church teaching in the first place (until you said Justification cannot be increased), rather couching it in a way that was more Protestant sounding than Catholic, as was evidenced by RefBap's own response. The remainder of the time was spent asking you to justify your accusation that I had misrepresented Catholic Justification. You have merely corrected things that I have not said or tried to correct me as leaving out things that I never intended to say because they were not relevant to the point I was discussing. The only two issues I have seen wherein we are in disagreement regarding RC Justification is whether it can be increased and perhaps whether or not works done in a justified state are meritorious.<br><br>So perhaps you can prune your posts from these unfounded lamentations of victimization and deal with whatever I have supposedly misrepresented one point at a time, then we can look at the Church's testimony on that issue and allow the viewer to decide whether there has been misrepresentation. I have no pre-commitment or interest in making the Catholic Church say something it does not say. Sufficient are the problems in Rome that I don't need to make them look any worse than they are.<br><br>Sincerely,<br><br>Jason<br><br> Proverbs 29:20 Do you see a man hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<br>

#540 Thu Jun 06, 2002 11:04 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Scott,<br><br>Concerning works and merit you stated: <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Yes, if done in the state of grace, [works] can add to rewards in heaven. They don't "add to salvation" (as some are attempting to make the teaching say) for you either are saved or you're not - it's pretty black and white when it comes to salvation. Works contribute to that upon which we are judged. Our works will be tested by fire, and if any are burned up, we will suffer loss.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I'm not all together crazy about using the word "saved" when trying to discuss the nuances of merit with respect to justification but I think I grasp what you are saying. Let's see whether I do or not.<br><br>You stated that works done while in a state of grace are meritorious but that they don't "add to salvation." The reason you give is that one is either "saved or not saved". I trust therefore that you would say that the grounds of our justification (i.e. our being declared righteous and pardoned, presumably by virtue of the infused righteousness of Christ as opposed to the imputation of His righteousness) is always apart from our works that are wrought in Christ. In other words, your position seems to be that although works will indeed be present in the life of the redeemed such works that are wrought in Christ by grace are never the grounds by which one is justified.<br><br>Assuming I understand you correctly, How do you square your doctrine with Canon 23 On Justification taken from Trent? <br><br>Trent states: "If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ...does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life, -- if so be , however, that he depart in grace, -- and also an increase of glory: let him be anathema." <br><br>Trent seems to be clearly agreeing with you that meritorious works done in grace may add to an increase of glory. Nonetheless, canon 23 On Justification also seems to teach that the merit of good works is "the good merits of him that is justified" and consequently those works may then "merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life..." <br><br>I'm sure I am missing something so please tell me how your doctrine comports with Trent. <br><br>Thanks,<br><br>Ron<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

#541 Thu Jun 06, 2002 2:18 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
CathApol,<br><br>You have not been falsely accused of anything. You come here to a Protestant Bible believing message board with your Catholic heresy and dress it up in such a way as to make it sound almost like what we believe. You have been presenting yourself in a way that confusses the clear teaching of the Roman Catholic church. Jason, RefBap, Five_Sola, and Pilgrim have all pointed that out to you. <br><br>Now you write a lenthy message full of statements and verses that purport to be "Church teaching" or the final word. Well has anybody been confused by what you're saying now? NO... not one! They all conclude the same thing. You're message is understood to be "faith & works" and that lines you up with traditional Roman Catholicism. Which is a religion that denys the clear teachings of Scripture.<br><br>Many questions have been raised for you to answer by others. It seems as if you avoid them. I hope you'll take to heart that the questions are designed for you to come to know the Truth and that hopefully the Truth will set you free from false doctrine. <br><br>I read through your lengthy message. No matter how you phrase it and how many words you use you still keep saying the same thing. You're teaching that the "one sacrifice" of Christ Jesus on the cross at mount Calvary wasn't enough. Oh I know that you have said that it is enough but then you come back and say that venial sins still need some temporary punishment in purgatory. If Christ's death were sufficient you wouldn't need to teach about a purgatory. You wouldn't need to teach about anything needed to be added to His completed work. Especially after death how can someone in any way go through punishment that will purify them or have any further cleansing effect than what Christ has provided on the Cross once for all? The Bible tells us that after death comes the judgement. <br> <br>Heb.9:27-28<br>"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."<br><br>Hebrews 10:14 tell us... <br>"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."<br><br>According to your "final purification" doctrine called "purgatory" which is supposedly drawn from the following Scripture texts a careful examination of these text reveals that you are in serious error.<br><br>I Corinthians 3:15 <br>"If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire."<br><br>Commenting on this verse Matthew Henry writes:<br><br>"It will be difficult for those that corrupt and deprave Christianity to be saved. God will have no mercy on their works, though he may pluck them as brands out of the burning. [color:red]On this passage of scripture the papists found their doctrine of purgatory, which is certainly hay and stubble: a doctrine never originally fetched from Scripture, but invented in barbarous ages, to feed the avarice and ambition of the clergy, at the cost of those who would rather part with their money than their lusts, for the salvation of their souls.</font color=red> It can have no countenance from this text, <br><br>(1.) Because this is plainly meant of a figurative fire, not of a real one: for what real fire can consume religious rites or doctrines? <br><br>(2.) Because this fire is to try men’s works, of what sort they are; but purgatory-fire is not for trial, not to bring men’s actions to the test, but to punish for them. They are supposed to be venial sins, not satisfied for in this life, for which satisfaction must be made by suffering the fire of purgatory. <br><br>(3.) Because this fire is to try every man’s works, those of Paul and Apollos, as well as those of others. Now, no papists will have the front to say apostles must have passed through purgatory fires." <br><br>Another verse you sighted in support of purgatory is:<br><br>I Peter 1:7<br>"That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:" <br><br>This trying of your faith is in this life while you're still alive and kicking. Dead men don't go through a trial by fire to prove their faith by testing nor suffer punishment to sancify them from venial sins. The end of good people’s afflictions is the trial of their faith in this life not after they're deceased. As to the nature of this trial, it is much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire. The effect of the trial is this, that your faith will be found unto praise, honour, and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ. <br><br>Our Christianity depends upon our faith; if this be wanting, there is nothing else that is spiritually good in us. Christ prays for this apostle, that his faith might not fail; if that be supported, all the rest will stand firm; the faith of good people is tried, that they themselves may have the comfort of it, God the glory of it, and others the benefit of it. <br><br>The trial of faith is much more precious than the trial of gold; in both there is a purification, a separation of the dross, and a discovery of the soundness and goodness of the things. Gold does not increase and multiply by trial in the fire, it rather grows less; but faith is established, improved, and multiplied, by the oppositions and afflictions that it meets with. Gold must perish at last—gold that perisheth; but faith never will. <br><br>This verse doesn't say anything about a purgatory experience after this life to deal with venial sins but is talking about the trying of the believer's faith. It must prove to be a living and active faith. This is the kind of faith that caused Paul to say, "I don't consider this present suffering to be compared with the glory which is to come." <br><br>Wes

Last edited by Wesley; Thu Jun 06, 2002 6:56 PM.

When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Tom Online Content
Needs to get a Life
Online Content
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Jason<br><br>Wasn't this one of the areas that Martin Luther protested against?<br>If that is true, surely since he was a RC monk he would know what their teaching is on the subject.<br>I can't see Martin Luther protesting so loud, if RC teaching was what Scott would have us believe it is. He may have railed loudly on other issues but not this issue.<br><br>If you know anything about Martin Luther as pertaining to this subject, I would be interested in seeing some of this information.<br><br>Thanks<br>Tom<br>

#543 Thu Jun 06, 2002 3:46 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Tom Online Content
Needs to get a Life
Online Content
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Not to mention that according to Jason, they were not his words, but the popes very own words.<br><br>Tom

Wes #544 Thu Jun 06, 2002 8:29 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Wes said: You have not been falsely accused of anything. <br><br>Scott: Yes I have, and especially by you. You claimed my message was nothing but my opinion, I proved that what I said was well rooted in Catholic teaching, including the Scriptures.<br><br>Wes: You come here to a Protestant Bible believing message board with your Catholic heresy and dress it up in such a way as to make it sound almost like what we believe. <br><br>Scott: Wes, I have presented the Catholic teaching on these matters, at teaching that hasn't changed since long before Protestantism was even heard of - if it sounds similar, it's because you got it from us (sometime after you split from us).<br><br>Wes: You have been presenting yourself in a way that confusses the clear teaching of the Roman Catholic church. Jason, RefBap, Five_Sola, and Pilgrim have all pointed that out to you. <br><br>Scott: I have presented the Catholic teachings. I am not attempting to "confuse" anyone - I am just trying to show you the truth. <br><br>Wes: Now you write a lenthy message full of statements and verses that purport to be "Church teaching" or the final word. <br><br>Scott: No Wes, I never claimed to be presenting the "final word." Yes, I presented a rather lengthy post - at your request! Do you forget that it was you who claimed I was not representing Catholic teaching? Well, I provided you with Catholic teaching, and now you complain about the length of it. <br><br>Wes: Well has anybody been confused by what you're saying now? NO... not one! <br><br>Scott: I presented facts. I am not here to confuse. Why is it that when confronted with facts, I am answered with character assissination? I must have hit a nerve.<br><br>Wes: They all conclude the same thing. You're message is understood to be "faith & works" and that lines you up with traditional Roman Catholicism. Which is a religion that denys the clear teachings of Scripture.<br><br>Scott: They all conclude wrongly then. Traditional Roman Catholicism is NOT about a faith + works = salvation system. Jason's attempt to present only part of the truth has been twarted by a Catholic, loyal to "traditional Catholicsim," presenting the fact that there's more to it than Jason is telling. No one comments on James' statement about "faith without works is dead," which is quite telling. <br><br>Wes: Many questions have been raised for you to answer by others. It seems as if you avoid them. I hope you'll take to heart that the questions are designed for you to come to know the Truth and that hopefully the Truth will set you free from false doctrine. <br><br>Scott: I am "avoiding" no one. I don't live at the keyboard, thus my time spent on message boards, such as this one, is limited. I don't work from "boiler-plate" files (premade responses), rather I take the time to respond, personally, to each message I write. As for "many questions... by others..." I am aware of Pilgrim's messages, which I do plan to get to - does that constitute "many?" I understand your zeal and the feelings you express regarding The Church - I was at one time quite anti-Catholic myself.<br><br>Wes: I read through your lengthy message. No matter how you phrase it and how many words you use you still keep saying the same thing. You're teaching that the "one sacrifice" of Christ Jesus on the cross at mount Calvary wasn't enough. Oh I know that you have said that it is enough but then you come back and say that venial sins still need some temporary punishment in purgatory. If Christ's death were sufficient you wouldn't need to teach about a purgatory. You wouldn't need to teach about anything needed to be added to His completed work. Especially after death how can someone in any way go through punishment that will purify them or have any further cleansing effect than what Christ has provided on the Cross once for all? The Bible tells us that after death comes the judgement. <br> <br>Scott: Yes, after death comes the judgment. Those in Purgatory are already judged there is no further judgment here - so I don't know what point you're trying to make. Christ's death on the Cross was sufficient to redeem us, ALL of us not just a limited few that Calvinism claims. Which teaching teaches more sufficiency? Catholicism teaches that all are redeemed (though not all will accept the free gift that Christ has given them); Calvinism teaches that Christ's redemptive act was only for a few (the elect). Who's teaching is restricting Christ?<br> <br>In JMJ,<br> <br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font> [Linked Image]

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Jason retorted: (Y)our criticisms against my overstating the case and as implying a kind of vengeance using "carefully selected words" is, to your chagrin, most laughable since I merely used the language of your own pope!<br> <br>[color:purple]Scott reiterates: I still say you're "carefully selecting words." Does it matter that you're carefully selecting them from one of the Catholic popes? No, you're still "carefully selecting them" and avoiding many other places (some of which I have presented) that contradict your restricted viewpoint. You present a half-truth, I present more of the story, showing the truth is not about your half-researched conclusions (if you've fully researched these things, then your omission of the rest of the story would have to be deliberate and deceitful - I am not accusing you of deceit. I'd rather give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't fully looked at this, or haven't looked with an open mind).<br> <br>So, regardless of your source, you've still only "carefully selected" which words you "choose" to include in your messages.<br> <br>Scott<<<<br></font color=purple><br>

#546 Fri Jun 07, 2002 11:17 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 89
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 89
Scott - if you say Christ has "done it all"...and salvation is all of grace through faith and NONE of works....and "Christ has redeemed all"....then why do some still go to hell? Is there something these individuals have failed to do? A work of some sort? What have they failed to bring to the table that would justify them? <br><br>Also, the number which will be saved...and your assertion that Calvinists believe only a FEW will be saved, is a matter of perspective. We believe the Bible when it says that the redeemed will outnumber stars, sand, ....from every nation, tribe and tongue. How is THAT only a 'few'? We believe ONLY the Elect will be saved..that's a clear teaching of scripture...but at the end of the day...it will NOT be 'few'.<br><br>...few Roman Catholics, perhaps.... [Linked Image]<br><br>In Him, <br>

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Laz wrote: Scott - if you say Christ has "done it all"...and salvation is all of grace through faith and NONE of works....and "Christ has redeemed all"....then why do some still go to hell? Is there something these individuals have failed to do? A work of some sort? What have they failed to bring to the table that would justify them? <br><br>[color:purple]Faith is the gift that justifies them, and with that faith comes works - or the faith is dead (gone over this many times now). Man does nothing to merit this gift, for Jesus did it all for him, on the Cross. St. John tells us, "who so ever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) Some still go to Hell because some do not accept this gift and refuse to believe in Him.</font color=purple><br><br>Laz continues: Also, the number which will be saved...and your assertion that Calvinists believe only a FEW will be saved, is a matter of perspective. We believe the Bible when it says that the redeemed will outnumber stars, sand, ....from every nation, tribe and tongue. How is THAT only a 'few'? We believe ONLY the Elect will be saved..that's a clear teaching of Scripture...but at the end of the day...it will NOT be 'few'.<br> <br>[color:purple]Yes, the use of "few" is a matter of perspective. Considering how "few" Calvinists there are in the world, and considering how many non-Christian sects there are compared to Calvinist sects - "few" happens to "fit" in the bigger picture. I'm actually a bit surprized you'd be defensive about this, "for many are called, but few are chosen!"<br><br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br></font color=purple>

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Jason wrote: So Scott, could you understand Roman Catholic doctrine when you were a Lutheran? How did you ever convert to Roman Catholicism as a Protestant if Protestants can't comprehend Roman Catholic theology without first becoming Roman Catholic? Perhaps you have finally, unwittingly, admitted what converts to Roman Catholicism must do in order to convert - surrender all rational powers to the Magisterium in an act of blind faith.<br> <br>[color:purple]Jason, please, don't put words in my mouth. <br> <br>I am a convert, and I did not "surrender all rational powers to the Magisterium in an act of blind faith." In fact, I had some reservations when I converted, but when I finally came to that point of converting, I was willing to give the Church a chance to prove itself "right" to me. Prior to that, I was just plain convinced the Church was wrong and only looked at half-truths that were told to me by "fellow Christians" about how "bad" Catholicism was. When I got to the point of converting, I allowed Catholics to tell me more about what Catholics believe and teach. Now, I mentioned I still had reservations - and about the time I converted I was also becoming involved in the BBS scene in Phoenix, Arizona. I had already been a part of the Bible Foundation BBS. There was someone there, whom both of us know, that was unremittingly anti-Catholic - and I figured if anyone could get me out of the Church and/or convince me that I had made an error - then this person would be able to do that. Well, he and I debated for MANY years (he even admitted that a couple of his earlier books were based on, in part at least, discussions between he and I). Well, for literally EVERY question this other person raised, I found an answer - or was shown it by friends - and well, here I am today, still a Catholic - almost 14 years later (it will be 14 years at the first of July). <br> <br>As for "faith," don't knock it if you haven't tried it! [Linked Image]<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br> <br></font color=purple>

#549 Fri Jun 07, 2002 11:14 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 89
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 89
Scott - I took no offense....but I may now with your suggestion that we Calvinist believe that WE alone are those chosen 'few'. [Linked Image] Well, some Calvinists think that way....<br><br>The 'calling' has gone out to hundreds of millions. In the USA, there are Churches on every street corner...yet I would say that 'few' possess real live believers. Many professors....few possessors. <br><br>As for people rejecting this free gift of eternal life...is not the act of rejecting Christ the absence of a necessary positive action or 'work' (i.e., exercising belief)? Similarly, would not receiving this free gift also be a work of the will? <br><br>Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. <br><br>Besides, <br><br>1) if sin kills (especially the sin of disbelief), <br>2) and Christ died for the sins of the world,<br>3) and ALL sins are forgiveable, except the 'unpardonable sin' and NOW the sin of unbelief, with Christ's blood being all sufficient,<br><br>....then doesn't that require US to atone for the sin of disbelief...since Christ's blood can't? <br><br>And if we can atone for sin (even just one) ... why do we theoretically need a Savior? <br><br>If we can atone for the sin of disbelief by turning from and repenting of unbelief ... doesn't that make salvation ULTIMATELY a matter for US to work out? Isn't salvation then in OUR hands as a work to accomplish in conjunction with Christ's? <br><br>What ever happened to that GRACE you speak so foundly of? <br><br>Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: <br><br>This 'grace' of yours is not much grace since it's really up to us to find it within ourselves to lay hold of this 'conditional grace' . I smell semi-pelagianism. <br><br>What kind of god needs our help?

Page 4 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 84 guests, and 17 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
PaulWatkins, His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry
974 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,506,457 Gospel truth