Sainjoan,
Yes I believe that.
Is one of the many reasons I converted from PROTESTantism to Catholicism.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
|
Sainjoan,
Yes I believe that.
Is one of the many reasons I converted from PROTESTantism to Catholicism.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
De Maria,
You may have missed this post. Looks like you've been away for a while, and there has been a lot of traffic since then meaning that this probably got buried:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhadsen
So you are saying an atheist that refuses to accept that Jesus died for their sinsQuote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Yet lives a life that would make some Christians HAS the gift even though they reject it
Or what about the 'Christians' that maybe only profess to accept that gift yet burn grandma's house down?
MY point was that Wonder girl was specifically using grandma offering a free gift to explain how
God offers the free gift and then it is up to us what we do with the free gift accept it or reject it and then you threw out another scenario of how someone might use the free gift. Her point was not on how we use the free gift and the consequences of what we do.
Scott, I was brought up a roman catholic, and even wanted to become a priest at one time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
I was taught from the catechism through my school years, never from the Bible.
If you actually read the Bible, instead of Catholic literature, of what you have been taught to believe, then you would be a very odd catholic.
Of all the catholics that I know, and that includes my family, who go to church every week, don't, ever, read a bible, and most catholics don't even own one!
I have spoken to many priests over the years, and have asked them a number of questions about spirituality, and all, except one, had no idea.
One even said to me, "Wouldn't it be terrible if what we have believed all our lives, turned out to be wrong."
He was serious when he said this, I thought,"If he doesn't believe it, then where does that leave me?"
If you look at the true history of the roman church, then you would find out about the murder, rape, sodomy, that was not only committed by some of the popes themselves, but was given the blessing to anybody that would do the same to the prostestants.
Here is an extract from Babylon, Mystery Religion- by Woodrow.
The inhuman Inquisition
So OPENLY CORRUPT did the fallen church become in the Middle Ages, we can readily understand why in many places men rose up in protest. Many were those noble souls who rejected the false claims of the pope, looking instead to the Lord Jesus for salvation and truth. These were called `heretics" and were bitterly persecuted by the Roman
Catholic Church.
One of the documents that ordered such persecutions was the inhuman "Ad exstirpanda" issued by Pope Innocent IV in 1252. This document stated that heretics were to be "crushed like venomous snakes." It formally approved the use of torture. Civil authorities were ordered to burn heretics. "The aforesaid Bull `Ad exstirpanda' remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or reinforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake. It is to be noted that excommunication itself was no trifle, for, if the person excommunicated did not free himself from the excommunication within a year, he was held by the legislation of that period to be a heretic, and incurred all the penalties that affected heresy."
Men pondered long in those days on how they could devise methods that would produce the most torture and pain. One of the most popular methods was the use of the rack, a long table on which the accused was tied by the hands and feet, back down, and stretched by rope and windlass. This process dislocated joints and caused great pain.
Heavy pincers were used to tear out fingernails or were applied red-hot to sensitive parts of the body. Rollers with sharp knife blades and spikes were used, over which the heretics were rolled back and forth. There was the thumbscrew, an instrument made for disarticulating fingers and "Spanish boots" which were used to crush the legs and feet. The "iron virgin" was a hollow instrument the size and figure of a woman. Knives were arranged in such a way and under such pressure that the accused were lacerated in its deadly embrace. This torture device was sprayed with "holy water" and inscribed with the Latin words meaning, "Glory be only to God.
Victims after being stripped of their clothing had their arms tied behind their backs with a hard cord. Weights were attached to their feet. The action of a pulley suspended them in mid-air or dropped and raised them with a jerk, dislocating joints of the body. While such torture was being employed, priests holding up crosses would attempt to get the heretics to recant.
Ridpath's History of the World includes an illustration of the work of the Inquisition in the Netherlands. Twenty-one Protestants are hanging from the tree. A man on a ladder is about to be hanged, below him is a priest holding a cross.
"In the year 1554 Francis Gamba, a Lombard, of the Protestant persuasion, was apprehended and condemned to death by the sentence of Milan. At the place of execution, a monk presented a cross to him, to whom Gamba said, 'My mind is so full of the real merits and goodness of Christ that I want not a piece of senseless stick to put me in mind of Him.' For this expression his tongue was bored through and he was afterwards burned.
Some who rejected the teachings of the Roman church had molten lead poured into their ears and mouths. Eyes were gouged out and others were cruelly beaten with whips. Some were forced to jump from cliffs onto long spikes fixed below, where, quivering from pain, they slowly died. Others were choked to death with mangled pieces of their own bodies, with urine, or excrement. At night, the victims of the Inquisition were chained closely to the floor or wall where they were a helpless prey to the rats and vermin that populated those bloody torture chambers.
The religious intolerance that prompted the Inquisition caused wars which involved entire cities. In 1209 the city of Beziers was taken by men who have been promised by the pope that by engaging in the crusade against heretics they would at death bypass purgatory and immediately enter heaven. Sixty thousand, it is reported, in this city perished by the sword while blood flowed in the streets. At Lavaur in 1211 the governor was hanged on a gibbet and his wife thrown into a well and crushed with stones. Four hundred people in this town were burned alive. The crusaders attended high mass in the morning, then proceeded to take other towns of the area. In this siege, it is estimated that 100,000 Albigenses (Protestants) fell in one day. Their bodies were heaped together and burned.
At the massacre of Merindol, five hundred women were locked in a barn which was set on fire. If any leaped from windows, they were received on the points of spears. Women were openly and pitifully violated. Children were murdered before their parents who were powerless to protect them. Some people were hurled from cliffs or stripped of clothing and dragged through the streets. Similar methods were used in the massacre of Orange in 1562. The Italian army was sent by Pope Pius IV and commanded to slay men, women, and children. The command was carried out with terrible cruelty, the people being exposed to shame and torture of every description.
Ten thousand Huguenots (Protestants) were killed in the bloody massacre in Paris on "St. Bartholomew's Day", 1572. The French king went to mass to return solemn thanks that so many heretics were slain. The papal court received the news with great rejoicing and Pope GregoryXlll, in grand procession, went to the Church of St. Louis to give thanks! He ordered the papal mint to make coins commemorating this event. The coins showed an angel with sword in one hand and a cross in the other, before whom a band of Huguenots, with horror on their faces, were fleeing. The words Ugonot- torum Stranges 1572 which signify "The slaughter of the Huguenots, 1572", appeared on the coins.
An illustration from Ridpath's History of the World, as seen on the next page, shows the work of the Inquisition in Holland. A Protestant man is hanging by his feet in stocks. The fire is heating a poker to brand him and blind his eyes.
Some of the popes that today are acclaimed as "great" by the Romish church lived and thrived during those days. Why didn't they open the dungeon doors and quench the murderous fires that blackened the skies of Europe for centuries? If the selling of indulgences, or people worshipping statues as idols, or popes living in immorality can be explained as "abuses" or excused because these things were done contrary to the official laws of the church, what can besaid about the Inquisition? It cannot be explained away as easily, for though sometimes torture was carried out beyond what was actually prescribed, the fact remains that the Inquisition was ordered by papal decree and confirmed by pope after pope! Can any believe that such actions were representative of Him who said to turn the cheek, to forgive our enemies, and to do good to them that despitefully use us?
(Continued)
Peace:)
Papal Immorality
IN ADDITION TO the conclusive evidence that has
been given, the very character and morals of many of the popes would tend to identify them as sucessors of pagan priests, rather than representatives of Christ or Peter. Some of the popes were so depraved and base in their actions, even people who professed no religion at all were ashamed of them. Such sins as adultery, sodomy, simony, rape, murder, and drunkenness are among the sins that have been committed by popes. To link such sins with men who have claimed to be the "Holy Father", "The Vicar of Christ", and Bishop of bishops", may sound shocking, but those acquainted with the history of the papacy well know that not all popes were holy men.
Pope Sergius III (904-911 the papal office by murder. The annals of the church of Rome tell about his life of open sin with Marozia who bore him several illegitimate children.' He was described by Baronius as a "monster" and by Gregorovius as a "terrorizing criminal.
Says a historian: "For seven years this man...occupied the chair of St. Peter, while his
concubine and her Semiramis-like mother held court with a pomp and voluptousness that recalled the worse days of the ancient empire."
This woman—Theodora—likened to Semiramis (because of her corrupt morals), along with Marozia, the pope's concubine, `filled the papal chair with their paramours and bastard sons, and turned the papal palace into a den of robbers. The reign of Pope Sergius III began the period known as "the rule of the harlots" (904-963).
Pope John X (914-928) originally had been sent to Ravanna as an archbishop, but Theodora had him returned to Rome and appointed to the papal office. According to Bishop Liutprand of Cremona who wrote a history about fifty years after this time, "Theodora supported John's election in order to cover more easily her illicit relations with him. His reign came to a sudden end when Marozia smothered him to death! She wanted him out of the way so Leo VI (928-929) could become pope. His reign was a short one, however, for he was assassinated by Marozia when she learned he had "given his heart to a more degraded woman than herself" ! Not long after this, the teenage son of Marozia—under the name of John XI—became pope. The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "Some, taking Liutprand and the `Liber Pontificalis' as their authority, assert that he was the natural son of Sergius III (a former pope). Through the intrigues of his mother, who ruled at that time in Rome, he was raised to the Chair of Peter. But in quarreling with some of his mother's enemies, he was beaten and put into jail where he died from poisoning.
In 955 the grandson of Marozia at eighteen years of age became pope under the name of John XII. The Catholic Encyclopedia describes him as "a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium... On 6 November a synod composed of fifty Italian and German bishops was convened in St. Peter's; John was accused of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery, and incest, and was summoned in writing to defend himself. Refusing to recognize the synod, John pronounced sentence of excommunication against all participators in the assembly, should they elect in his stead another pope...John XII took bloody vengeance on the leaders of the opposite party, Cardinal-Deacon John had his right hand struck off, Bishop Otgar of Speyer was scourged, a high palatine official lost nose and ears...John died on 14 May, 964, eight days after he had been, according to rumor, stricken by paralysis in the act of adultery." The noted Catholic Bishop of Cremona, Luitprand, who lived at this time wrote: "No honest lady dared to show herself in public, for Pope John had no respect either for single girls, married women, or widows—they were sure to be defiled by him, even on the tombs of the holy apostles, Peter and Paul." The Catholic collection of the lives of popes, the "Liber Pontificalis," said: "He spent his entire life in adultery."
Pope Boniface VII (984-985) maintained his position through a lavish distribution of stolen money. The Bishop of Orleans referred to him (and also John XII and Leo VIII) as "monsters of guilt, reeking in blood and filth" and as "antichrist sitting in the temple of God." The Catholic Encyclopedia says he "overpowered John XIV (April, 984), thrust him into the dungeons of Sant'Angelo, where the wretched man died four months later... For more than a year Rome endured this monster steeped in the blood of his predecessors. But the vengeance was terrible. After his sudden death in July, 985, due in all probability to violence, the body of Boniface was exposed to the insults of the populace, dragged through the streets of the city, and finally, naked and covered with wounds, flung under the statue of Marcus Aurelius...The following morning compassionate clerics removed the corpse and gave it a Christian burial.
Next came Pope John XV (985-996) who split the church's finances among his relatives and earned for himself the reputation of being "covetous of filthy lucre and corrupt in all his acts."
Benedict VIII (1012-1024) "bought the office of pope with open bribery." The following pope, John XIX also bought the papacy. Being a layman, it was necessary for him to be passed through all the clerical orders . in one day! After this, Benedict IX (1033-1045) was made pope as a youth 12 years old (or some accounts say 20) through a money bargain with the powerful families that ruled Rome! He `committed murders and adulteries in broad daylight, robbed pilgrims on the graves of the martyrs, a hideous criminal, the people drove him out of Rome.' The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter." "Simony"--the buying and selling of the papal office—became so common, and corruption so pronounced, that secular rulers stepped in. King Henry III appointed Clement II (1046-1047) to the office of pope "because no Roman clergyman could be found who was free of the pollution of simony and fornication"!
A number of the popes had committed murders, but Innocent III (1198-1216) surpassed all of his predecessors in killing. Though he did not do the killing personally, he promoted the most devilish thing in human history—the Inquisition. Estimates of the number of heretics that Innocent (not so innocently) had killed run as high as one million people! For over five hundred years, popes used the inquisition to maintain their power against those who did not agree with the teachings of the Romish church.
In conflicts with cardinals and kings, numerous charges were brought against Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303). Says The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Scarcely any possible crime was omitted infidelity, heresy, simony, gross and unnatural immorality, idolatry, magic, loss of the Holy Land, death of Celestine V, etc... Protestant historians, generally, and even modern Catholic writers... class him among the wicked popes, as an ambitious, haughty, and unrelenting man, deceitful also and treacherous, his whole pontificate one record of evil." It is not necessary to insist that all charges brought against him were true, but all cannot be dismissed either. During his reign the poet Dante visited Rome and described the Vatican as a "sewer of corruption." He assigned Boniface (along with Popes Nicolas III and Clement V) to "the lower parts of hell."
Though seeking to put emphasis on certain good traits of Boniface, "Catholic historians... admit, however, the explosive violence and offensive phraseology of some of his public documents." An example of this "offensive phraseology" would be his statement that "to enjoy oneself and to lie carnally with women or with boys is no more a sin than rubbing one's hands together." On other occasions, apparently in those "explosive" moments he called Christ a "hypocrite" and professed to be an atheist.
Yet—and this sounds almost unbelievable—it was this pope that in 1302 issued the well-known "Unam Sanctum" which officially declared that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church, outside of which no one can be saved, and says: "We, therefore, assert, define and pronounce that it is necessary to salvation to believe that every human being is subject to the Pontiff of Rome." Because there have been sinful popes, being "subject" to the pope has raised a question. Should a sinful pope still be obeyed? The Catholic answer is this: "A sinful pope... remains a member of the (visible) church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience. "
From 1305 to 1377 the papal palace was at Avignon, France. During this time, Petrarch accused the papal household of "rape, adultery, and all manner of fornication." In many parishes men insisted on priests keeping concubines "as a protection for their own families!"
During the Council of Constance, three popes, and sometimes four, were every morning cursing each other and calling their opponents antichrists, demons, adulterers, sodomists, enemies of God and man. One of these "popes", John XXIII (1410-1415) "was accused by thirty seven witnesses (mostly. Bishops and priests) of fornication, adultery, incest, sodomy, simony, theft, and murder! It was proved by a legion of witnesses that he had seduced and violated three hundred nuns. His own secretary, Niem, said that he had at Boulogne, kept a harem, where not less than two hundred girls had been the victims of his lubricity." Altogether the Council charged him with fifty-four crimes of the worst kind.
A vatican record offers this information about his immoral reign. "His lordship, Pope John, committed perversity with the wife of his brother, incest with holy nuns, intercourse with virgins, adultery with the married, and all sorts of sex crimes... wholly given to sleep and other carnal desires, totally adverse to the life and teaching of Christ.. . he was publicly called the Devil incarnate." To increase his wealth, Pope John taxed about everything—including prostitution, gainbling, and usury. He has been called "the most depraved criminal who ever sat on the papal throne."
Pope Pius 11 (1458-1464) was said to have been the father of many illegitimate children. He "spoke openly of the methods he used to seduce women, encouraged young men to, and even offered to instruct them in methods of, self-indulgence." Pius was followed by Paul 11 (1464-1471) who maintained a house full of concubines. His papal tiara outweighed a palace in its worth. Next came Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) who financed his wars by selling church offices to the highest bidders and "used the papacy to enrich himself and his relatives. He made eight of his nephews cardinals, while as yet some of them were mere boys. In luxurious and lavish entertainment, he rivaled the Caesars. In wealth and pomp he and his relatives surpassed the old Roman families.
Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) was the father of sixteen children by various women. Some of his children celebrated their marriages in the Vatican. The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions only "two illegitimate children, Franceschetto and Teodorina" from the days of a "licentious youth. Like numerous' other popes, he multiplied church offices and sold them for vast sums of money. He permitted bull fights on St. Peter's square.
Next came Rodergio Borgia who took the name of Alexander VI (1492-1503), having won his election to the papacy by bribing the cardinals. Before becoming pope, while a cardinal and archbishop, he lived in sin with a lady of Rome, Vanozza dei Catanei; and afterward, with her daughter Rosa, by whom he had five children. On his coronation day, he appointed his son—a youth of vile temper and habits—as archbishop of Valencia. Many consider Alexander VI to be the most corrupt of the Renaissance popes. He lived in public incest with his two sisters and his own daughter, Lucretia, from whom, it is said, he had a child. On October 31, 1501, he conducted a sex orgy in the Vatican, the equal of which for sheer horror has never been duplicated in the annals of human history.
According to Life magazine, Pope Paul III (1534-1549) as cardinal had fathered three sons and a daughter. On the day of his coronation he celebrated the baptism of his two great-grandchildren. He appointed two of his teenage nephews as cardinals, sponsored festivals with singers, dancers, and jesters, and sought advice from astrologers.
Pope Leo X (1513-1521) was born December 11, 1475. He received tonsure at age 7, was made an abbot at 8, and a cardinal at 13! The illustration given above shows the Bull of Pope Leo X. On one side of the leaden seal appears the apostles Peter and Paul, on the other the pope's name and title. The word "bull" (from a Latin word linked with roundness) was first applied to the seals which authenticated papal documents and later to the documents also.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says that Pope Leo X "gave himself up unrestrainedly to amusements that were provided in lavish abundance. He was possessed by an insatiable love of pleasure... He loved to give banquets and expensive entertainments, accompanied by revelry and carousing. "
(Continued)
Peace:)
(Continued)
During those days, Martin Luther, while still a priest of the papal church, traveled to Rome. As he caught the first glimpse of the seven-hilled city, he fell to the ground and said: "Holy Rome, I salute thee." He had not spent much time there, however, until he saw that Rome was anything but a holy city. Iniquity existed among all classes of the clergy. Priests told indecent jokes and used awful profanity, even during Mass. The papal court was served at supper by twelve naked girls. "No one can imagine what sins and infamous actions are committed in Rome," he said, "they must be seen and heard to be believed. Thus they are in the habit of saying, `If there is a hell, Rome is built over it'."
One day during Luther's visit to Rome, he noticed a statue on one of the public streets that led to St. Peter's—the statue of a female pope. Because it was an object of disgust to the popes, no pope would ever pass down that certain street. "I am astonished", said Luther, "how the popes allow the statue to remain." Forty years after Luther's death, the statue was removed by Pope Sixtus V.
Though The Catholic Encyclopedia regards the story of pope Joan as a mere tale, it gives the following summary: "After Leo IV (847-855) the Englishman John- of Mainz occupied the papal chair two years, seven months and four days, he was, it is alleged, a woman. When a girl, she was taken to Athens in male clothes by her lover, and there made such progress in learning that no one was her equal. She came to Rome, where she taught science, and thereby attracted the attention of learned men...and was finally chosen as pope, but, becoming pregnant by one of her trusted attendants, she gave birth to a child during a procession from St. Peter's to the Lateran... There she died almost immediately, and it is said she was buried at the same place."
Was there really a female pope? Prior to the Reformation which exposed so much error in the Romish church, the story was believed by chroniclers, bishops, and by popes themselves. The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries this popess was already counted as an historical personage, whose existence no one doubted. She had her place among the carved busts which stood in Siena cathedral. Under Clement VII (1592-1595),and at his request, she was transformed into Pope Zacharias. The heretic Hus, in defence of his false doctrine before the Council of Constance, referred to the popess, and no one offered to question the fact of her existence." Some have questioned how Pope Clement could have a female pope, named Joan, "transformed" into a male pope, named Zacharias, centuries after she had died!
Having mentioned the gross immorality that has existed in the lives of some of the popes, we do not wish to leave the impression that all popes have been as bad as the ones mentioned. But we do believe this evidence seriously weakens the doctrine of "apostolic succession", the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church because it can trace a line of popes back to Peter. Is this really an important point? If so, each of these popes, even those who were known to be immoral and cruel, must be included. There is even the possibility of a female pope to make the succession complete! But salvation is not dependent on tracing a line of popes back to Peter—or even on a system of religion claiming to represent Christ. Salvation is found in Christ himself.
End of quote.
If you want to belong to a church with this sort of history, you are welcome to it.
Remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees, that they were guilty of the blood of the prophets because they agreed that their forefathers put them to death.
Even so, as it talks about Mystery Babylon in Revelation 18
4Then I heard another voice from heaven say:
"Come out of her, my people, (looks like there is some of God's people in there, are you one of them?)
So that you will not share in her sins,
So that you will not receive any of her plagues;
5for her sins are piled up to heaven,
And God has remembered her crimes.
6Give back to her as she has given;
Pay her back double for what she has done.
Mix her a double portion from her own cup.
7Give her as much torture and grief
As the glory and luxury she gave herself.
In her heart she boasts,
'I sit as queen; I am not a widow,
And I will never mourn.'
8Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her:
Death, mourning and famine.
She will be consumed by fire,
For mighty is the Lord God who judges her.
21Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said:
"With such violence
the great city of Babylon will be thrown down,
never to be found again.
22The music of harpists and musicians, flute players and trumpeters,
will never be heard in you again.
No workman of any trade
will ever be found in you again.
The sound of a millstone
will never be heard in you again.
23The light of a lamp will never shine in you again.
The voice of bridegroom and bride
will never be heard in you again.
Your merchants were the world's great men.
By your magic spell all the nations were led astray.
24In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints,
and of all who have been killed on the earth."
Peace:)
Well, yeah. But that is only one side of the equation. Lets go back to Scripture:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Romans 3:5 But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God.
6 Who will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. 9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Its in more than one place so lets post another Scripture from another perspective but meaning the same thing:
Rev 20 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works. 14 And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire.
Ok, now lets round out your equation.
Jesus died for our sins and we, being grateful, also die to our sins and work for His Kingdom.
However, some of us begin to work then decide we like it better if we work for the pleasure of our flesh than for the Kingdom of God. According to these Scriptures, what becomes of those who do not work for God's Kingdom?
I'll give you a hint:
John 15 6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and case him into the fire, and be burneth.
Two hints:
Matt 7 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Gosh Peter??Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson
Couldn't you shorten it just a bit. Posting entire websites makes it kind of hard to have a decent discussion. Would you like for me to post the entire Catholic encyclopedia in response?
Besides, I think that's against the rules. Lets be reasonable, shall we?
Sincerely,
De Maria
I don't understand why all the debate over wondergirl saying salvation is a free gift
YEAH we get that it does not mean that all accept the free gift or anything else.
It isn't the 'other side of equation because then you are saying it is a free gift with equations
What you are suggesting is more the extensions of the extenuating circumstances of people who reject or misuse the free gift so I don't understand the 'debate' or whatever it is when we DO understand and agree with what you are saying.
Yes. Actions speak louder than words.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
St. Justin Martyr on the topic of righteous atheists:
CHAPTER XLVI -- THE WORD IN THE WORLD BEFORE CHRIST.
But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible--let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them;
They are spoken of in Scripture are they not?Quote:
or what about the 'Christians' that maybe only profess to accept that gift yet burn grandma's house down?
Hebrews 10 26 For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. 28 A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people.
As I understood her point, it was to say that we are once saved always saved. Therefore, she illustrated the gift and the appreciative response. But she did not represent the nonappreciative response.Quote:
MY point was that Wonder girl was specifically using grandma offering a free gift to explain how God offers the free gift and then it is up to us what we do with the free gift accept it or reject it and then you threw out another scenario of how someone might use the free gift. Her point was not on how we use the free gift and the consequences of what we do.
What are the consequences of the person who receives the gift and rejects it. It seems clear, in Scripture, that if we reject the gift BY OUR DEEDS, we will be rejected in turn.
Sincerely,
De Maria
There is no debate over salvation being a free gift. Salvation is a free gift. The debate is over your understanding of what constitutes the free gift of salvation.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Let me put like this. At work, our company frequently gives out pins and watches for years of service and for performance. These are gifts.
How could they be gifts, they are given out based on merit of some sort?
First criteria. We must be employees to be eligible to receive these gifts.
Second criteria. We must produce some verifiable effort.
So, this is remuneration of a sort.
True, but the company is making a free will gift because no one is forcing the company to give any gift whatsoever. There is no contractual requirement that they must recognize anyone at all except to pay them their due wages.
It's the same with God's salvation.
First criteria. We must have faith. Faith does not merit the grace of salvation but without it we won't be saved.
Second criteria. Works. Our works of righteousness do not merit our salvation. But without them we don't demonstrate faith. Therefore faith without works is dead and we won't be saved.
That is correct. It is a free gift with conditions. The conditions are in Scripture. You want to eat, you got to work. If you don't work you don't eat.Quote:
YEAH we get that it does not mean that all accept the free gift or anything else.
It isn't the 'other side of equation because then you are saying it is a free gift with equations
Do you? Then why do you seem to be objecting? Do you believe that faith without works is a saving faith or not?Quote:
What you are suggesting is more the extensions of the extenuating circumstances of people who reject or misuse the free gift so I don't understand the 'debate' or whatever it is when we DO understand and agree with what you are saying.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Exactly the point we are getting at it is free but then up to you how to use it or even accept it
Wondergirl did NOT say that--"once saved aways saved." Nothing like adding to the text...Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Now you want a nonappreciative response? That wasn't the question on the table at the time, so I will write another Grandma example to illustrate that.
NO De Marie NOBODY is saying once saved always saved!
We ARE agreeing with you on THIS point it is how you choose to use the free gift doesn't mean once saved always saved
No, they aren't. They are rewards for service, a whole 'nother animal.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
It would be like God saying, "Youse guys have been so loving and kind lately and so full of goodness, so I'm gonna send My Son to die on the cross for you. What a peachy-keen bunch you are!"
Sorry, Charlie. It's not the same at all.Quote:
It's the same with God's salvation.
Now if the employees came in late and played Free Cell instead of doing their work and hung out in the cafeteria for hours at a time, then went home early, and the company owners gave them merit pay increases and gift certificates to local restaurants... that example is a lot closer to what God did for us in Christ.
Sorry, not true. The Bible says God sent His Son IN SPITE OF man's lack of love and faith--"while we were yet in our sins." That bumper sticker, "I found God" is all wrong. It should be, "God found me." God comes to each of us wherever we are.Quote:
First criteria. We must have faith.
Again, not true. Yes, faith without works is dead, but works don't save us. Only Christ's death on the cross saves us. The works are our thank you to God.Quote:
Second criteria. Works. Therefore faith without works is dead and we won't be saved.
No conditions. Salvation is a free gift just like Grandma's birthday gift was. Both were out of unconditional love. Neither God nor Grandma dangle strings alongside their gift.Quote:
It is a free gift with conditions.
It's really difficult to imagine that someone would give us something that's totally free, isn't it. We've always been warned to look behind the gift, to look for the condition, the string, the obligation. Nothing is free in this life, they say. Watch out for all those free offers--they're gimmicks to suck you in. I guess that's why people just can't believe God would give us something totally for free. That's not how the world operates. But then... God is not of this world and doesn't play by earthly standards and expectations, does He.
Seems strange that a man would be so compassionate for the supposed evils done 600 or 700 years ago, immediately abandon the faith of his family; that for want of a book, that could be purchased for a few dollars, he could give up the real presence of Christ? I suspicion there's more to it than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson
Even still, my “zeal” forces me to make sure that other readers understand that there is at least two sides to every story.
The Black Legend
The first inquisition came out of southern France where the majority was Cathars. Catharism is a sect with strong Gnostic elements that thrived in the 11th through the 13 centuries. Holding dualist and Gnostic faiths, Cathars held theological views such as the world was created evil by Satan, while considering God of the Old Testament to be the moral equal and opposite of Satan – the yin yang of good and evil. Many hold that Catharism had its theological genesis in Gnosticism with an aberrant mix of Judaism and Mohammedanism.
In southern France they formed opposition to the clergy and the Catholic Church. They perceived the individual to be the source of moral, spiritual, and political authority and as such viewed the Catholic Church as corrupt.
Procreation was considered undesirable and child birth was discouraged. They considered sex as a perversion, but at the same timed considered recreational sex as preferable to sex reserved for the purpose of procreation. It seems that taking on concubines was a moral alternative to marriage. It's really interesting that the Cathars could hold such distain for a natural act while finding recreational sex healthy – it hurts the head doesn't it? - by refusing to reproduce it's a wonder they lasted two hundred years.
Much like the radical Islamists of today, this movement can be viewed as the cradle of the Protestant movement. Morally dysfunctional societies such as Cathars refused the authority of the Church. They defended radical attacks against the Church, refused social regulation, taxes, social and moral bans while feeling justified in any moral disorder proclaiming to be above any moral truth taught by the Catholic Church. – When it's in black and white, its amazing how much they sound like today's secularists with a twisted freaky dualist god.
Which brings me to my point presented best by Warren H Carroll in The Glory of Christendom,
“The 'black legend' of the Inquisition has been the most successful of all historical propaganda offensives against the Catholic Church; and the difficulty of responding to it persuasively is vastly increased by the almost complete inability of modern man to understand how any society could regard a man's religion as a matter of life and death. But in fact the heretic in Christendom was in every sense of the word a revolutionary, as dangerous to public order and personal safety as yesterday's Communist or today's terrorist.”
JoeT
PS I wonder how this new thread would go over: “Is Protestantism taking on the same errors as Cathars in that they hold that individuals are the sole source of moral, and spiritual authortity” .
okay so you say it is propaganda so is that saying the Catholic church was falsely accused?
Two sides to every story= two wrongs do not make a right.
Gee, it seems to me that I have said the same thing to you, De Maria!Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I D0 remember those pages of Catholic *encyclopedias* on answerway.com and I believe I remember them on askme.com too :eek: :rolleyes:
Just out of curiosity, did you toss in that apostrophe or did the text come that way?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Well yeah. But I didn't post an entire website. I just answered each of your posts in my usual verbose style.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
:o
I've never been on those websites. And I've never posted pages of Catholic encyclopedias. Although I have linked to the Catholic encyclopedia. Is that what you are referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
No, they are free will gifts. If the company decided to stop giving them tomorrow, we couldn't legally obligate them to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Excellent example!!Quote:
It would be like God saying, "Youse guys have been so loving and kind lately and so full of goodness, so I'm gonna send My Son to die on the cross for you. What a peachy-keen bunch you are!"
Lets look at it more closely.
So far so good. God gave us a free will gift. His Son. God was not obligated to save us. But He sent His only begotten Son to save us as a free will Gift.
Is everyone saved? The whole world? No one is damned anymore no matter what they've done and whether they repented?
Of course not. Only certain people are saved? Why? Because there are conditions to this gift. What are the conditions?
1. Believe and be baptized and you are saved.
You must be born again into the family of God.
2. Repent!!!
One must confess and repent of one's sins.
3. Eat My Flesh and drink My Blood.
Faith alone won't save you, you must believe Jesus and act upon His Words no matter how hard they are to believe.
4. he who perseveres till the end will be saved
You must persevere in your faith until the end.
Salvation is a free will gift with conditions. Otherwise the entire world would be saved and that would not be justice.
Yeah, it is.Quote:
Sorry, Charlie. It's not the same at all.
In other words, you believe that because of Jesus sacrifice, you are now free to sin. But Scripture is clear:Quote:
Now if the employees came in late and played Free Cell instead of doing their work and hung out in the cafeteria for hours at a time, then went home early, and the company owners gave them merit pay increases and gift certificates to local restaurants... that example is a lot closer to what God did for us in Christ.
Romans 6 1 What shall we say, then? shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?2 God forbid. For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein? 3 Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death? 4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.
So, if you believe that you are free to sin because Jesus died on the Cross, then you are sorely mistaken.
If we go back to the example, if we employees were to desist from work and begin to play all day and expect to still receive the Company's gifts, we would be sorely mistaken. In fact, there is one possible last gift we might receive. A pink slip.
And that is what will happen to those who will continue to sin after Jesus' sacrifice. They will be cutoff and thrown into the fire.
Regardless of whether God found us or we found Him, if we don't abide with Him, we will be cutoff:Quote:
Sorry, not true. The Bible says God sent His Son IN SPITE OF man's lack of love and faith--"while we were yet in our sins." That bumper sticker, "I found God" is all wrong. It should be, "God found me." God comes to each of us wherever we are.
Romans 11 22 See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
True, but without the works, you won't be saved:Quote:
Again, not true. Yes, faith without works is dead, but works don't save us. Only Christ's death on the cross saves us. The works are our thank you to God.
John 15
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.
6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and case him into the fire, and be burneth.
Even Grandma's birthday gift has a condition. It is your birthday. If she doesn't give it to you on your birthday then it isn't a birthday gift.Quote:
No conditions. Salvation is a free gift just like Grandma's birthday gift was.
And even then it would be conditional on your being her grand daughter. She wouldn't give your gift to a total stranger. You are a member of her family.
Salvation is for the members of God's family. Those who have been born again of the spirit in Baptism.
Apparently you never noticed the strings because you are speaking of your Grandma. I remember the first time I spent Christmas in another family's house. My stay was unexpected and there were gifts for everyone, but none for me. Big String. You've got to be a family member. God doesn't just save anyone no matter how they live their lives or whether they believe Jesus or not.Quote:
Both were out of unconditional love. Neither God nor Grandma dangle strings alongside their gift.
No. Its really difficult to believe that someone gives us such a wonderful gift and you place such a small value on it that you don't believe you should do everything in your power to pay it back.Quote:
It's really difficult to imagine that someone would give us something that's totally free, isn't it.
Even if its impossible to payback, you should at least try. It seems astonishing to me that anyone should accept such a gift and then say, "I don't need to do anything." "God has taken on flesh and died for my sins, but I'm too good to follow His steps even one inch."
I'll ask you a simple question. Do you believe that people who blaspheme the Holy Spirit will be saved?Quote:
We've always been warned to look behind the gift, to look for the condition, the string, the obligation. Nothing is free in this life, they say. Watch out for all those free offers--they're gimmicks to suck you in. I guess that's why people just can't believe God would give us something totally for free. That's not how the world operates. But then... God is not of this world and doesn't play by earthly standards and expectations, does He.
Jesus' died for everyone's sins right? Why won't they be saved? Or, why will they be saved if you believe they will?
Sincerely,
De Maria
I didn't say that's what you said, please reread the message in question. I said that is what I understood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
What does that mean?Quote:
Now you want a nonappreciative response?
Ok, looking forward to it.Quote:
That wasn't the question on the table at the time, so I will write another Grandma example to illustrate that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I don’t doctor quotes; but if you’ll remind me where this is posted I’ll look up the reference for you. I can’t remember how I titled the post in my files.
Yeah, but you haven't touched on the other side of the equation. What happens if you don't "use it"? I assume by "use it" you mean that you work. So what happens if after you accept the gift, you don't feed the hungry, help the poor or produce any fruit of any kind?Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
John 15 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.
6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and case him into the fire, and be burneth.
What happens if you insult the gift:
Hebrews 10 29 How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound good to me.
Now that is what happens if you accept the gift and don't use it and then if you accept the gift and disrespect it.
What happens if you don't accept the gift at all:
Romans 2 3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them who do such things, and dost the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and patience, and longsuffering? Knowest thou not, that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance? 5 But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God.
6 Who will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. 9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Ah, there's the rub. We can only say no; we can only refuse the gift.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Right - I have seen smaller websites. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
De Maria,
Maybe I missed it, but could you show me where you answered rhadsen's question in post #600? Perhaps I missed your answers.
His questions were:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early on in this thread I pointed out the fact that despite your claim about the rich man in Luke 16:24 being in Purgatory, none of the Fathers share your view. In your most recent post you indicated that they could not have used the term "purgatory" in their writings about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus because that word was not known to them, so they used the term "hell." Very well, if that's true, then some quotes by the fathers in which they describe the rich man as being in "hell temporarily" will suffice. Can you produce such quotes?
Now, regarding the chasm in Luke 16:26. I mentioned that it seemed to indicate that the rich man's fate was sealed. You replied, "Does that say the chasm is fixed permanently? Where?"
I'll freely admit that the text does not say that directly. But, turnabout is fair play. Can you show me where it says that the chasm isn't fixed permanently? Where?
You also asked me if there was any love in the hell of the damned. I'll freely admit that there probably is not. However, this is a parable. Jesus is telling this story to get his point across. He may, or may not be telling the story about an actual historical event. He may or may not change some details to get his point across. Now, you may say that the rich man can't be in hell because there is no love there. However, consider the following details from the story:
The Pharisees had a love of money. It appears that Jesus told this story about them in their presence. Part of God's will is that we help the poor. Will disregarding that will mean still being in God's grace and friendship? The rich man apparently was excessive and extravagant. He showed no concern for Lazarus despite the fact that it was clearly within the rich man's ability to help Lazarus. What does God say about that De Maria?
1 John 5:17 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?
Matthew 25:21-46 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Does the rich man call Abraham "father?" Yes he does, but isn't it presumptious for him to do that when he ignored the example of Abraham? By his calling Abraham "father" despite not living with love for his neighbor, and his request for Abraham to send Lazarus on his own personal task, it seems that he is continuing in his disregard for others even after death. Rather than an apology to Lazarus, we see here a request for a special favor in the way of a visitor from the afterlife to warn his kin. The rich man still seems to think that he is in charge! Tell me De Maria, is disregard for God's will, disregard for the poor, consistent with being in God's grace and friendship?
I did not say, "spirits must be modified to determine what it means." I did say that the word translated "spirits" unless modified represents non-human spirit beings. (I'm not sure how you mixed that up, maybe you are skimming instead of reading?) Since you seem to disagree De Maria, with my contention that 1 Peter 3:19 is not talking about humans, can you provide a verse in the New Testament where the word "spirits" not modified by an adjective or other word in the same sentence clearly indicates a deceased person? As you saw in the five verses that I provided (Matthew 12:45; Acts 23:8,9; Luke 10:20; Ephesians 2:2; Hebrews 1:14) there is no way one could misinterpret those verses as speaking about humans.
Are you attempting to claim that Noah's contemporaries that died in the flood really were in God's grace and friendship by posting a translation that reads, "Which had been some time incredulous…."?
Where exactly did you see me practicing , as you call it, "esegesis?"
Regarding 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, De Maria, if those whose works don't burn end up with the same thing as those whose works burn, how is that a reward?
--------------------------------------------------
And I am having trobles understanding what you mean by this part, if you would please elaborate on the context in which you where using this passage. I do not understand how Eat My Flesh and dring My Blood corispond to the later statement. This is what I am asking you to clarifyQuote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
But as it stands to your second part of this statement there are 2 sets of verses I want to show you.
Ephesians 2
Made Alive in Christ
1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
And
Faith and Deeds
James 2
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
This shows a triangle
_______Jesus
_____/______\
____/________\
__Faith ----- Grace
__/____________\
Works________Free
These two verses help to show the triangle, showing that we are saved by faith and grace but if we take out the work's our faith is dead and therefore we are not with Christ. But if we take it to the reverse and say it is by works that we work for grace to get to Heaven we are no longer depending on the Grace of God therefore we again are not with Christ.
Now responding to
How can a gift be free yet have conditons this is an oxymoron. God wants the entire world to be saved he never wanted any of us to go to hell but when we make the choice to reject him and go to other Gods/religons instead of staying in our faith/relationship with him it is our choice. But this has nothing to do with justice because even a man who raped and killed a child can truly repent come to a relationship with christ and be saved. How many people would see justice in that? So truly it is not baced on traditions conditons works or otherwise it is a free gift this is also shown by the death on the cross when Jesus said the murderer on his right that he would be in paridise with him that day. If this was all about justice then this man would not have gone up to heaven with Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
(God said in many places in the bible that our punishment/judgement is death.) this for the christian faith means fisical death, for other regioions this means a spiritual death(hell) as well.
*sigh*Quote:
Faith alone won't save you
"By grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves"
You can only say no.Quote:
you must believe Jesus
Responding in love is voluntary, has nothing to do with assuring salvation, and is your thank-you to God.Quote:
and must act upon His Words
I know you seem to be talking to him but, did I respond to this question incorrectly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The problem with respect to the question of faith and works comes when people do not understand the context of the original Greek words and only read it in English, and they then fall into the mis-understanding that De Maria fell into - and it is a common mis-understanding.
The word "Faith" and "Faithfulness" in Greek are the same word. So when scripture speaks of faith, we can also read it as "Faithfulness".
The problem that De Maria and others who fell into this trap have is that they think that the works are required for salvation, whereas what these verses are saying is not that works are required for salvation, but rather that work demonstrate our faithfulness.
Since faith and faithfulness are the same word in Greek, where scripture says that "Faith without works is dead", it is just as accurate to read it saying "Faithfulness without works is dead". Thus if you do you not live out our faith with works, then you are not faithful, and how then why we should we assume that you have faith if you are not faithful?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilmkiss
In some ways I agree. The Vatican Council (III, 3) says that "faith is a supernatural virtue by which we with the inspiration and assistance of God's grace, believe those things to be true which He has revealed". I often think of works as a requitement of faith; or a cooperation between faith and works. It takes both acceptance and cooperation with God’s grace of Truth salvation to be efficacious. Based on Scripture, it’s not the nature of God to strike us dumb with an irresistible faith.
However, I find Catholic faith in God quite different from the ‘struck by lightning’ knowledge that waits for a predestined salvation. There are many Protestants that have this type of faith, i.e. once saved always saved. On the other hand, Catholics hold ‘faith’ in God to be those truths revealed by God in Scripture and in the Tradition of the Church (objective faith). Faith can also be those things we hold true that are beyond our understanding, but within the natural light of reason (subjective faith). This latter type of faith requires a supernatural strengthening of natural light. "Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?" (What is faith but belief without seeing?). In either event intellectual reasoning has an element of faith that requires participation.
We can’t forget that the four gospels are first and foremost theology; not special codes like the Mosaic Law. Luther, like others, chose to turn away from the harmony in the scriptures substituting rationalism. But, reason outside the confines of apostolic teaching is bound to produce confusion that results in the denial of the oneness of faith. ( Cf. John 17:9-10)
Many of your arguments conform to the Catholic faith. However, the subtle deviations miss the essence of the two natures of Christ, man and God; faith and works. Christ may have died for our sins, (an act of God’s mercy), but he lived along with his mother and disciples not only to hear or speak the word of God, but to personify, “do it” – unquestionably a “work” as defined by most Protestant faiths. (cf Luke 8:21)
Christ not only lived the old covenant, he was a redeemed faith, marked with faith-blood that “worked” internally and externally. The word of God was grafted into his being as a Jew. Was not the Christ’s crucifixion a “work” in the spirit of Yom Kippur, atonement for our sins? Forgiveness of sins was a unique concept hitherto unknown to the Jewish faith. Was it not Christ who lived the Jewish High Holydays of the Sukkuot (Tabernacles)? Was it not a “work” when Jesus transfigured before Peter, John and James. Was the procession to the temple where the people waived palms and shouted “Hosanna” a “work”? Being both the priest offering the sacrifice while simultaneously being the sacrifice. This single act transformed both heaven and earth; the old covenant did not have forgiveness of sin. (cf Lev. 17:11, Rom 3:25 and Heb. 8:7? Was it not Zechariah’s vision on Rosh Hashoanah? During Rosh Hashanah the practice of Tahilikh (the casting off sins) was observed. The prophecy tells of God rising up a horn of salvation “to perform the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant” (a work). Couldn’t we even say that Christ’s birth in late December a “work” found in the Jewish Hanukah – the lighting of the menorah? Christ even waits till the feast of Hanukah to proclaim, “The Father and I are one.” (the light of the world). Jesus lived his faith and the traditions of his faith like no other man; obedient to the point of sweating blood, to the point of death.
When read with the apostolic teachings of the Catholic Church we can see that Christ lived and worked his faith both internally and externally. He didn’t simply “believe” in God, he was a “doer” of God’s words. So, it’s no wonder that James gives us the same advice, “[W]ith meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was.” (James 1:21-24.)
Jesus didn’t come to the Jews and say, “I think: I believe: therefore I am - so follow me.” So, in our poor attempt to emulate Christ, Paul tells us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. (cf Phil 2:12). In short live your faith; believing is simply not enough. "and only when necessary use words;" (who said that?- or did I even get the quote right -I can't recall)
JoeT
Pardon me? Did I read that right?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
De Maria,
You may have overlooked it as this thread is seeing a lot of activity, but I asked you some questions in post #140 and asked them again in post #600. Have you had a chance to take a look at them?
Rob
Yes, that's correct. Not that Luther was the first; you might say he perfected theological rationalism. The concepts held by Luther were actually predated by Wycliff (sp ?) and Jan Hus with the roots in Catharism (see The Black Legend - link)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
JoeT
Not to mention my own family life. Sorry, I'll look them up now.Quote:
Originally Posted by rhadsen
Sincerely,
De Maria
Isn't that your burden to prove? Not that the rich man is in "hades" temporarily but that he is in "hades" permanently.Quote:
Originally Posted by rhadsen
Since the Church Fathers you referenced seem to be using the terminology "hades", isn't it imperative that you prove that they don't mean the abode of the dead but the abode of the damned?
In addition, since the topic of this discussion is "Purgatory". Shouldn't you first prove that the Church Fathers did not believe in the concept of Purgatory, whether, they used that word to describe it?
The Roots of Purgatory
The Roots of Purgatory
Great thinking! I love the logic. You realize however, that it is you who are the Sola Scripturist and I the one who believes in Scripture and Tradition.Quote:
Now, regarding the chasm in Luke 16:26. I mentioned that it seemed to indicate that the rich man's fate was sealed. You replied, "Does that say the chasm is fixed permanently? Where?"
I'll freely admit that the text does not say that directly. But, turnabout is fair play. Can you show me where it says that the chasm isn't fixed permanently? Where?
Therefore, since the rest of the verses are about a faithful son of Abraham who is suffering in fire for his sins of ommission, I infer that it is Purgatory.
So, it is you must prove FROM SCRIPTURE. Not I. Follow?
Thanks. I agree. Except I am absolutely certain there is not.Quote:
You also asked me if there was any love in the hell of the damned. I'll freely admit that there probably is not.
Wrong. In a parable, the protagonists are unnamed because they are symbolic of truths being expressed.Quote:
However, this is a parable.
But this is a narrative. The protagonist is named. And Church tradition tells us the name of the other person. His name is Dies.
Therefore, again, although you are stuck searching for truth in the Scriptures alone. Tradition helps me to fill in the gaps.
Here you are displaying an unreasonable attitude displayed by Protestants against the Pharisees. Because of your Sola Scripturist attitude, you actually believe that all Pharisees went to hell.Quote:
Jesus is telling this story to get his point across. He may, or may not be telling the story about an actual historical event. He may or may not change some details to get his point across. Now, you may say that the rich man can't be in hell because there is no love there. However, consider the following details from the story:
The Pharisees had a love of money. It appears that Jesus told this story about them in their presence.
But not all Pharisees were abusing their position. Certainly a significant number were, but not all.
You are correct. But these are teachings. They have to be written in black and white because one must generalize from them.Quote:
Part of God's will is that we help the poor. Will disregarding that will mean still being in God's grace and friendship? The rich man apparently was excessive and extravagant. He showed no concern for Lazarus despite the fact that it was clearly within the rich man's ability to help Lazarus. What does God say about that De Maria?
1 John 5:17 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?
Matthew 25:21-46 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Now, let me ask you. Have you ever walked past a poor man without giving him something to eat or drink?
I know that I have. And I know that many in this United States have done so. Does that mean we will go to hell?
On the other hand, even Jesus said, "Mark 14 7 For the poor you have always with you: and whensoever you will, you may do them good: but me you have not always."
So, there is really not enough information in this narrative in order to condemn the Rich Man eternally. Do you know if he is a faithful husband? A faifhful and loving son to his father and moter? A good citizen paying his taxes and dues? Yet if this man fails in feeding one poor man, is he condemned to eternal damnation? Does that sound fair to you?
It doesn't sound fair to me and to be perfectly honest, I will probably have the same destiny as the Rich Man. Since I fare sumptuously everyday and yet I'm aware of much starvation throughout the world.
So, if you are correct, I am already condemned to eternal fire. Where do you stand? Have you helped everyone that you can help? Or have you also ignored the poverty at your doorstep?
Your logic doesn't follow. When you anger your father, do you cease to call him father? When you anger your mother, do you thereby cease to be her son? When you sin against God, do you then deny His Fatherhood?Quote:
Does the rich man call Abraham "father?" Yes he does, but isn't it presumptious for him to do that when he ignored the example of Abraham? By his calling Abraham "father" despite not living with love for his neighbor, and his request for Abraham to send Lazarus on his own personal task, it seems that he is continuing in his disregard for others even after death. Rather than an apology to Lazarus, we see here a request for a special favor in the way of a visitor from the afterlife to warn his kin. The rich man still seems to think that he is in charge! Tell me De Maria, is disregard for God's will, disregard for the poor, consistent with being in God's grace and friendship?
Obviously, like all humans in distress, Dives is calling out to those he thinks love him and will have compassion on him. This is not what one would expect of any soul in perdition.
No. I'm not simply skimming. I'm reading. However your logic is faulty. As I said, the word in that verse is already modified. It is clear that it refers to those human spirits which were disobedient during the time of the flood.Quote:
I did not say, "spirits must be modified to determine what it means." I did say that the word translated "spirits" unless modified represents non-human spirit beings. (I'm not sure how you mixed that up, maybe you are skimming instead of reading?) Since you seem to disagree De Maria, with my contention that 1 Peter 3:19 is not talking about humans, can you provide a verse in the New Testament where the word "spirits" not modified by an adjective or other word in the same sentence clearly indicates a deceased person? As you saw in the five verses that I provided (Matthew 12:45; Acts 23:8,9; Luke 10:20; Ephesians 2:2; Hebrews 1:14) there is no way one could misinterpret those verses as speaking about humans.
I must modify what your words slightly in order to agree with them:Quote:
Are you attempting to claim that Noah's contemporaries that died in the flood really were in God's grace and friendship by posting a translation that reads, "Which had been some time incredulous…."?
I am claiming that Noah's contemporaries which were described as "some time incredulous" were in an imperfect state of God's grace and friendship. That is precisely why they were in prison and not in eternal damnation.
Where exactly did you see me practicing , as you call it, "esegesis?"
It seems manifest to me. I don't even understand how you can question that it isn't a reward.Quote:
Regarding 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, De Maria, if those whose works don't burn end up with the same thing as those whose works burn, how is that a reward?
Perhaps if you compare to this parable. For the sake of brevity, please read Matt 20:1-16.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Except that in the verses we've discussed, faith implies a working faith. If works do not accompany faith, then the faith is dead:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
James 2 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
And that isn't where the Catholic understanding ends. Although the Protestant understanding falls short even of that understanding.
If we go to Romans 2, we see that not only are good works rewarded. But sins or evil works are punished.
9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
The juxtaposition of these concepts makes it very clear. Those who work evil will go to hell. Those work good will go to heaven.
Very simple concept, but the reality doesn't work out that simply does it.
Most of us do both. So, there must be an accounting:
Matthew 12 36 But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment.
Simply asking saying, "Lord, Lord forgive me" doesn't cut it. You must make amends:
Acts Of Apostles 26
20 But to them first that are at Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and unto all the country of Judea, and to the Gentiles did I preach, that they should do penance, and turn to God, doing works worthy of penance.
Matthew 3 8 Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance.
Oh, I know, that is what the Catholic Bible says. Lets look at the NIV, a popular Protestant Bible:
Matt 3 8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.
Acts 26 20First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.
Sincerely,
De Maria
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:44 AM. |