Tuesday, September 20, 2005

"Eggs" Benedict Serves Up Indulgences to Youth
still heretical after all these years


I've heard that Wittenberg Beer might have had some influence in Benedict's life as a youth growing up in Germany. I think the name of the beer was "Papal-Bull-Weiser." You know the slogan: when you've said "pay Papal-Bull-Weiser, you've freed them all." However, I have it on very good authority that the Pope's most favorite pop song that he likes to sing around the Vatican late at night when he thinks that all the other little "Romie Homies" are quietly asleep is: "B-B-B-Bennedicty and the Tetz."


Pope Benedict XVI arrived in Germany on August the 18th last month to address more than 400 000 young people at the 20th World Youth Day meeting. This marked his first visit to the country of his birth since he was crowned pontiff back in April of this year. What also makes this trip "out of the ordinary", is that he granted two special indulgences for the young people attending the World Youth Day (held in Cologne, Germany August 16-21). As you might be aware, the practice of indulgences dates back to the time of the Reformation (1517). “Eggs” Benedict (my nickname for Romanism's conservative antichrist figure) is showing his true papal colors these days by reviving authority in the apocryphal teachings of Tridentine doctrines (such as the selling of indulgences - but in this unusual case the indulgences weren't sold, but he makes them earn them and then he grants them) which he unashamedly represents as infallible truth; but in reality are nothing but damnable lies. The “yoke” – you might say– is on him.

Who is John Tetzel?
John Tetzel, was Pope Leo X emissary; a braggart hired as Rome’s chief fundraiser by promising a “get out of jail free card” for the price of a financial offering to the Pope. He was ordered to sell the idea that buying indulgences would release sinners from divine punishment. "Indulgences" were printed permits or coupons listing the monetary value of a personal confession of sin. Bishop Albrecht of Mainz had authorized the sale of indulgences in order to pay Rome for making him an archbishop. The monies raised were used to assist in building St. Peter’s basilica in Rome. This became known as the selling of indulgences. Tetzel was the great mouthpiece, commissioner, and preacher of indulgences in Germany. His preaching raised enormous amounts of money which were sent to Rome. He had a very clever saying that he was infamous for when motivating people with the false promise of avoiding purgatorial punishment, playing with fear on the sentiments of many that by giving to him and Rome their friends and loved ones would be immediately released from torment to heaven's glory. He would "sing": "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs."

Luther, who was outraged by this abhorrent practice issued a public call for theological debate on the sale of indulgences by posting his ninety-five theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg on the eve of All Saint’s Day, October 31, 1517. He strategically trumped, by one day, Tetzel's influence over the people by challenging his unbiblical view of indulgences in a public forum. Printers distributed copies without Luther’s knowledge and permission. Within a few weeks, Martin Luther was known everywhere as the "voice of renewal." He began to see clearly that the church of his time stressed human merit—works righteousness, rather than trust in God alone for the salvation of men’s souls. It is no wonder that Luther and the other reformers gospel cry became: grace alone-sola gratia; through faith alone-sola fide; on the Word alone-sola Scriptura; because of Christ alone-solus Christus; to the glory of God alone-Soli Deo Gloria.

"Monking" Around
"This indulgence was highly respected. When the commissioner was welcomed to town, the Papal Bull (a written command or edict from the Pope) was carried on velvet or gold cloth. All the priests, monks, councilmen, teachers, pupils, men, women, maids, and children went to meet him singing in solemn procession with flags and candles. The bells tolled and when he entered the church the organ played. A red Cross was put up in the middle of the church to which the Pope's banner was affixed. In short: even God himself could not have been welcomed and received more beautifully.” [Source: Friedrich Myconius, Historia reformation is, p. 14.]

Turnabout is Fair Play
“After Tetzel had received a substantial amount of money at Leipzig, a nobleman asked him if it were possible to receive a letter of indulgence for a future sin. Tetzel quickly answered in the affirmative, insisting, however, that the payment had to made at once. This the nobleman did, receiving thereupon letter and seal from Tetzel. When Tetzel left Leipzig the nobleman attacked him along the way, gave him a thorough beating, and sent him back empty-handed to Leipzig with the comment that this was the future sin which he had in mind. Duke George at first was quite furious about this incident, but when he heard the whole story he let it go without punishing the nobleman.” [Source: Luthers Schriften, herausg. von Walch. XV, 446.]

Here’s the Issue in a Nutshell: History Repeats Itself
According to a Latin-language decree of the Apostolic Penitentiary dated August 2 and made public August 8, a plenary indulgence is available to the faithful who attend the sacred functions of World Youth Day and also "attentively and religiously" participate in its solemn conclusion on Sunday, August 21. The decree lists the additional conditions that must be fulfilled in order to gain this or any other plenary indulgence: sacramental Confession, reception of Holy Communion, prayer for the intention of the Holy Father, and a soul free from attachment to any sin.

A partial indulgence is available to all the other faithful,
wherever they may be during World Youth Day, if, with a contrite heart, they pray
fervently that Christian youth be strengthened in the profession of the Faith;

be confirmed in love and reverence toward their parents; and

form a firm resolution to follow "the holy norms of the Gospel and Mother
Church" in living out their present or future family life, or whatever
vocation they are called to by God.


This brief explanation below taken from Rome’s own "Primer on Indulgences" and will give you their justifying reason for this hellish practice.

Primer on Indulgences of the Roman Catholic Church.
“Those who claim that indulgences are no longer part of Church teaching have the admirable desire to distance themselves from abuses that occurred around the time of the Protestant Reformation. They also want to remove stumbling blocks that prevent non-Catholics from taking a positive view of the Church. As admirable as these motives are, the claim that indulgences are not part of Church teaching today is false.

This is proved by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, "An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins." The Church does this not just to aid Christians, "but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity" (CCC 1478).

Indulgences are part of the Church’s infallible teaching. This means that no Catholic is at liberty to disbelieve in them. The Council of Trent stated that it "condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them"(Trent, session 25, Decree on Indulgences). Trent’s anathema places indulgences in the realm of infallibly defined teaching.”

This is the sad reality of the current state of Romanism. Is there any doubt that this is a false church, led by a false shepherd, representing a false gospel, according to false doctrine. The Reformation did actually happen folks... but in light of the above, we need to still be "pounding on Wittenberg's Door."

Having more fun than a Reformed Baptist should be allowed to...
Stephanus Johan Campius
Galatians 1:6-8

302 comments:

1 – 200 of 302   Newer›   Newest»
Unchained Slave said...

I wonder, as Martin Luther did, why, IF the pope has the 'authority' to forgive sins (particularly those sins for which people are being 'tortured' in purgatory), why the pope, in Christian 'love' does not forgive all those sins, and release all those souls in purgatory...

pilgrim said...

An objection that some will give to this is that you can't judge his heart.
Well, you don't need to. Any gospel that includes indulgences (whether sold or granted) is not the same gospel the Bible teaches.
I'm not saying we all have to have 100% agreement in all areas to believe the same gospel, but indulgences strike at the heart of grace in the gospel, and therefore is on a wholeother plain than differences over baptismal mode, eschatology, or election.

Or to put it another way-I may be wrong or he may be wrong or we may both be wrong, but we can't both be right. So if I believe the true gospel, then he doesn't. If he believes the true gospel then I don't. Indulgences--again whether bought or granted--make for a different gospel.

Jeremy Weaver said...

I read on Batman's (Chad Bresson) blog that the difference between the indulgences granted this time was that in Tetzel's day they were sold, whereas Benedict makes you earn them.

littlegal_66 said...

Well, Campi, I read this article before turning in last evening, and got so stirred up thinking about it, it took a couple of hours to finally get to sleep. Thanks a lot--now I'm going to have to visit St. Arbuck's for a shot of caffeine just to be able to function today. (Just teasing ;-) Actually, I think this is something that should cause a bit of a stir.
(From the sound of this, it appears as though one could add "deviled" to your "Eggs" moniker, and call him "Deviled-Eggs" Benedict). My, he wasted no time, did he?

How dare he continue to cheapen and belittle the marvelous work that our precious Lord did at the cross? When I consider what the Pope has granted, and compare it to what Jesus--the perfect sacrifice--accomplished, I'm saddened, incensed, and disgusted by Benedict's actions (but not really surprised). What an insult to Christ!
It's like, "It was real nice of you to hang on the cross, there, Jesus, but, hey, I'm giving the people this voucher for a night of guilt-free, penance-free hedonistic sin, so, I'm just gonna let them cash that in. Your dying up there was a 'swell' gesture, though."

Aren't the Catholic church's "get out of jail free" cards, whether literal or figurative, in reality merely one-way tickets to Hades?

SJ Camp said...

That is right... He makes you earn them and he grants them. Either way, it is works righteousness--a Christ plus gospel.

SJ

MTG said...

Some things never change....

Unchained Slave said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Unchained Slave said...

There is an 'interesting' side note that many are unaware of. The origins of 'Cardinal Ratzinger' now pope Benedict: Pope Paul III, in 1542, formed the "Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition" with its duty to defend the Church from heresy. (These are the folks behind the Spanish Inquisition). In 1965, Pope Paul VI changed the name to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The ‘congregation’ was headed by Prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger until his ‘elevation’.

The Vatican's web site 'confirms' this: 'The Vatican's Official Document'

Joel said...

"I wonder, as Martin Luther did, why, IF the pope has the 'authority' to forgive sins (particularly those sins for which people are being 'tortured' in purgatory), why the pope, in Christian 'love' does not forgive all those sins, and release all those souls in purgatory..."

Because purgatory isn't meant to be torture, but the equivalent of a bath on the way into heaven. It would be like declaring the dirt gone rather than having it washed off.

I'm a Papist (as I guess is obvious), but it took me a long time to come to terms with the idea of indulgences. I tended to see them for a long time like St. Even describes them, as kind of a "get out of purgatory free" card. I think it was in Mere Christianity that Lewis mused that every action we take has the effect of making us a different kind of person, either more or less Godly. This is the principle behind indulgences. The action of participating in World Youth Day, Papa Ratzi seems to be saying, is the equivalent of many other actions that will increase a person's holiness. The more holiness (and hence less sinfulness) that we can cultivate here, the less there is to purify in Purgatory. (Note that I'm not trying to convince anybody that these things are Biblical; I'm just explaining why we believe as we do.)

And there's no secret that the CDF is the same as the Inquisition, nor that B16 was the head of it. The CDF is for the purpose of ensuring that doctrine being taught in Catholic schools and parishes is taught correctly.

The Spanish Inquisition was not the same office. It was a secular court set up by Isabel and Ferdinand for the purpose of trying Jews accused of falsifying conversion to Christianity to avoid expulsion. The state made the laws and meted out punishment, but the Church supplied judges on the grounds that they knew better how to judge heresy and apostasy.

Just to set the record straight. :)

Breuss Wane said...

The red in his cape goes well with the CampOnThis blog title color.

DOGpreacher said...

Then there is Dave Hunt's "A Woman Rides The Beast". He's a lot better on this, than soteriology. Available on video or book.

Jeremy Weaver said...

Are those pictures supposed to be making a statement?
:-)

Joel said...

I think they're supposed to be the equivalent of drawing mustaches on pictures and blacking out the teeth.

pilgrim said...

Joel--as one who grew uo in Catholicism, including Catholic school (grades 1 through 12), I understand the true meaning og indulgences--just one small problem--they aren't biblical--as you alluded to.

This points out a huge difference in the way I used to believe and how I do now--The definition of Grace. As I see in the Bible Grace is no longer grace if you're adding any merit to it other than Christ's. And that's exactly what indulgences do.

Jessica Jo L said...

My husband and I went to Italy in 99 and the church then was saying if you visited so many of the "historic churches" like St. Peters in chains and St. Peters... and 10 other churches that year your sins would be forgiven for 10 years.
I cling to by Grace alone through faith alone. I grew up in The World Wide Church of God I have no desire to go back.

Bhedr said...

Jessica,

It's no differant than the Buddhist and their journeys or Islam and their pilgrimage to Mecca. it all has it's same origin. Babylon! As Campi so often has said,"Rome is Satan's Masterpiece" Why? Because Satan has reinvented a counterfeit Christ and abominated His Holy Name. Any one who believes in this Christ, believes in a false one. This is not the God of the Bible, this is not HIS NAME. There can only be ONE YHVH. Duet 6:4

Campi,
Thank you for taking on the Whore. God Bless you!

Sparks said...

Two men I know, both in the 40 to 50 age group are dying with cancer.
One of them goes to the same church as I. His spirit has been an inspiration to us, his last communication that we should not be sad, for he cannot wait to go meet his Savior Jesus.
The other man is a co-worker. He is Catholic. His efforts during his last days have been to get the Catholic church to agree to annul his civil marriage and allow him to be married "in the church". What a waste of a man's last days seeking approval of this blasphemous organization rather than preparing to meet his Creator.

I'm not a theologian or historian of Christianity. But my Holy Bible says that no man is holy, no not one. The only "Holy Father" I acknowledge is the God of Abraham, Issac and Joseph, Creator of all things, Alpha and Omega, Father, Son and Spirit.

littlegal_66 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
littlegal_66 said...

Hey, didn't he sing lead for "White Sabbath?" With songs like, "Sunday, Justice Sunday?"

Yes, you definitely ARE having more fun than a Reformed Baptist should be allowed to--(and is that with half your iPAQ tied behind your back?)

littlegal_66 said...

P.S. I'm going to start referring to you as "El Stevebo"......the Church's truth detector (typing at the golden EIB keyboard--here on the E.I.B website......that's Excellence In Blogging, of course). ;-)

littlegal_66 said...

One more comment, and I'll quit:

Can you pay the Papal with Paypal?

SJ Camp said...

Dear Jessica, Sparks and Pilgrim:

Thank you for your words and for sharing your stories and testimonies with us on this blog. I appreciate your comments greatly (as with everyones) and may the Lord continue to honor your faithfulness to Christ and His Word.

And to Joel: I am honored that a papist will hang in there on this issue and have at it with me and the others on COT. You are welcome...

As you know, biblically, indulgences are heretical - because they add to the once for all sacrifice of Christ. Justification is a forensic legal declaration and an imputed reality by the perfect righteousness of Christ credited to everyone who believes in Him (2 Cor. 5:21; Romans 5:1). No other "suffering for sins" is necessary. No other penance needs to be paid. And no other righteousness will do. The Pope's righteousness as well as mine is nothing but filthy rags before a holy God (isaiah 64:6).

Purgatory is a manmade fictitious place. Like another blogentator so rightly asserted: if the Pope has the power to absolve sins through applying merit from the Treasury and relieve suffering in Purgatory by a thousands of years so that those precious souls can enter glory, why wouldn't he exercise a modicum of love and apply all the righteousness in the Treasury of Merit to all who are in Purgatory so that all could enjoy the joy of the Lord immediately and be relieved from the suffering they're in?

Christ is sufficient! (2 Cor. 3:5) – you need not ever look any place or to anyone else.

Grace and peace,
Steve

Cruv said...

"Christ is sufficient! (2 Cor. 3:5) – you need not ever look any place or to anyone else."

What a freeing thought! The work of righteousness is finished! I have nothing to add. I can only worship!

Thank you for the reminder!

~Cruv
To Tell You The Truth

Sean MacNair said...

Is the level of intellectual discourse on blogs so poor that we have to resort to stunts like the defaced pictures of Pope Benedict? We can't just make our point by our words, we have to resort to junior-high level name-calling and mockery?

I'm not currently a Catholic, but I thought the pictures were pathetic.

MTG said...

Loved the photo of our boy "eggs". Loved even more the story of the man that bought the indulgence for the future sin.

Too bad people are still gullible.

SJ Camp said...

The pictures were brilliant. They depict the Pope in all his true self-aggrandized glory. They show his true allegiance and doctrinal influences. They reveal his ultimate destiny and confirm the seriousness with which we are to take him and his theological claims.

There was nothing “Junior High” about it--this was biblical discernment in pictorial form.

As to the commentary about him, there was no discounted juvenile name-calling or childish mockery. Just razor-sharp spot on analysis as to Eggs Benedict's rule, reign and claim to being a “Holy Father.”

You must not visit this blog too often if you don’t think we engage here in serious biblical dialogue—that is 98.5% of what we are about. But from time to time we all need to take that fringe 1.5% and use it to laugh a bit and succumb to the intelligent luminosity of well-crafted, accurate, irreverent humor and sarcasm.

I must confess, I am a little flummoxed about your post though: would you rather have me call him a cloud without water, carried along by winds; doubly dead, wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever? –Jude

Or probably more fitting would be: Woe to you, [Popes, Cardinals, Priests, Nuns], and hypocrites! You brood of vipers; making your converts twice the sons of hell as you are; you blind fool! You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Woe to you, [Popes, Cardinals, Priests, Nuns], and hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. You serpents! –Jesus, Matthew 23

In retrospect after reading the above quotes Jude and Matthew, I must say I am very sorry that I wasn’t stronger in my characterizations of the Pope. To repent of this error, here is my offering to you: He is The Crowned Saint of the Whore of Babylon; The Angel of Light of Rome; Satan’s True Shepherd; and The Vicar of Lucifer. He is Hell’s Greatest Son; antichrist; and Champion of the Doctrine of Demons.

I feel better. Thank you for that indulgence (no pun intended).

Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7

littlegal_66 said...

Profound "offering" and "indulgence" in the above post.

Keep shining that light of truth, El Stevebo. (We may all go blind from seeing that light of truth blaring so frequently in our eyes here, but that's okay!)

Jeremy said...

Hi steve,

while I share a some of your views of the papacy etc, I have to agree on the pictures.

I know you mean it as funny but I think its truly offensive and does much to keep people from hearing what you are trying to say.

I know you will disagree but I wanted to toss in my 2 cents.

candleman said...

Steve,

I think what Sean said has merit. I also was surprised that you would make your point by using doctored pictures of the Pope and refer to him as "Eggs Benedict." It is silly, juvenile humor; what I thought would be beneath you, but is apparently not. Your response to Sean is equally sarcastic. The points you try to make get lost in the rhetoric of name calling. So you got to call the Pope the Whore of Babylon, Satan’s True Shepherd, The Vicar of Lucifer, Hell’s Greatest Son, Antichrist, and Champion of the Doctrine of Demons; and you got to feel better. All very endearing, I am sure, to any Catholic that may stumble across this blog, who may be searching for the truth and instead gets smacked in the face with your disrespectfulness.

It is one thing to point out the many doctrinal differences of Roman Catholicism with evangelical Christianity. You did do a good job of this as long as one can wade past your superior attitude and razor tongue. It is another thing to do so in the rather unloving and disrespectful way you are doing it here. That said, I am sure my thoughts will be met with the same level of introspection that you gave Sean. Instead of signing off with Grace and Peace, how about demonstrating some of that in your writings?

{{{Candleman}}}

Jeremy Weaver said...

Is the Pope anti-christ, or isn't he? Has the Catholic church sent countless souls to hell, or haven't they? Did they kill our religious forefathers, or didn't they?
The pictures depict what Christians think of the Catholic church and the papacy. They are part of Satan's kingdom, just like we all used to be. And then, as Paul said, "But God".
I think we all have a pretty good idea of what Jesus would do in a situation like this. It's found in John 2:13-17.

Jeremy said...

Doxoblogist said:

"The pictures depict what Christians think of the Catholic church and the papacy. "

You don't speak for this reformed Christian.

Sean MacNair said...

I first saw you in concert 21 years ago, Steve. I can still remember it well- Lorain, OH, my first Christian concert, I won a free Fire and Ice tape for being the first one to buy a ticket. I even got to meet you after the show and I confess, I was engaging in some Christian celebrity worship; I couldn't believe that the star of the show would stop the after-concert packup and talk with me.

You've certainly changed since then. If I compared the Steve Camp of 1984 with the Steve Camp I encounter on this blog (and yes, I do read it frequently; I used to link to it from my own) I would think I was comparing two different people. If you think this new, ultra-Reformed, hypercritical Steve Camp is a more improved version over the guy who came to an Ohio high school in 1984 and just wanted to see people brought to Jesus, then more power to you; I don't think it's an improvement at all.

Sean MacNair said...

Suppose I put a picture of Martin Luther on a blog. He would have a whole line of ex-nuns to fornicate with, in one hand he would have a beer, in the other a porno magazine. The caption would read "sin boldly and trust in the grace of God." Would that be funny to you?

I didn't think so.

Jeremy Weaver said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jeremy Weaver said...

Sean,
Worse depictions that what you describe have been made of Luther.

Ryan & Amy said...

If anyone here has any interest in actually and honestly learning what Catholics have to say about indulgences, rather than simply setting up straw men to knock down, please read this:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp

God Bless,

Apolonio said...

All the Steve Camp fans can come on over to the Catholic Answers boards, we'll have a grand time being as charitable and ecumenical as we can.

PhilVaz

thessalonian said...

I remember people doing this sort of thing in high school. (i.e. doctoring photos.) Grow up Mr. Camp.

Indulgences are not about forgiveness of sins. An indulgenece is of no value unless a sin is ALREADY forgiven. Indulgences are still practiced. Monetary indulgences as a practice are not allowed. Indulgences are about the damage that we do to our lives and to the lives of others including our souls when we sin. Why doesn't Mr. Camp go to all the prisions and find all the people who show up for Bible Study or worship service and tell the warden to let them all go free. Does God demand that they be let out in scripture because they have become Christian? No, because there is still suffering for sin AFTER the sin has been forgiven. A woman who has an abortion may reconcile with God but she will suffer. Joseph's brothers suffered after the left him for dead. Those sufferings were used to change their hearts over time so that they would not become jealous of rueben over time. God uses suffering to purge the desire for sin from our hearts. Now if this is not completed by the end of our lives the scriptures tell us "nothing unclean shall enter". We know there is no lust or sin in heaven so something's gotta give. It has to be purged out of us. That's a simple fact. We can't go in to heaven as snow covered dung heaps as Luther spoke. An indulgence allows this to happen more quickly for a soul in purgatory.

Blessings

Jeremy said...

doxoblogist said:

"Worse depictions that what you describe have been made of Luther."

is that your standard?

I was reading over the rules of this blog, and according to the limits and guidelines set forth, Steve should delete (or at the very least edit) this entire post.

I've been a believer for 21 years and in the last 6 years have been sitting under the teachings of reformed doctrine.

There's nothing worse (and we all know this) than a reformed loud mouth who is insensitive to speaking the truth in love.

Grace and Peace?

Jeremy said...

thessalonian said:
"An indulgence allows this to happen more quickly for a soul in purgatory."

where in scripture does it talk about purgatory?

littlegal_66 said...

Sigh.......(shaking head)

SJ Camp said...

I find it fascinating that some on this blog are more offended at the photos of Benedict, then what he actually teaches or stands for.

To thessalonian: Romanism is heresy. There is no purgatory; no Treasury of Merit; no absolution by the Pope; no Hall of Souls; no progressive righteousness granted aside from Christ's perfect sacrifice; and no mass can offer propitiation - none of Rome's claims are found in the pages of Scripture--not one!

As to the photos, I didn't doctor them up--a good friend of mine who is an accomplished theologian and radio commentator sent them to me.

Lastly, you said, "We know there is no lust or sin in heaven so something's gotta give. It has to be purged out of us. That's a simple fact. We can't go in to heaven as snow covered dung heaps as Luther spoke. An indulgence allows this to happen more quickly for a soul in purgatory." Do you realize that Christ has already accomplished this for us through His virgin birth, His sinless life, His substitutionary death on the cross, and His bodily resurrection? There is no other sacrifice for sin (in this case, suffering for sin). Every sin, that was ever committed, by everyone, that would ever believe was imputed to the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. The guilt, penalty and wrath of God against those sins was fully satisfied in Christ (Heb. 9:14ff).. There is nothing lacking whatsoever in the Christ's atoning work for His own.

When you add that we must suffer for our own sins to be made worthy to enter heaven, then you are adding to the work of Christ and make grace a religious work by each individual in order to inherit heaven.

Paul says "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." There is no Purgatorian lay over for additional cleansing. "For me to live is Christ and die is Purgatory? No... to "die is gain." Why? We are brought immediately into the presence of the Lord.

I would strongly encourage you to rethink your views and read what Rome really teaches on these things. Rome has never repudiated Tridentine docrine--Trent is still the authority. Here are two main problems with your skewed theological position: 1. There is no Scripture to support your claims; and, 2. It denies the sufficiency of Christ's atoning work on the cross.

It is very clear that you don't understand the doctrine of justification by faith alone which is the heart of the gospel (Rom. 3:21-26; that you don't understand the doctrine of imputation of the perfect righteousness of Christ (2 Cor. 5:21) which is our complete righteousness lacking nothing and is sufficient to cover every sin; and that you think the suffering of Christ on the cross was incomplete and for us to enter heaven "without sin" we need to suffer to pay for our sins rather than trust in the merits of Christ (Heb. 4:9).

I will be most delighted to discuss this very important issue with you further; for this has eternal implications for you.

(I would encourage to read Philippians 3:1-11; Galatians 3-4).
Campi

Jeremy said...

campi wrote:

"I find it fascinating that some on this blog are more offended at the photos of Benedict, then what he actually teaches or stands for."

I'm not questioning the points you've made. I'm questioning your tone.

Is it really profitable to speak with such sarcasm? Is this speaking the truth in love? Is this grace and peace?

Tim said...

Jeremy,

Let me say that the words are correct and though I was taken back by the pictures, they do represent the truth. Steve very clearly could have used biblical language in picture form, but then what would we have? We would have a grey cloud on benny's head. We would have a shooting star for his hairline and we wood have a dry well for his body.

When we see men of God in the Scriptures calling out false teachers and false prophets, there was not a speaking of the truth in love, there was a speaking the truth in condemnation and calling them what they were so that everyone around them knew it. Once again, for those who love contextual exegesis, we are to speak to the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) is in the context of the body of Christ. While Peter says we should give reason of the hope that is within us to those who ask with gentleness and respect. However Paul tells Timothy that those who call themselves elders, pastors and teachers are to be rebuked publicly. In this case, the man taking the office of Pope is none of these things: he has thought himself to be God. He has committed the same sin as Lucifer and those who esteem him to such an office are indeed following in the footsteps of the demons who sinned along with Lucifer.

I'm not going to open the can of worms..................awwww what the heck.....this could be interesting discussion surrounding eschatology.........hehe.

SJ Camp said...

Jeremy:

Please forgive me if you were offended by the tone. But I do believe that sarcasm does have a place in making a point from time to time. This seemed like an appropriate time. Paul used sarcasm in his day as an effective tool as well for shaking up people out of the paralyzation of status quo/religious thinking...

Have you ever read the debates between Luther and Erasmus? Tone wasn't the primary concern (as it is in our postmodern don't offend culture); truth was.

Thank you for your thoughts,
Steve
Eph. 4:15

Jeremy said...

Hi Tim and Steve,

thanks for those thoughts. good points and they are well taken.

as to the differences between speaking the truth in love and speaking the truth in condemnation-- I have a lot of friends who are catholic christians (or "bad catholics" as you've called them) so how are they supposed to recieve this "truth spoken in love"?

I fear you believe that catholics can't be christians or if they are they are bad catholics. I don't know what to make of this, so correct me if I'm wrong here.

I'm not so interested in the "don't offend me postmodern culture" as I am living and doing the gospel.

I know the gospel offends-- and I think we should let the gospel do the offending and not our sarcasm but that's just me.

and steve, we are way overdue for coffee.

hope you are well,
jeremy

2Tal said...

Hey Sean,
I don't think there is a "new Steve" and a "old Steve". I know Steve doesn't like all of his old music lyrically or musically but have you heard "If it Wasn't for the Grace of God" (one of my favs)from the "AFter God's Own Heart" release in 1987? That is pure reformed theology in a nutshell. I talked with Steve after a concert in '89 myself. He seemed just as in your face as he does now and that is one thing I like about him. He gets a reaction.

Sometimes I think we need just this sort of thing in our doctrinally indifferent church. If someone showed me a scathing depiction of John Calvin I admit I would be offended, but it would sure stir me up to see just what the stink is all about and if I ended up finding anything about Calvin's doctrine that could be challenged biblically I'd think twice about calling myself a Calvinist. Love offends at times. Like I said, in the day where the church says true doctrine no longer matters so far as the eternal state of the soul is concerned, extreme tactics may be needed to wake people up.

Whether these pictures were okay or not, I don't think we should judge Steve's heart or motives.

pilgrim said...

Pictures aside, indulgences are anti gospel & anti grace.

As a former Catholic I understand what's involved in the current teaching on indulgences. Since they involve merit other than Christ's, that changes what the Bible teaches about grace.
No person has enough merit of their own, let alone excess merit.
Christ's merit alon is sufficient, and He doesn't require indulgences, He gives it freely.

As long as Catholicism holds on to indulgences, no matter what the current form/teaching is, and as long as it has the treasury of merit, then it is a different gospel.
If they're right then I'm wrong.
If I'm right they're wrong.
Or we're both wrong.

We have different gospels.
That doesn't mean we hate the people-but we ought not to have love for the system.

thessalonian said...

Jeremy asked:

where in scripture does it talk about purgatory?

Tell me something Jeremy, where in scripture does it speak of the trinity. Oh you say, the word is not there but the concept is. How about the incarnation. God became man to help you with the definition. Oh, the word is not there but the concept is.

God purifying us of our sins, do you believe that is a biblical concept or does he just put snow over them, where they still stink and rot. I beleive the former. Ever read the refiners fine in Malchi 3 I think it is? Do you know how the refiner tells if the silver is ready? He sees his image in it. We are being sanctified, that is restored in the image and likeness of Christ. His image needs to be perfected in us. That is sanctification. Now tell me. What is the gaurantee that at the hour of our death we will be fully sanctified? Nothing unclean shall enter heaven you know. That's in the Bible. Rev 19 I believe. 1 Cor 3:15 says of some men at judgement, they will be saved but "as if through fire". Hence a purifciation is neccessary for men to enter heaven. This is not about salvation keep in mind. So you can deny the word purgatory all you want but the concept of purification of sin and sanctification is biblical and you cannot show me any guarantee that this will happen before the end of life. Thus something's gotta give on the other side. You gotta have a bath before you put on those wedding robes and partake in the wedding supper of the lamb. Praise God.

thessalonian said...

Pilgrim,

Tell me something do you think that God's grace working in men is meritorious. Doesn't he say in Eph 3:20 that God can do far more than you could think in you by HIS POWER? Doesn't he say he will produce thirty, sixty or 100 fold in and through us? He does in my bible. Now tell me. When one stands at the pearly gates according to Romans 2:4-8 and Mat 25 the sheep and the goats what will his reward be based on? How will he be judged. Look them up. Those who persist in doing good unto glory. Those who do evil until hellfire. It's pretty clear. Now we cannot claim the good that we do because it is God's grace working in us but to deny it is to deny these two very important passages. To acknowledge it is no denial of the free gift for we could not do the good that he has always wanted his people to do (see Is 1) without his grace. Without him we can do nothing but with him we can do all things.

SJ Camp said...

Here you go... my first entry as SledgeHammer.

We are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone; not of works lest any man should boast. Purgatorial teachings give men a cause for boasting. Another’s righteousness apart from Christ's imputed to me (by papal decree, indulgences, taken from the Treasury of Merit) that cleanses me and satisfies my own suffering after I die for sins I committed while in the flesh on earth? Total foolishness—what were they smoking who invented such doctrines of demons? It is the same heresy of “works righteousness” that the Apostle Paul addresses in the epistle of Galatians to the Judaizers of his day.

Romanism is a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-9) and therefore those spreading it are false teachers--like the Pope and his court of merry magisterium. If John Paul II could speak from the grave, he would desire to warn others from the flames of perdition to repent of this false religion and trust in Christ alone! Though John Paul's torment has begun (Heb. 10:29), it is not too late for other Romanists to come to Christ alone, by grace alone through faith alone for salvation.

The gospel of our Lord is all of grace--not grace plus works; grace of Purgatory; grace of papal decrees; grace plus the Treasury of Merit; etc.

Grace and peace?
Absolutely!
Campi

Jeremy said...

thessalonian wrote:

" So you can deny the word purgatory all you want but the concept of purification of sin and sanctification is biblical and you cannot show me any guarantee that this will happen before the end of life."

All I can tell you is that when God looks at me He sees Jesus. And it's not because of ANYTHING i did.

I'm owned by Him b/c he bought me with His death on the cross and when the transaction took place, ALL of my sin was forgiven.

And I praise Him for it!

We want to own our salvation and the concept of purgatory lessens the work that Jesus finished on the cross. It's done.

Grace and Peace, indeed.

thessalonian said...

Campi;


"We are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone; not of works lest any man should boast. Purgatorial teachings give men a cause for boasting."

Did you hear me above. I said purgatory is not about salvation. It's about sanctification. It is silly that it is something we can boast of. A man is there by his sins. That is not something to boast of. He can do nothing for himself in purgatory. He needs to be purged of the stain of sin and the tendancy toward sin by the grace of God almighty. That is not something one can boast of. Stop posting straw men and deal with the doctrine as it is taught. Read about the refiners fire. The refiner is the one who does the refining. The silver must simply sit in the fire. The refiner knows the silver is fully refined when he sees his image in it. This is a vision of life's trials but when it is not completed at death it has to be carried in to the afterlife.
Another’s righteousness apart

"from Christ's imputed to me (by papal decree, indulgences, taken from the Treasury of Merit) that cleanses me and satisfies my own suffering after I die for sins I committed while in the flesh on earth? Total foolishness—what were they smoking who invented such doctrines of demons? It is the same heresy of “works righteousness” that the Apostle Paul addresses in the epistle of Galatians to the Judaizers of his day."

Read my post above. I present just some of the biblical reasoning behind it. Of course you will say na-na boo boo my interpretations better than you.

Peace Steve.

By the way how about Luther and those flatulating popes and bishops in poop. Classy guy he was too. Real Christian.

Romanism is a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-9) and therefore those spreading it are false teachers--like the Pope and his court of merry magisterium. If John Paul II could speak from the grave, he would desire to warn others caught in Romanism from the flames of perdition to repent of this false religion and trust in Christ alone!

The gospel of our Lord is all of grace--not grace plus works; grace of Purgatory; grace of papal decrees; grace plus the Treasury of Merit; etc.

Grace and peace?
Absolutely!
Campi

thessalonian said...

I didn't delete some of steves comment s from my last post as I intended. Im new to this blog stuff.

thessalonian said...

Jeremy,

thessalonian wrote:



"All I can tell you is that when God looks at me He sees Jesus. And it's not because of ANYTHING i did."

You don't believe in sanctification?

"I'm owned by Him b/c he bought me with His death on the cross and when the transaction took place, ALL of my sin was forgiven."

They were forgiven 2000 years ago? Such that you never had to repent or anything? The cross earned for us grace. Grace has to be applied to our lives today. As I said purgatory has NOTHING to do with forgiveness of sins. You need to see it in terms of sanctification or you will continue to distort it and post straw men.


"And I praise Him for it!"

Great. By all means.

"We want to own our salvation and the concept of purgatory lessens the work that Jesus finished on the cross. It's done."

So you think that 2000 years ago you were already justified and sanctified? This is very odd. Did the jailor get saved perhaps 20 years before Paul came to him with the Gospel? Makes no sense. He got saved when he accepted Christ and started living accordingly. Had he died in that earthquake or had another prisoner killed him before he talked to Paul he would have gone to hell. No, God's grace had to start to work in his life. The grace of the cross had to be brought forward to him. That is the work of the Church. Then while he was saved he also needed sanctification.
This by grace as well but it involves works. There is no denial of the merit of Christ on the cross in any of this.

Blessings

thessalonian said...

Let's look at Hebrews 12 a minute. Paul speaks this to saved Christians.

4: In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.
5: And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons? -- "My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are punished by him.
6: For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives."
7: It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
8: If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
9: Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?
10: For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.
11: For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
12: Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees,
13: and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed.
14: Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
15: See to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" spring up and cause trouble, and by it the many become defiled;
16: that no one be immoral or irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal.

Now tell me, if one dies before THIS process of God's chastisement so we fully resist sin, how is it completed? Anyone? Anyone? Steve, your the expert in all of this.

Blessing to all

thessalonian said...

Jeremy,

Another question for you. How does it work for a future sin to be forgiven. Can I go up to my neighbor and say "I'm sorry for breaking your window" and while he is saying "It's not broken" pull out a baseball and fire a stike through his $1000 dollar window?

That's a little strange don't you agree?

Bhedr said...

Campi said>I find it fascinating that some on this blog are more offended at the photos of Benedict, then what he actually teaches or stands for.<

Brother, when your dead on I will agree with you. Folks, have you studied the Whores works over the centuries? She tries to wipe her bloody mouth but don't be fooled. Campi has given us a perfect picture and his pictures are worth a thousand words. You men are blind to her vices. The blood of the mayrtrs and saints stem from her headquarters and Benedict would have us believe(a former Nazi) that he is a harmless dove who cares for peoples souls. If these pictures were of Hitler would you be offended? Well that's how politicaly correct we are now as Christians. Rome actually fueled Hitlers cause. Hello? Study the writtings of the European journalist Avro Manhattan who testifies of the Vatican's butchering of thousands with the help of Hitler.

The Vatican is truly the ultimate wolf in sheeps clothing.

Camp may not want my help on this as I'm sure some of my cmments on other posts have gotten under his skin; but here brethren I must say that he is right and you are blind. Not only are you blind but you wish to hide others from the truth. Folks who are dealing with the whore with gentle hands always end up indulging in her vices and get sucked away by her deceptions. Speak the truth in love on an individual basis, but on a public scale she must be unmasked. She is the ultimate abomination in God's sight. Jesus never stood for tyrany and hates any form of it. Is his eye evil because you feel yours is good? The Kingdom of God should never be confused with the Church State model that Rome set up to beguile millions with. Wake up.

thessalonian said...

Bearing false witness seems to not be a concern on this website. Benedict a Nazi? That's been quite throughoughly dealt with even on Protestants radio. But it feeds the biggorty of all who want to believe that Catholics are wicked. Satan loves to point an accusing finger no matter if he can make it stick or not and that accusation cannot be made to stick by any but the nastiest of anit-Catholics.

blessings

SJ Camp said...

To thessalonian:

I understand that you were talking about sanctification. Though they are distinct truths--you cannot seperate them one from the other. Those who He saves, He sanctifies. Though we cooperate in our sanctification, it is still all of grace.

But purgatorian doctrine is saying that there is still some suffering you must do to for your sins so that you may be clean enough to enter heaven.

Again, that is heresy. Titus 2 :12 says, that the grace of God has appeared to all men "to teach us to deny worldliness and ungodliness and to live soberly, righteously and holy in this present evil age."

Again, uur sanctification is by grace... not through our suffering. No one is restricted from heaven on the grounds of sanctification... Part of "The Golden Chain" of Romans 8 says, "those whom He predestined these He called, and those He called, He justified; those whom He justified, He glorified."

Our salvation and our sanctification is all of grace. You still have no biblical support for purgatory though... it is a man-made doctrine.

Steve
Eph. 5:23-26

Tim said...

Campi,

Tooo funny. Sledgehammer.......oh my. That was quick. I'll answer the question of how sanctification is accomplished when one dies thessalonian. Paul says, "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." So when we die we will be with the Lord. John writes in 1 John 3:2, "Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is."

Short answer, when a believer dies, he is immediately perfected (that's glorification). The thief on the cross experienced this. Let's notice that Paul defined it that way in Romans 8. He said there was the call, justification, glorification. The thief on the cross experienced these one right on top of the other. We don't see Jesus telling him that he would be with Christ in paradise in about 20 million years. I mean the guy evidently didn't experience any sanctification except simply acknowedging Christ as Lord. Surely he must have more time to spend in purgatory than anyone else. Yet Jesus said it would be that very day that he would be in paradise with Christ. Glory!!!

Tim said...

Let me add this comment. That perfection that takes place upon the entry into glory is solely the work of God, not of any man. SDG

anonymous000 said...

You have got to be one of the most ill-informed Protestant ministers I have ever witnessed. You are a disgrace to Christianity.

Tim said...

Thanks anonymous. I guess we'll take that anonymously, unless you anonymously meant Steve.

I guess we all could have gained some wisdom from your enlightened comments. I think everyone here would welcome dialogue with you. Amen??

pilgrim said...

Yes thessalonian there is merit in God's grace--but it is all His-
I've already stated that twice in these comments.

The Treasury of merit & indulgences add human merit to grace--so that it is no longer grace-that is now my point for the third time in these comment.

thessalonian said...

Tim,

If I might call you by your first name. :). You can call me thess. You raise more straw men while essentially admitting to the premises of purgatory. Man's got to be cleansed of all tendancy toward sin when he enters heaven. Some of that tendency was caused by our sins on this earth because sin begets sin. Thus we develop habits of sin. It all must be cleansed from us for "nothing unclean shall enter". Is the Bible right or is it wrong on these points. Catholic teaching is not that purgation does not happen instantly. It makes no definitive statement on this matter because the afterlife is outside of time and space which is creation. Thus time in on the other side is a different issue. I could go in to the various speculations but that is for another blog. The point is your verse about the twinkling of an eye does nothing to prove anything about purgatory as the one "absent from the body, present with the lord". We are more in God's prescence with purgatory than we are here. But we have seen his face and feel the fires of his love purging us of our sin.



Now on to your second comment in the little post.

"Let me add this comment. That perfection that takes place upon the entry into glory is solely the work of God, not of any man. SDG"


I believe I said this. None of this purgation happens apart from Christ. It is the fire of his love that cleanses our souls. You guys keep talking like your experts on the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. I think you need to just sit back and listen a bit so we can have an intelligent discussion that is not full of straw man prejudicial arguements your gramma or Lorainne Boetner's Roman Catholicism gave you.

thessalonian said...

Steve,

Your talking through me rather than to me.

"Though we cooperate in our sanctification, it is still all of grace."

Amen. This is exactly what I am saying. WE COOPERATE IN IT. WE AGREE.

"But purgatorian doctrine is saying that there is still some suffering you must do to for your sins so that you may be clean enough to enter heaven."

The suffering is the fire of God's love cleansing our soul so, no, it is not what we do. There is NOTHING that a soul can do for himself in purgatory. Once again you don't answer the question, what if this sanctification that must happen does not before death. Where in scripture does it say that it WILL happen before death? Either address Catholic teaching and not what you think it is or we can't have an intelligent discussion. I would have thought people would start blogs about what they actually had the facts about. You are no expert. sorry.

blessings

thessalonian said...

"The Treasury of merit & indulgences add human merit to grace--so that it is no longer grace-that is now my point for the third time in these comment."

Pilgrim, the word merit used to speak of this doctrine in the latin is the merit of another. Thus it is Christ's merit, i.e. his grace that motivates the works in us that brings about sanctification. It is also where the treasurey of merit comes in. It is HIS grace that brought about the good that is available through the treasury of merit so you don't know Catholic theology. Sorry. God's power working in us and through us brings about salvation, producing thirty, sixty or 100 fold in the believer and those around him. For some reason with protestants this grace can have no real power. It must be denied to be of any value at all it seems.

Blessings

SJ Camp said...

Dear Thess:

TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION, DECREE ON PURGATORY:
"Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, following the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils and very recently in this ecumenical council that there is a purgatory, and that the souls there detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar, the holy council commands the bishops that they strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of purgatory, transmitted by the Fathers and sacred councils, be believed and maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and preached."

Scripture says:
"it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment" -Hebrews 9:27

The burden is upon Rome to biblically show where purgatory is condoned--not to assert through councils and committees. No Roman literature ever asserts an exegetical or expositional case for this "way-station of sufferage" you call purgatory for an after death sanctification pre-glory for our purification.

Here is the question for you and it is two-fold:

1a. where is purgatory as a place and doctrine taught in Scripture;

1b. why is it necessary if Christ's atonement is sufficient to purify us from all filthiness of flesh?


Listen to the great doxological claims of Jude: "Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, 25to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen."

He begins with sanctification, "keep you from stumbling." This phrase specifically refers to unsound doctrine or falling into a different gospel different from what is being taught in this epistle (Jude 3). It is also using language from Rom. 16:25-27 which also means "to keep from falling into sin, yielding to temptation; and dishonoring the faith" (Barnes Notes). The Greek word aptaistous occurs nowhere else in the N.T. It means "not stumbling" as of a horse; then without "falling into sin, blameless." It is God only who, can keep from falling.

He then immediately brings us to glorification, "present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy". Did you hear that? Present you blameless, or faultless, in the presence of His glory. This is not purgatory, but glorification. Purgatory is a Romanist invention originating out of Babylonian mysticism. Read your history man...

So the burden rests with you. Define what you think sanctification means biblically; show where you think that Scripture and Scripture alone speaks of purgatorial cleansing and a Treasury of Merit; and then what do you think the gospel of sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus really means--and once again, define your answers out of the Word of God.

I thank you in advance. By the way, I am not trying to win a debate with you--I am concerned for your soul.

Steve
Col. 1:9-14

SJ Camp said...

To Thess:

Here is what your church teaches. Let me know your thoughts...
Steve.

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY
Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions. The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined: "Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful" (Denzinger, "Enchiridon", 983). Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go, but the tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen must be consulted to explain the teachings of the councils, and to make clear the belief and the practices of the faithful.

Temporal Punishment
That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture… (Where does Scripture say so? Their constant claims absent of Scripture is common and the silence is deafening!) The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God.

Venial Sins
All sins are not equal before God, nor dare anyone assert that the daily faults of human frailty will be punished with the same severity that is meted out to serious violation of God's law. On the other hand whosoever comes into God's presence must be perfectly pure for in the strictest sense His "eyes are too pure, to behold evil" (Hab., i, 13). For unrepented venial faults for the payment of temporal punishment due to sin at time of death, the Church has always taught the doctrine of purgatory.

So deep was this belief ingrained in our common humanity that it was accepted by the Jews, and in at least a shadowy way by the pagans, long before the coming of Christianity. ("Aeneid," VI, 735 sq.; Sophocles, "Antigone," 450 sq.).

(Source, The Catholic Encyclopedia)

BTW: They also bring in to their claims of purgatory indulgences, prayers for the dead, etc. Don't tell me this is only about sanctificaiton--this goes to the heart of the gospel of Rome--which is no gospel at all!

thessalonian said...

1a. where is purgatory as a place and doctrine taught in Scripture;

I'll answer this with some excerpts from an article since you have set such precedent:

http://www.solt3.org/purgatory2.htm

Purgatory is not a place but a condition of existence

4. In the New Testament Christ is presented as the intercessor who assumes the functions of high priest on the day of expiation (cf. Heb 5: 7; 7: 25). But in him the priesthood is presented in a new and definitive form. He enters the heavenly shrine once and for all, to intercede with God on our behalf (cf. Heb 9: 23-26, especially, v. 24). He is both priest and "victim of expiation" for the sins of the whole world (cf. 1 Jn 2: 2).

Jesus, as the great intercessor who atones for us, will fully reveal himself at the end of our life when he will express himself with the offer of mercy, but also with the inevitable judgement for those who refuse the Father's love and forgiveness.

This offer of mercy does not exclude the duty to present ourselves to God, pure and whole, rich in that love which Paul calls a "[bond] of perfect harmony" (Col 3: 14).

5. In following the Gospel exhortation to be perfect like the heavenly Father (cf. Mt 5: 48) during our earthly life, we are called to grow in love, to be sound and flawless before God the Father "at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints" (1 Thes 3: 12f.). Moreover, we are invited to "cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit" (2 Cor 7: 1; cf. 1 Jn 3: 3), because the encounter with God requires absolute purity.

Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected. Purification must be complete, and indeed this is precisely what is meant by the Church's teaching on purgatory. The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence. Those who, after death, exist in a state of purification, are already in the love of Christ who removes from them the remnants of imperfection (cf. Ecumenical Council of Florence, Decretum pro Graecis: DS 1304; Ecumenical Council of Trent, Decretum de iustificatione: DS 1580; Decretum de purgatorio: DS 1820).


1b. why is it necessary if Christ's atonement is sufficient to purify us from all filthiness of flesh?

You simply keep posting these straw men and red herrings. I have said IT IS BECAUSE OF CHRIST'S ATTONEMENT THAT THIS CAN HAPPEN. `It is exactly the grace from that atonement that has to be applied to the soul to cleanse it of all sin and tendancy toward sin. The grace has to be brought forward and applied to our souls. Now I don't know two many people who died without a tendancy toward sin. Do you say it is too late for them? I sure hope not. Nothing unclean shall enter so it has to happen before heaven.

Hope this helps.

thessalonian said...

Steve,
You need to read these things before you make comments on them. Yes I am going to tell you it's about sanctification. It is. It does you no good in winning souls to distort the beliefs of others. In my experience on the net that has helped me far more than those who are trying to "help me". I've seen more Protestants converted to Catholicism because Protestants distort the teachings. I know what I am talking about Steve. Don't try to prove me wrong on Catholic teaching. You'll loose.


"That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture… "

Did you catch that Steve. THE SINS ARE FORGIVEN BEFORE PURGATORY. We're in sanctification territory. Yet one still has to suffer some consequences. Where is that in scripture? Well I seem to rember many times in the Old Testament where men repented of their sin but God still punished them for it. Take for instance Moses. He was denied entry in to the promised land. David had his fling with Bethsheeba. He repented but what did God do? He still took the life of David's son. Did you miss when I posted Hebrew 12. From what I can tell you would be of the bent that says "past, present, and future sins are fogiven". Am I correct. Well listen to Hebrews 12 then:

6: For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives."
7: It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?

For space considerations I have only posted a few verses but the context is chastisement for sin. So that God does punish for sin and according to your theology AFTER the sin, is more sure than in mine. Discipline is suffering, do you not agree. Lot's more I could go in to of course. But yes purgatory is about sanctification.

Yes we are judged when we die. That is the teaching of the Church. Once again you cannot answer, "what if all the sanctification is not done before death?". It's an important question Steve. You keep sweeping it under the rug. By the way a key part of your last post is:

"departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions."

The sins are forgiven, i.e. justified. They are not sanctified, thus we are not free from and have tendancies toward venial sin. This must be purged. Do you claim that if you died this moment you would not have any tendency toward sin? Can you enter heaven and have any lustful thoughts. Can you be angry with anyone? Can you distort anyone 's theology (i.e. bear false witness) :). This has to be handled BEFORE heaven dude.

As for death and then judgement, all who have to go through purgatory are judged as saved. They simply need to have tendancy for sin purged out. This may well be instantaneous but it must happen as I said above.

All sins are equal? Do you really think so? Murder is equal to stealing a cookie?

They're not all equal according to Lamentations and Jesus:

Lam 4
6. For the iniquity of the daughter of my people
****Is greater than the sin of Sodom****,
Which was overthrown as in a moment,
And no hands were turned toward her.

John 19
11. Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the ***greater sin.****"

That's about all I have time for the moment. Thanks for the concern for my soul, but Jesus is my judge and Savior. I rest in knowing that.

Blessings to ya.

SJ Camp said...

Thess wrote: I have said IT IS BECAUSE OF CHRIST'S ATTONEMENT THAT THIS CAN HAPPEN. It is exactly the grace from that atonement that has to be applied to the soul to cleanse it of all sin and tendency toward sin. The grace has to be brought forward and applied to our souls.

1. Your Scriptures here do not mention, even imply, or point to a Purgatory—please try again.

2. Correction: (and this goes to the nexus of the issue:) The atonement is not a precursor to purgatory; and then purgatory to glory. There is nothing lacking in the atonement that still merits further suffrage or that still needs to be applied in an after-death purging of the soul. The soul has been thoroughly purged of the guilt and penalty of sin on the cross through Christ’s once for all sacrifice; even the wrath of God was propitiated by Jesus for His own. (Heb. 2:9-18; Roms. 5:1-2).

3. It is not the grace from the atonement that is applied to our souls to cleanse it of all sin and tendency towards sin in the eschaton... What is imputed to all who believe is the righteousness of Christ Himself (2 Cor. 5:21) and that righteousness is perfect, lacking nothing. That is what justification by faith alone really means. He was treated on the cross as if He lived your life; so that we could be treated as if we lived His life. Substitutionary atonement. Rome cannot add anything to that complete work of our Lord Jesus Christ—nothing.

In conclusion, Thess, the Romanist view of the gospel and all it entails, is still a works based system not rooted in Christ alone. And all our righteousness is nothing but filthy rags in His sight (Isaiah 64:6).

I know that it must be very frustrating for you, having to try and defend something biblically that isn't found in the Bible. This is the bane of Romanism. Rome doesn’t believe in sola scriptura—in fact they reject it categorically.

BTW: The only straw man and red herring (but not on Friday) here is confusing Roman councils, Popes, and traditions with the authority of Scripture.

The gospel of Jesus Christ knows no such additions, such as purgatory, to its sufficient grace. Once again, if this is such an essential doctrine for the church, why no Scriptural examples, commands or instructions given; considering that all of Scripture is authored by the Holy Spirit?

Trust solely in Christ, Thess, for your salvation, sanctification and glorification. There is no other righteousness available or acceptable to God than the perfect, complete righteousness of Christ! No amount of time in Pergatory can cleanse the soul or purge venial sins. No Pope can apply the merits of another sinner (like Mary or a saint or a Pope) to another to make them acceptable unto God. No mass can help you; no church can intervene for you. It is all of grace; all of Christ; and no purgatory awaits you my friend. Only the flames of peridition will welcome anyone who rejects the complete suffiecient work of Jesus on the cross culminating in His bodily resurrection. If anyone does not repent of their sins and trust solely in Christ Jesus as Lord for their salvation, sanctification and glorification, they are hopelessly lost and the wrath of God abides on them for eternity (John 3:36). (please read Romans 3:21-26; Titus 3:4-7).

I will commit to you to do one thing that I haven't said so far, to pray for Pope Benedict XVI that he would repent of his sins and error, his false gospel, his false church, repudiate the claims of Rome as dead works and idols of the heart, and come to salvation by grace alone, through faith alone because of Christ alone. Wouldn't it be tremendous if we saw a Pope repudiate the false gospel of Rome, deny himself, take up his cross and follow Christ? I will pray to that end.

Sola fide,
Steve

Bhedr said...

You said>Bearing false witness seems to not be a concern on this website. Benedict a Nazi? That's been quite throughoughly dealt with even on Protestants radio. But it feeds the biggorty of all who want to believe that Catholics are wicked.<

You cannot change history. He was a member of the Nazi youth party. If you wish to believe Him then feel free, but its his word against him. We are all to quick to excuse but when it comes to a sound fundamental evangelical they would have been buried by the press, both Protestant and Catholic.

I do not however accuse Catholic people. you are putting words in my mouth. I said the Vatican. She does not belong to God. She belongs to another. She is blinding the Catholic people and holding the gate shut so that they can't get in to the Kingdom of Heaven. I fault the Vatican and her lies.

Bhedr said...

It never ceases to amaze me dear brothers how man loves the bondage he is inslaved to. Give me Grace brother! Give me grace! Yeeeeeehhhhhoooooooooowwwwwwww! I'm free and going to heaven. Praise God my eyes see and my ears hear. Oh come join me you who love your bondage. You don't have to pay for your sins and not only that you can receive by that same grace the power to walk.

When I kneel before a holy and righteouss God I will smile at his feet and love HIM because of this precious Saviour He has given me. Oh praise God!

Breuss Wane said...

The problem with Thess is that he doesn't *realize* that sanctification, like justification, is a monergistic work of the Spirit, not synergistic.

Breuss Wane said...

Jeremy wrote:
>"I fear you believe that catholics >can't be christians or if they are >they are bad catholics."

I'll gladly confirm your fears. Steve rightly believes Catholics who believe what their church teaches about salvation cannot be christians or if they are they are lousy catholics.

Apolonio said...

Steve Camp: "I will commit to you to do one thing that I haven't said so far, to pray for Pope Benedict XVI that he would repent of his sins and error, his false gospel, his false church, repudiate the claims of Rome as dead works and idols of the heart, and come to salvation by grace alone, through faith alone because of Christ alone."

Sure, and when you get done with that, you can then pray for the Eastern Orthodox who can't be Christians either. Pray for the Orthodox, the Arminians, the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the Methodists, and all those Christians who disagree with Steve Camp's understanding of Reformed theology and his biblical interpretations since they are false churches who teach error with false gospels, dead works, and idols. Makes sense to me. Or you can visit the Catholic Answers forums and hear a little bit from the Catholic side.
PhilVaz

Bhedr said...

Chad I agree with you. I posted on your blog earlier and I want to clarify. I believe wisdom and full knowledge of God is synergistic being both the logos and graphe; but justification as well as sanctification is indeed monergistic. Can you isolate the differance? I think many struggle with this.
Where have you been btw?

Apolonio said...

breuss: "Steve rightly believes Catholics who believe what their church teaches about salvation cannot be christians."

Here's your problem: your definition of "Christian" isn't found in the Bible. The word Christian appears a few times and simply means a "follower of Christ" (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16; etc). Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you can't reject Catholics (or Eastern Orthodox) as Christians based on the definition of "Christian" found in the Bible alone. We need to go beyond the Bible and use a standard such as the Nicene or ecumenical creeds to determine who is a true and orthodox Christian or a true and orthodox Catholic. That's where we get explicit definitions of orthodox Christianity.

And I submit it isn't simply "what Steve Camp believes is Christianity." By the comments made in this blog, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas would certainly not be Christians, nor would any of the orthodox Church Fathers from St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 100 AD) to St. John Damascene (c. 700 AD) since none give any hint they understood the gospel as "justification by faith alone" and "imputed righteousness." There were no Christians who lived between the death of the apostles and Martin Luther is what I clearly get as the message of this blog.
PhilVaz

Ryan & Amy said...

Sledge (Campi),

Truly, I'm surprised at you. Twice now you have said the following:

Paul says, "to be absent from the body IS TO BE present with the Lord." (emphasis mine)

...um...No he doesn't. You have to deal with what the Bible actually says, not with what you want it to say. Let's look at what St. Paul ACTUALLY said...

2 Corinthians 5:8 (KJV)
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

"AND TO BE" is different than "IS TO BE". The difference may not seem like much on the surface, but the inference you have drawn by adding words to Scripture is antithetical to the actual meaning. Personally, I wish that I could be absent from the body and at home with the Lord; that does not mean that I disbelieve Purgatory, now does it?

And lest it not be forgotten, let's read two verses down...

10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Hmmph. That's different than what you have said as well. You have said, more or less, that (ala Rom 8:1) there is no condemnation for anyone who believes in Christ. Here Paul says that we will be judged for our deeds. Guess you'll have to work that out (perhaps with fear and trembling).

So as not to distract from your discussion with Thess, I'll stick strictly to your misrepresentations of Scripture.

You also say:

"it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment" -Hebrews 9:27

Amen. All Catholics agree. This is what is known as the "Particular Judgment", and it happens for those who continue on to Purgatory as well. Trying to make Scripture say that this judgment excludes the idea of an after-judgment cleansing of the temporal punishment due to sin is simply not what Scripture says. It is another addition of your theology, and not an honest dealing with the text.

You say:

Jude: "Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless..."

You claim that God can keep us from stumbling. The Catholic reply is this: Amen. He can. It is up to us to screw this up by rejecting his grace. Do you honestly believe that a "saved" person cannot sin? If you are truly a saved person, please answer me - do you sin? Scripture teaches that any man who says he is without sin is a liar and the truth is not in him. Next, you claim that we will be immediately presented blameless before God after death. Again, this is you shoving your theology into the text, rather than honestly dealing with it. I don't see "immediately" in there anywhere, and even if it were in there (which it isn't), the Church has made no claim that Purgatory takes any time at all (quite possibly occuring outside of time entirely). Again, the texts you have provided do not say what you claim.

What Thess is trying to explain to you is that, and make sure you hear this, THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST IS 1. FINISHED, ONCE AND FOR ALL, AND 2. ENTIRELY SUFFICIENT TO SAVE ALL MANKIND. This is the Catholic teaching. Stop saying it isn't. What Thess is trying to get across to you is that this completely sufficient and perfectly completed work of STRICT merit (Christ, BTW, is the only one who can STRICTLY merit anything from the father - ours is condine or congruent merit), still NEEDS TO BE APPLIED. You agree with this, to some extent. For you, the application comes when you say the sinner's prayer (or something of the sort). After that, that's it for you. You're done. No requirement to cooperate with God, no need to love God, no need to love your neighbor - those are all "works", and works can't save you. For the Catholic, the "obedience of faith" (Rom 1:5 / 16:26) means a life spent loving God, cooperating with Him, and loving your neighbor. Furthermore, only by cooperating with God can any of the fruit be born, and the fruitless vine will be cut off and cast into the fire. Salvation is a process, not a one-time event (as Scripture teaches).

While there is far more I would like to say, I'll stop here for fear that I'll step on Thess' toes...

May God bless you and keep you, and make His face to smile upon you,
RyanL

P.S.,
For those who have only cast ad hominem attacks against the Pope, no response will be given. Grow up. Be Christian. Peter makes no exceptions for public or private when he says to speak the truth in love. Bring theology to the table, or don't belly up.

Apolonio said...

Thess is doing fairly well and I commend his efforts. I would also recommend the Protestant Christians here who disagree with Catholic teaching to at least become informed and don't misrepresent Catholicism. I'm sure you would want the same of Calvinism or whatever teachings of Christianity you believe are true.

The authors you should definitely ignore on Catholicism are Dave Hunt, Avro Manhatten, Edmund Paris, Jack Chick, or Lorraine Boettner. These authors have been shown by even Protestant authors to misrepresent Catholic teaching. I don't go to The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown or "Why I Am Not A Christian" by Bertrand Russell to learn about Christianity, so don't go to these authors to accurately represent Catholic teaching. Go to the source. Some essential books on Catholicism I would recommend (besides the Bible with the deterocanonicals of course):

Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994, 1997)
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott
Introduction to Christianity (Ignatius Press, 2004) by Cardinal Ratzinger (for the Pope's own thoughts)
A Biblical Defense of Catholicism by Dave Armstrong (2001)
Crossing the Tiber by Steve Ray (1997)
Roman Catholics and Evangelicals by Geisler/MacKenzie (1995) for a fair critique
PhilVaz

pilgrim said...

Thessalonian--first--thanks for proving part of my point--here's some of what I said earlier-

"Any gospel that includes indulgences (whether sold or granted) is not the same gospel the Bible teaches."

"We have different gospels."

Your comments support this.
Steve, er, Sledgehammer, and others have posted many references to back up our side.

I don't imagine your mind will be changed by this, but the scriptures are there, and so is the point.

We have different gospels.

pilgrim said...

Thessalonian-
Some more-
You said-
"It is HIS grace that brought about the good that is available through the treasury of merit so you don't know Catholic theology. Sorry."

Sorry back--I understand your points because I used to believe them, and you are using a word trick to make your point.

The Treasury of merit contains excess merit of Jesus and of the saints. Now RC theologoy may say the saints' merit is because of Jesus--so it's still His merit--but that's just semantics. It's still human merit involved.

May I point you to Chapter 2, Article 4 of the Catholic Catechism-Under Indulgences-
1477 "This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body."

That's human merit--despite verses such as Psalm 14:1-3; 53:1-1; and Romans 3:9-18.

The treasury of merit has no biblical warrant, and is contrary to Scripture. It adds human meirit to grace--no matter how much you want to play word games.
I understand those word games.

thessalonian said...

Steve,

Is it that the word purgatory is not in the Bible. Well I don't see many of your words in the bible. I see alot of handwaving and someone who sounds like he thinks he's infallible. But I bet you don't. It seems you don't have much of a theology of suffering. Is that the case? The Bible talks about suffering and it's purpose alot. Seems you think it has no real purpose. I'm looking forward to tommorrow. It's late.

Blessings

Bhedr said...

Oh these Catholic writers give me such peace. It's so good to be at peace with God and not to worry. To hear the voice of "Fear not" and Know that my eternal standing is secure and that I have complete and total rest in Christ alone. My friends you convict yourselves with your own religion of bondage. Hey I ask you guys to consider grace. Wouldn't you just love to rest in God's favor and not earn it? Why would a man reject such a beautiful gift in favor of intellectual ascension and merit in mans eyes. John 5:44 & Ephesians 2:8-10. May I tempt you to consider accepting the wonders of God's amazing grace?

thessalonian said...

"That's human merit--despite verses such as Psalm 14:1-3; 53:1-1; and Romans 3:9-18."

Pilgrim,

Nope, sorry it is not. No semantics at all. You see on the one hand the Church recognises that the individuals performed the works and on the other hand the recognize that God was working through them. That is exactly what Eph 3:20-21 says.

20: Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think,
21: to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen.

God works IN US producing thirty, sixty, or 100 fold. Now do you claim that God working in us is of no value. That God working in us is corrupt works? I think if you read a little further in Psalm 14 you will see there is the generation of righteous. Are we children of men or sons of God? That verse is talking about childen of men of which they are all corrupt. Do you believe the Christian is corrupt. NO HE IS A NEW CREATION equiped for doing every GOOD WORK!. These works are of value. In fact if you look at Romans 2:4-8 and Matt 25 about the sheep and the goats we are going to be judged by them. But fear not. They are done by the grace of Jesus Christ, whom without him we can do nothing but IN HIM we can do all things. Now why do you feel you need to belittle God working in us?

God bless

More tommorrow.

thessalonian said...

behdr,

Read my post above. We must "work out our salvation in fear and trembling" we are told in Phillipians I believe it is. Further the scriptures are quite clear that God gives us the grace to do the good that he REQUIRES us to do. Read my post above. I trust in Christ to give me the grace that leads me on the path of life. That is very consoling for I know he will equip me for every good work.

Now as far as paying for sins, is heb 12 wrong. Are we not chastised by a loving God for our sins?

Blessings

littlegal_66 said...

Let's assume for a moment that "anonymous" was referring to Brother Camp when they stated, "You are a disgrace to Christianity."
Let me call your attention to a couple of statements Bro. Camp posted directly to "thessalonian":

1. "I will be most delighted to discuss this very important issue with you further; for this has eternal implications for you."
2. "I am not trying to win a debate with you--I am concerned for your soul."

Well, anon, I guess you're right. Why, those comments clearly have "disgraceful" written all over them. (I'm sorry, Sledge--I tried, I really did--but I couldn't withhold food from the trolls any longer).

I, am praying that thess (whom I don't consider to be a troll) will objectively examine, ponder, and prayerfully receive the truths that Campi, Tim, and pilgrim presented to him (or her), as well as any further discussions that they may engage in regarding this eternal issue.

pilgrim said...

Thessalonian-

Are you even reading my comments?

If you are then your questions would be answered.

Bottom line--we disagree on this, and understandably so-our belief systems are different.

It is word games-look at what I quoted from the Catholic Catechism-
It plainly states the treasury has human merit in it. No amount of word games can refute that.

Now I don't believe in the treasury, as it has no biblical warrant.
But for the sake of argument, let's say we agree that all the merit in it is Christ's.

It's still unbiblical.
God's saving grace is given freely-it is not portioned out according to any indulgence scheme of the RCC-past or present.
Jesus said Telestai-It is finished.
Hebrews 1:3 tells us the same thing.

For your references of good works--they are out of context, And you have been given many scriptures that show that.
No matter how many good works we do, we can not merit salvation-There is none that do good--no not one-even after we are Christians we sin! We need God's grace every day! So even with Christ's merit & grace we can not build up enough merit for ourselves--let alone for others.

Does that mean God's work is ineffectual? No--and I never said that.
But it is God's work-not ours.

No matter how you slice it, the idea of the Treasury of merit & indulgences negates biblical grace.

True biblical grace is freeing! It is wonderful--When I do good works-it is not to repay, to stay in the good books, , or to build up merit--it is in response to the Saviour and His infinite love for His people.

But thanks for proving we have different gospels. We could both be wrong, but we can't both be right.

Apolonio said...

Sledgehammer Camp: "Though we cooperate in our sanctification, it is still all of grace."

Though we suffer discipline and temporal punishment in this life, it is still all of grace.

Though we suffer discipline and temporal punishment in the afterlife, it is still all of grace.

All of grace, that is the Catholic gospel. Hooray, now you understand.

And will you Reformed please be consistent and start altering pictures of Eastern Orthodox bishops and send all the Orthodox Christians to hell, those Orthodox Christians who reject sola scriptura and sola fide just as much as Catholics. A little consistency in your application of Galatians 1 by condemning all Eastern Orthodox and other historical Christians to hell would definitely help your case.
PhilVaz

Apolonio said...

little-gal: "I, am praying that thess (whom I don't consider to be a troll) will objectively examine, ponder, and prayerfully receive the truths that Campi, Tim, and pilgrim presented to him."

Me too, ma'am, don't forget about me. Not a troll either. Though rather than haggle over various biblical texts (since Protestant theology itself vigorously disagrees on some of these points), and debate specific Catholic theology over purgatory, indulgences, and merit (which would take some effort at explaining, although Thess is doing a nice job) I'd rather just "go for the jugular" and simply ask my two favorite questions:

(1) Why are there 27 books in your New Testament, and how do you know those books, and only those books are inspired by God?

(2) Why should I accept your interpretations of the Scriptures are true, when there are thousands of Protestant denominations that disagree with your interpretations, and they all say "I go by what the Scripture SAYS." Who is right?

And don't forget about my point that you guys need to start condemning all Eastern Orthodox Christians to hell for rejecting the true gospel, and photoshopping pictures of Orthodox patriarchs since they reject sola scriptura and sola fide just as much as Catholics (though for slightly different reasons). Let's be consistent.
PhilVaz

Apolonio said...

pilgrim: "It is word games-look at what I quoted from the Catholic Catechism-It plainly states the treasury has human merit in it. No amount of word games can refute that."

Yes, now what you need to do is take "human merit" and look up the biblical doctrine of "rewards" and you have the Catholic gospel in biblical language (Matt 5:12; 6:1-6; 16:27; 25:31-46; 1 Cor 3:14-17; 2 Cor 5:10; Romans 2:5-10; Col 1:24; 3:24; Rev 22:11-12; etc).

Do you get it? If you do not, here is a little bit of St. Augustine for you, which is basically where we get much of our theology on salvation.

"Let no one say to himself: 'If [justification] is from faith, how is it freely given [Rom 5:1; 3:24] : If faith MERITS it, why is it not rather paid than given?' Let the faithful man not say such a thing; for, if he says: 'I have faith, therefore I merit justification,' he will be answered: 'What have you that you did not receive' [1 Cor 4:7]? If therefore, faith entreats and receives JUSTIFICATION, according as God has apportioned to each in the measure of his faith [Rom 12:3], nothing of human merit PRECEDES the grace of God, but grace itself MERITS INCREASE, and the increase MERITS PERFECTION, with the will ACCOMPANYING but not leading, following ALONG but not going in advance." (Letters 186:3:7,10)

"What MERIT, then, does a man have BEFORE grace, by which he might RECEIVE grace, when our EVERY good merit is produced in us ONLY by grace, and, when God, crowning our merits, crowns nothing else but His own GIFTS to us?" (Letters 194:5:19)

Do you understand? The "merit" (biblical term: "reward") is God's gift and grace as well. Now according to some of you, this St. Augustine fellow is in hell since he taught a false gospel. Can I suggest he may have understood the gospel rightly? If you quote Catholic theology (or Eastern Orthodox theology for that matter), make sure you accurately understand it before condemning it as false. BTW I don't condemn Protestants or Protestant understandings of the gospel, and neither does the modern Catholic Church (see the Decree on Ecumenism from Vatican II, cited in the Catechism).
PhilVaz

Tim said...

Guys,

In my study of Daniel I cannot help but see clearly why those of the past held the papacy as the little horn of Daniel 7 and why they saw it as anti-christ. There is no doubt in my mind that the line of Popes was prophecied about. My Catholic friends, I for one do believe there are some of God's people in the Catholic church. For goodness sake many of our forefathers were in it before and after it became heretical. If there weren't any of God's people in it, He would not have said, "Come our of her, my people."

I certainly have not taken anything that has been said as anything but the truth by Steve Camp. Why are some offended? Because they take his comments regarding the pope as personal. Someone said the issue might be reversed if Luther was portrayed in some lewd manner. Not for me it wouldn't. However, if you took the Lord Jesus Christ and portrayed Him that way, then we might have a discussion, for the pope does take his titles and does claim His power. Therefore, we should give attention to what saith the Scriptures in the matter of popery.

This is one area that I wish James White would debate. Though he debated the issue of the papacy with Gerry Matatics once, I really wish he would get into the prophetic fulfillment of the papacy.

Oh well, a last ditch effort to push open the eschatalogical door.

Ryan & Amy said...

Biblical prophesy about the Pope? You mean like Isaiah 22:21-22?

21 And I will clothe him with thy robe and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a FATHER to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And the KEY of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. (emphasis mine)

Now let's look at Matt 16:19:

19And I will give unto thee [Peter] the KEYS of the Kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." (emphasis mine)

Seems to me that either Jesus didn't know about Isaiah 22:22 when He said what He did in Matt 16:19, or Jesus was intentionally paralleling a text which imparted authority of the king to his primary servant, who would be authorized with full authority to act on the king's behalf.

Anyone who would say that Jesus gave the keys to all of us, let me just cut to the quick and say that if this is your claim, please provide the chapter/verse where the KEYS are given by Christ again.

Sorry to distract. I look forward to the answers to PhilVaz's questions.

God Bless,
Ryan

littlegal_66 said...

apolonio said: "Me too, ma'am, don't forget about me. Not a troll either."

Alright. I stand corrected. At this point, I assume you may have already attended your church this morning. I will be going out to my church's services in about an hour. So, allow me to broaden my comment and say that I will be praying for both you and thess this morning, as well as the outcome of further discussions on this topic (most likely to continue on this thread throughout the day).

Terry Rayburn said...

My Cathoic friends,

Don't be deceived by changes in "The Modern" Catholic Church. Any doctrinal changes only illustrate the fallability of the Church and Pope in the first place.

Look at some excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (this is the "new" "modern" "open-minded" one...you should see the Traditional One!):

". . Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that 'we too might walk in newness of life,'"(Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 977). [note this first of seven sacraments OBTAINS the forgiveness of sins]

"In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere 'to the end' and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ," (CCC, par. 1821). [note "as God's eternal reward for the good works"]

"Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification." (CCC, par. 2010) [note we not only merit for ourselves, but for others]

And since the Catholic Church obviously teaches that salvation includes man's works, then it follows that the failure of man's works can destroy that salvation and damn him again, after he's been "justified". The solution: more works! Read the following:

"Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as 'the second plank (of salvation) after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace." (CCC, par. 1446).

Acts of penance may be such things as prayer, saying the Rosary, reading the scripture, saying a number of "Our Father's" or "Hail Mary's", doing good works, fasting, etc.

================================

Hold on, I gotta breathe in some fresh air of the Word of God, here:
"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." --Romans 11:6

================================

John Paul also affirmed the Council of Trent, even traveling to Trento, Italy for the 450th Anniversary of the Council, and giving his approval. Among many other unbiblical teachings, the Council of Trent curses with damnation all of us who teach salvation "by grace through faith, not of works". Excerpts from the Council can be viewed at www.carm.org/catholic/trent.htm.

So much for the "modern" RCC allowing us Protestants into heaven.

Will you posting Catholics renounce Trent? (Think hard, for it will damn you to renounce it, and damn us Protestants to affirm it...tick, tock, tick, tock...time's up.)

Like many false teachers, John Paul was deceptive in his public speeches, opening the gates of heaven to almost anyone from Protestants to Buddhists, Hindus, etc., ignoring the words of Jesus, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

I haven't heard Benedict put any Buddhists into heaven, yet, but I wouldn't be shocked.

I have a particular love for Roman Catholics. I was once a member of the Roman Catholic Church myself, and my wife Michele was raised Roman Catholic. Many of our family members are of that faith.

If you are a Roman Catholic, or anyone who thinks that heaven can be earned by Sacraments or good works of any kind, I have terrific news for you. Jesus died on the cross for sins. He took the penalty for the sins of His people. He was buried and rose again from the grave, to give eternal life to all who will believe on Him and trust that His work on the cross was enough...who will believe that He meant it when He said on the cross, "It is finished." Whoever will may come to Him. God calls all men everywhere to repent, to change their minds. No works can earn it. It's a free gift of God. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.

Terry Rayburn

Ryan & Amy said...

Terry said:

[note we not only merit for ourselves, but for others]

Terry,

Would you please exegete Col 1:24 for us?

24I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for His body's sake, which is the church...

Also, Terry said:

the Council of Trent curses with damnation all of us who teach salvation "by grace through faith, not of works".

Terry,
Would you please cite where it is that the Church damned you to hell? I only remember "anathema" from my readings of Trent, which means you are not a member of the Catholic Church if you teach "faith alone" saves you. Do you disagree? Do you think you can teach "faith alone" and be Catholic?

Now for my scriptural breath of fresh air:
==========================
James 2:24 Ye see then how by works a man is justified, and NOT by faith only. (emphasis mine)
==========================

Terry writes:

Like many false teachers, John Paul was deceptive in his public speeches, opening the gates of heaven to almost anyone from Protestants to Buddhists, Hindus, etc., ignoring the words of Jesus, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

Terry,

To be consistent with your "hard edge" approach, you must also condemn to Hell the mentally impaired, who cannot understand the Gospel, as well as those below the age of reason. Is this your theology? Or are you inconsistent?

Terry writes:

[note "as God's eternal reward for the good works"]

The Scriptures say:
Romans 2:6 [God] will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 to those who by patient continuance in welldoing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but unto those who are contentious, and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,


God Bless,
Ryan

SJ Camp said...

First of all I want to say that I appreciate thess, apolonio, ryan and amy, philvaz for their questions and for not bailing in this discussion. It is an important one. In spite of the little barbs thrown this way, I am encouraged by what I am reading. We must be willing to walk through the tough water with others when it comes to the essentials of the faith.

I am also deeply grateful for the many (to many to name individually) who are standing graciously and boldly for biblical Christianity in this discussion. I am humbled and honored to partner with you in the work of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I will be responding to several of the primary comments regarding purgatory this afternoon (i.e., exegeting Col. 1:24; defining a theology of suffering; what Scriptures that Romanists misappropriate to prooftext their understanding of these things; what does it mean to "complete our sanctification" now and in the eschaton.

But for now, I am off to church with my five children on this beautiful Resurrection Sunday--the Lord's Day.

Grace and peace,
Steve
1 Peter 3:15

Apolonio said...

You know it would be a lot easier for you guys simply to sign up with the Catholic Answers forums, identify yourself ("hello I'm from the Steve Camp blog") and start a thread. If you are that concerned about Catholics and Catholicism we are 25,000+ strong there and many folks at these forums are quite knowledgeable. You got questions or challenges, they got answers. Many of them are converts to Catholicism from various Protestant churches, and know both Protestant and Catholic (and Orthodox) faiths quite well. I am not a convert myself, but cradle Catholic.

To Terry: all your citations from the Catechism are direct quotes from Scripture, in case you didn't notice. Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4 on Baptism and "walking in newness of life." On pesevering to the end for salvation that is Matthew 10:22; 24:13; Phil 2:12-13, etc. On Christ died for our sins and rose for our justification you may want to check Romans 5; 1 Cor 15:1-4. On merit or "rewards" check the Biblical texts I gave earlier.

Yes we do disagree on our biblical interpretations, but so do many Protestant churches disagree with each other. But I would read Steve Camp on Col 1:24 to see what he has to say.

Of course there are several texts I don't think are adequately addressed by 5-point Calvinists and you've probably seen them: 1 Tim 2:4,6; 4:10; 2 Peter 3:9; Matt 23:37; Ezek 18:23-32; 33:11; John 1:9,16; 3:16-17; 4:42; 1 John 2:2; 4:9-14; Rom 2:4; 5:6,18; 2 Cor 5:14-15; Titus 2:11; James 1:13-14; Sirach 15:11-20; 1 Cor 10:13; etc. We can disagree on our biblical interpretations and our understanding of "faith alone" (James 2:24; Gal 5:6; 1 Cor 13:2; etc) without condemning each other. If you condemn, make sure you understand what you condemn. Citing Trent, or Vatican II, or the Catechism may not be enough if you aren't comprehending what you are reading. The Catechism is quite clear and biblical, so do read it. BTW, the Council of Trent was written to Catholics about Catholics for Catholics, it wasn't written to/about/for Protestant or Orthodox Christians in the 21st century. See Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism where Protestants are called Christian brothers in the Lord, based on our common Trinitarian baptisms (Matthew 28:19).
PhilVaz

thessalonian said...

It seems to me what is key in this discussion is that I think we as Catholics have a deeper view of grace. That grace is not just God being nice and saying all's forgiven. No grace is God working in and through us. It is the spirit of God dwelling in us sanctifying us and motivating us to the good that God has always wanted in his people. If we look back at Is 1 he says "I have had enough of your sacrifices" then he says "care for the widow and the orphan". Grace is a day to day commitment by God to guide us to greater holiness and to great fruit, thirty, sixty or 100 fold. What I see in Protestantism is a denial of that grace. At least from some on this thread they want to call those works filthy rags. This is an insult to God! We are not sons of men of whom the filthy rags comment is directed. We are children of God, new creations, equiped for every GOOD WORK. We are to persist in doing good. Yet it is quite obvious to anyone who watches Christianity that we are still capable of great evil. We are capable of turning from the path. God's grace is our manna in the desert of life that makes us strong, that we can do the good works that he requires. When we do good it strengths us against evil. When we are about doing God's will, we are not doing the evil that will condemn us in Romans 2:4-8. Christianity is not a one time even. A sinners prayer and a head nod, all be it good to do those things. It is a walk. I believe that Catholicism has a much deeper recognition of the idea of God working in us.

Blessings

thessalonian said...

Littlegal,

"I, am praying that thess (whom I don't consider to be a troll) will objectively examine, ponder, and prayerfully receive the truths that Campi, Tim, and pilgrim presented to him (or her), as well as any further discussions that they may engage in regarding this eternal issue."

Troll? How nice. I guess if that's how you feel about me posting what I truly believe :( God bless you dear lady.

Thanks for the prayers. Mighty kind of you. I am certain God will use them to my good. His will for me of course is not yours. That is apparent. By the way I'll have you and Steve in mind at Mass later today before the Holy Eucharist which is the flesh and blood of Christ.

As for following after Tim and Campi, sorry I do not trust in men but Christ and the Church that he built.

Blessings to you though :)

thessalonian said...

Terry,

Hold on, I gotta breathe in some fresh air of the Word of God, here:
"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." --Romans 11:6

Terry,

See my post above about grace. Salvation is God working in and through us. Open up to Eph 3:20-21 and get a breath of fresh air. God always wanted men to do good works but without the Holy Spirit our works are as filthy rags. With him however we are on the path to eternal life, producing, thirty, sixty, or 100 fold. You seem to be saying this has no power. I say it has the power to make us strong against sin so that we will not fall in to sin and error. Are we rewarded for works. Well I have never seen anyone do anything more than handwaving regarding Romans 2:4-8 and Matt 25, the sheep and the goats.

As for baptism and Eucharist and confession being works of man, that is silly. Baptism is the Holy Spirit coming to dwell in us. Baptism now saves you Peter says. Oh the horror of it all. Peter says baptism saves. Of course Jesus says the same when he says in Mark 16:16 believe and be baptized and you will be saved. Oh I know the obvuscations of that passage. "But it says don't believe and be condemned". How does this nullify the word "AND BE BAPTIZED and you will be saved". Of course Protestant traditions do have a tendancy to nullify the word of God. Peter also tells us to repent and be baptized FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS and you will recieve the Holy Spirit. Jesus says "this is my body ...this is my blood to be offered up for "THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS". In John 20:21 it says RECIEVE THE HOLY SPIRIT who's SINS YOU FORGIVE THEY ARE FORGIVEN.". Seems like there is a recurring thing for baptism, Eucharist, and confession, i.e. the forgiveness of sins. Seems they are the work of God, not the work of man. Seems to me it would be an insult to him to claim that they are men saving themselves through works. I trust in HIS WORD not your obvuscatios of them.

God bless though.

Tim said...

Thess,

I agree with your above comments. I would venture to say that most of the reformed Christians on this blog would agree with you. Our profession of faith must be life long, not a one time thing. I recommend to your reading how this came in wholesale during the 20th century by guys like Billy Graham in Iain Murray's book, "Evangelicalism Divided". However, Protestants distinguish between justification and sanctification. That may be the real issue here. I certainly side with you on what grace produces. It does not produce a nod of the head, a tip of the hat, and some tears and a prayer and nothing more, for the grace of God teaches us to deny all ungodliness and to pursue righteousness (right living), which of course you mentioned several of those things.

I will comment after lunch on some of the other things said here and hopefully address the direct question posed by ryan and amy.

Apolonio said...

Terry: "If you are a Roman Catholic, or anyone who thinks that heaven can be earned by Sacraments or good works of any kind, I have terrific news for you. Jesus died on the cross for sins."

I have terrific news: anyone who thinks that Catholicism teaches heaven can be earned by sacraments or good works does not know what Catholicism teaches, nor St. Augustine, nor St. Thomas Aquinas, nor any of the saints, Fathers, and Doctors of the Catholic Church for 2000 years. Here is the Catechism:

1992. Justification has been merited for us by the passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.

1996. Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life [John 1; Romans 8; 2 Peter 1].

1997. Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

Anyone who believes Jesus died on the cross for sins is teaching what the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years. Amen.
Catholics are not the only "sacramental" churches you know, I suggest you look carefully into the Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc. None of them teach we earn salvation by the sacraments. That is not what "merit" is since it is God crowning his own gifts to us, see the quote from St. Augustine I gave earlier. If you want to discuss with knowledgeable Catholics, it is going to require a little bit more theological sophistication that you won't find in Jack Chick, Dave Hunt, Avro Manhattan, Charles Chiniquy, Edmund Paris, or Dan Brown. And James White of Alpha/Omega or Matt Slick of CARM will do you no good either. :-)
PhilVaz

littlegal_66 said...

Whoa, thess--I said, "Whom I don't consider to be a troll." I most definitely was not calling you a troll--please, please re-read my original post.

I was referring to the individuals who had obviously, just prior to their post, registered with blog.com in order to make their one-time negative comment to this particular thread. (Not you--you have been engaging in a sincere discussion of the topic).

By the way, I did offer up a prayer for you in the morning church service.

God bless,

--littlegal

littlegal_66 said...

And thess, if you did happen to receive, and let me add, even "embrace," the truths that Campi, Tim, and pilgrim presented to you, you would be following after God and His word, not His messengers.

Jeremy said...

I just want to say that this is fascinating and I am learning a lot.

allmyroadbeforeme.blogspot.com

-jeremy

Tim said...

Thess,

You said earlier, "You raise more straw men while essentially admitting to the premises of purgatory. Man's got to be cleansed of all tendancy toward sin when he enters heaven. Some of that tendency was caused by our sins on this earth because sin begets sin. Thus we develop habits of sin. It all must be cleansed from us for "nothing unclean shall enter". Is the Bible right or is it wrong on these points. Catholic teaching is not that purgation does not happen instantly. It makes no definitive statement on this matter because the afterlife is outside of time and space which is creation. Thus time in on the other side is a different issue. I could go in to the various speculations but that is for another blog. The point is your verse about the twinkling of an eye does nothing to prove anything about purgatory as the one "absent from the body, present with the lord". We are more in God's prescence with purgatory than we are here. But we have seen his face and feel the fires of his love purging us of our sin."


I didn't use the verse about a twinkling of an eye. That is 1 Cor. 15:52 "52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." I referenced 1 John 3:2, "1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is."

However, since you bring it up, 1 Corinthians is a good context to take for this discussion of purgatory. I quote from that very point following verse 52, "53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

I have a simple question concerning what takes place here. Paul addresses a time when we will be changed in the twinkling of an eye. He clearly states that all will not sleep (die), but will be changed. He speak of it as being caught away to be with the Lord forever in 1 Thess. 4. He also says that death will be swallowed up in victory and then sarcastically asks, "death where is thy sting and grave where is your victory?"

Then notice these words, "The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law." Did you catch that? Some believers will not experience death, yet the sting of death is sin. How can those who will not sleep ever go to purgatory? They will not experience death. It is not because they have not sinned for they were born under the curse of sin, but it is because Christ took upon Him their sin on the cross and paid the penalty for their sin. He experienced death on their behalf.

So I would ask you, since they don't experience death and immediately exchange their corruptible bodies for incorruptible bodies does it not seem clear that there is no need for some purging from sin or sinful tendencies. We will be changed completely.

I know some will object here and say that these are only those around at Christ's coming. I agree, but the fact is that there are believers clearly transformed that will never experience purgatory in this passage and I think the same experience, apart from death, has happened and will continue to happen to all those who are in Christ Jesus.
Maybe I'm missing something. When have we seen His face? Jesus said that no man has seen the Father. However, there were men who saw Jesus, but I have never seen Him. Have you?


By the way, maybe you could exegete 2 Cor. 5:8. I would love to hear your understanding of the passage.

Tim said...

Ryan,

Thanks for your post. You said, "Biblical prophesy about the Pope? You mean like Isaiah 22:21-22?

21 And I will clothe him with thy robe and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a FATHER to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And the KEY of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. (emphasis mine)"

That last part is part of the problem here. I don't mean to be offensive, but, .....talk about taking a passage out of context. Clearly had you referenced verse 20 you would have discovered this is nothing about Peter or the pope, but about Eliakim and in him was a picture of Christ. Let us not forget that the Scriptures pointed to Christ, not the pope. When I spoke of Daniel, not Isaiah, it was to show the best that man could offer and that was the pope, whom Christ will judge at His coming.

You also said, "Now let's look at Matt 16:19:

19And I will give unto thee [Peter] the KEYS of the Kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." (emphasis mine)"

Again, the problem may be with your emphasis. You continued, "
Seems to me that either Jesus didn't know about Isaiah 22:22 when He said what He did in Matt 16:19, or Jesus was intentionally paralleling a text which imparted authority of the king to his primary servant, who would be authorized with full authority to act on the king's behalf."

Clearly that's not what Jesus was saying. Though, he did speak to Peter, we also will note that the other disciples were clearly engaged in the conversation. However, many are more apt to argue the point concerning what rock Jesus was speaking about building His church upon. I simply note that when Jesus addressed that issue he didn't say Peter you are the rock, but He said upon "this" rock I will build my church, that being Peter's confession of who He was. That is in line with the context. I'm sure you've heard this before.

Finally, you said,"Anyone who would say that Jesus gave the keys to all of us, let me just cut to the quick and say that if this is your claim, please provide the chapter/verse where the KEYS are given by Christ again."

Matt. 18:18,19 Though the word "keys" is not used, the power is the same, binding and loosing. This is parallel to what was said concerning that in Matt. 16 and I might add that it references brothers who sin against one another and ultimately if they do not repent the church is to be treated as a publican or taxcollector or in the vinacular, "an unbeliever".

I welcome your comments.
"

Bhedr said...

Thess and Apol,

Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die it abideth alone. Jesus said this when he told his disciples He must die on the cross. Are we greater than he?
Peter said it was time for judgement to begin with the house of God but asked what the latter end would be for those that rejected Christ. I believe Chastisement is for the present as God clearly states it well in Psalms 89. God has also told us that for the believer he does not mark iniquity and that he is truly blessed. Is he or isn't he? He has forgotten their sin as far as the east is from the west.

Is it possible some of you guys have been hurt deeply by some fundamental evangelicals who acted in ignorance? Hey, I grew up in it and have been deeply offended but I don't wish evil on them for it. We all act in ignorance at times.All of us! Don't let that stand in the way of you truly comming to faith. They will enjoy eternal blessing so why not enjoy the blessings along with them and love them anyway. This is the heart of God. Mercy and it triumphs over judgement.

I ask two questions:
1.Did your old nature die with Christ on the cross or do you still cleave to it?

2.Does God punish the New Creation that was given birth by the ressurection; essentially does God continue to punish his own self in purgatory or was it completed on the Cross?

Believe...I say believe in the ressurection and hope in His promise; don't reject such a glorious offer.

Tim said...

I hope Steve doesn't mind my posting so much, but I think Daniel is clear in what he saw in his vision in chapter 7. Also the interpretation is given very clearly in the same chapter.

specifically he addresses the fact that a fourth beast will arise after Greece. We know clearly that was Rome and it was diverse from the other beasts. It even occupied a whole different part of the world. The beast had 10 horns and another horn came up from it. Later in the interpretation we find that the 10 horns arise out of the fourth beast. These are the ten barbarian tribes that took over western Europe and the little horn that comes up comes up while they are coming up in the same hour according to Rev. 17:12. By the way Rev. 17:9 clearly identifies the whore of Babylon, that's for sure. That is so clear. She is the Roman Catholic Church. Papal Rome succeeded the Roman Empire and came up during the ten tribes and came to power, even exercising power over the emperors of the holy Roman Empire.

Daniel says of this little horn: "25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end."

I could go into great detail about how the popes have done just this kind of thing, especially elevating themselves to the place and authority of God, some even so presumptuous as to express taking on His very nature and attributes. However, Paul, in 2 Thess 2 tells us that he will proclaim himself as God in the temple (I understand that to be a New Testament concept of temple, ie. the church) and will be destroyed by the brightness of Christ's coming. However, those who love the truth will not be deceived by his signs, and power and lying wonders.

I would like to be clear. I am not attacking Catholics. I am simply looking to what God has said about such a system and such a man that would think himself to have at his disposal the power to forgive sins and the audacity to proclaim himself Christ's Vicar, God on earth, and various other titles that are not rightfully his.

On a final note, in speaking to indulgences. What man can rightly think that corruptible things like silver and gold can buy off a just and holy God. Jesus sure didn't use those things, but paid with His precious blood (says the first non-pope, the apostle Peter).

Ryan & Amy said...

Tim,

May God bless you for your courtesy. I have a thick skin (which my diet is working on), so don't worry about offending me. It heartens me, however, to see that you care enough to say something. Again, may God bless you and your family richly.

To continue...

1. I said nothing about Peter being the rock. It was intentional. That is a different argument altogether.

2. We'll pretend that Matt 16:18 means what you say to the exclusion of any other interpretation (BTW, that's an infallible interpretation you've just made), and say that "this rock" refers to Peter's faith. Great. Doesn't explain the keys, and Christ's use of the singular 'you' in Greek when speaking to Peter. Peter gets the keys. End of citation.

3. As I said, you have to show the keys somewhere else. It's not enought to say "well, he uses similar words so EVERYTHING is the same." Christ didn't say KEYS for a reason. He wanted Isaiah 22:22 to stick. To see that the KEYS are actually important, listen to what Christ says about them in Revelation 1:18 I am He that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen, and have the keys of hell and of death.

Is your contention that Christ only holds the same power that He just gave to everyone, because now everyone has the keys? Clearly, this is incorrect. Again, to stop anyone from saying "Christ has the keys, so Peter can't", I'll cut to the quick again and say that if I give someone they key to my house, I am entrusting them with a great responsibility. The key in his physical possession, however, is still mine. It's called delegation of authority, while maintaining responsibility. Again, this is all about the KEYS.

4. Isaiah 22:22 points to how things will run in the kingdom of God. It's a prophetic use of history to describe what will happen (like Adam and the New Adam, the flood and baptism, the bronze serpent and the Cross, etc.). That this is prophetic is made clear by the paralleling of the texts...again...unless your contention is that Christ just didn't know about Isaiah 22:22.

God Bless,
RyanL

Tim said...

good advice bhedr.

by the way, does that stand for beheader? LOL

Ryan & Amy said...

Tim,

I have never seen someone more in need of reading the following article, entitled "Hunting the Whore of Babylon".

http://www.catholic.com/library/hunting_the_whore_of_babylon.asp

God Bless,
RyanL

Bhedr said...

Terry,

I stand in awe at the wisdom God has granted you. Truly God has blessed you. Praise the Living God for your testimony as well. There is no doubt that you are a genuine vessel. Keep your humility as well.I know you will because your focus is always in the right place. Faith in Christ alone.

Tim said...

Ryan,

Not at all. That's not my contention. Of course He knew about it, it's His Word. He was the one Isaiah saw and heard. It was about Him, not Peter. That's my point. Let me ask a clarifying question to see how you interpret: What is Matt 18:18 speaking about then? What is the exegesis in that context from your perspective?

Tim said...

By the way, I'm not trying to win an argument. God knows I have no power to win. We are all set in our ways and He must reveal Himself to us just as He did to Peter and in truth, He has in His Word. Now I simply ask that He might reveal His Word by His Spirit.

Ryan & Amy said...

The conciliar authority of the ordinary magisterium. :-)

Re-read all of Isaiah 22. Verse 22 is about a prime minister, not the king. The King is Christ. The kingdom is Israel in the old testament, and heaven in the new. If Christ is the king of kings, who then is the prime minister?

God Bless,
RyanL

Ryan & Amy said...

By the way, I'm serious about all of the links I post - that's why I go to the trouble of finding the links. Are you going to them?

God Bless,
RyanL

Bhedr said...

Slegdehammer,

You are doing an good ministry here. Stand fast and hold forth the love you have in your heart for these men and know that we stand amidst the great falling away. Consider making one of your comments a new post.
Brian

2Tal said...

From my reformed perspective I cetainly don't agree with the tenants of Catholicism. That should be obvious. However, I am curious. What about Finneyists who don't believe in substutionary atonement or imputed righteousness? Does the fact that they are not Catholic make them nonetheless saved? What about the Wesleyans and Lutherans who believe one can permanently fall out of grace. Does that not add to the sufficiency of Christ alone? It seems to me anyone who does not adhere to the reformed doctrines of grace would have to put trust in their own faith as a meritorious work in addition to faith alone in Christ alone. Who among these groups get a free "get out of hell" card? Don't get me wrong here. Catholicism clearly spell out their heresy. So we are obligated we to defend the truth against their confessions. I'm just not convinced that many Protestants who profess faith alone are not in reality adding to the sufficiency of Christ themselves. Just thoughts. How many Protestants are even aware of the doctrine of justification by faith ALONE, or the sufficiency of the imputed righteousness of Christ? Just some thoughts. Maybe someone can bring some clarification here.

Bhedr said...

You said>it is going to require a little bit more theological sophistication <
...........lest any man should boast.....*?*
lest any man should boast!
You cannot seize the Kingdom of God.

You would have nothing were it not given to you from above.

Friend what do you seek? Is it the simplicity of a child or intelligentsia. Can you not see this?

Jesus said, Father I thank thee that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes.

Tim said...

Ryan,

I couldn't get to the whore of babylon link. The URL wasn't complete.

However, I was trying to make another post and it got lost in virtualand somewhere.

Anyway, I went on Catholic.com and thought I might try to find it. However I ran across a cute little button on the home page that said, "How to be a Catholic". I clicked on it and hoped to learn something. The entire page to my surprise and not to my surprise spoke of everything I could do to be Catholic, but spoke nothing of Christ and His atonement. I was told I must be taught the catechism, be baptised, go through several rituals, and then I would be considered a neophyte (new christian). Nowhere on the page was Christ mentioned except in the phrase "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" towards the end of the page under "reception in special cases". It seems that if the theology espoused by you guys would be held by the Catholic church itself, wouldn't they take that page which answers the question "How do I become Catholic" and make it into a presentation of Jesus Christ, who is the head of the church, but I find nothing of Him.

Also, I realize that many will object and say He is taught in the catechism and in the church and even on the website. Maybe. But He is not preeminent on the page, that in my estimation is the most important. I welcome your feedback.

Bhedr said...

Tim,

Ah ha so you caught on. My name is Brian Hedrick(bhedr) but as an Ana-Baptist I too am a beheader. We do not behead the flesh as Rome beheaded ours. We seek to behead the imaginations that raise itself up against the glory of God. If any of my Catholic friends are wondering what an Ana-Baptist is then visit my blog and click on the Trail Of Blood link. Some stuff there may be helpful to you as well.

Tim you have done a good job with your interpretation of Daniel. I also suggest an old book, "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop. I know Chick has taken it upon himself to reprint this old book but it really has no ties to him and for you theologicaly sophisticated it may meet your needs. I will agree that Chick goes to far in many areas and so I don't fully agree with him. I give you that much.

Let me also say that though I hold to Reformed Theology I believe in the upmost importance of a calling away instead as I see what is happening. To my Catholic friends I leave you with this verse out of Revelation 18:4-7 "Come out of her my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her. In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment(go sledgehammer) and sorrow; for she says in her heart, 'I sit as a queen, and am no widow, and will see no sorrow.'"

Tim said...

Brian Hedrick???

Sounds so familiar. Where are you from??

Also, I read the previous post from Terry. To God be the glory for your deliverance and great testimony of the gospel.

Tim said...

bhedr said, "It never ceases to amaze me dear brothers how man loves the bondage he is inslaved to. Give me Grace brother! Give me grace! Yeeeeeehhhhhoooooooooowwwwwwww! I'm free and going to heaven. Praise God my eyes see and my ears hear. Oh come join me you who love your bondage. You don't have to pay for your sins and not only that you can receive by that same grace the power to walk.

When I kneel before a holy and righteouss God I will smile at his feet and love HIM because of this precious Saviour He has given me. Oh praise God!


My humble reply to that is.........

YEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!.......and Amen.

DOGpreacher said...

I would encourage any of you who have not read the book or seen the video "A Woman Rides The Beast" to do so. That endorsement will tell you exactly where I stand on the Catholic church...

...However, guys, as this relates to the 'other 100+ post', part of Catholic History is their statement that Protestants must recognize their Authority as THE CHURCH & the Pope as Christ's Vicar, because they (the Roman Church) changed the day of worship, and if we did not recognize THEM as such we would still be keeping the Sabbath. Sounds eerily like ONE who would think to change times and laws, and wear out the saints of the most High (Daniel 7:25), and they did do their fair share of wearing out the saints (countless millions murdered) wouldn't you say. A simple perusal of the history of sadistic, depraved, murderous, adulterous...oh yes, infallible men as Pope during that time reveals this beast and the woman who rides her, and the daughters of her fornication (Rev.17&18).

Plain and simple I will say, "Come out of her...(Rev. 18:4).

Bhedr said...

Tim,

I am a former MK from Hong Kong with ABWE. I am your same age and attended Bob Jones Univesity for a short time. You didn't go there did you? Anyway I lived in Virgina Beach for a while and spent some time in the Marines. Also lived near Cleveland Ohio for a time as well. I do have friends down there where you live in clover. They also work in Gastonia. As a truck driver I used to deliver to Wix filters at exit 14. Your face is familiar come to think of it. My friends from clover are Joey and Shelly Thompson. I presently live in Bracey Virginia about 4 hours North of you.
P.S- I was born in West Virginia but hesitate to tell anyone as bigotry for them is 100 fold. They are looked down as simpleminded, so its a cross I bear I guess. Oh well glad to be a babe.

Apolonio said...

bhedr: "I ask two questions: 1. Did your old nature die with Christ on the cross or do you still cleave to it?"

PhilVaz responds: Old nature dead (Romans 8; Gal 5), new nature born again at Baptism (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21), conformed to Christ's image day by day by sanctification (2 Cor 3:18; Eph 2:1-10). Is that the answer you are looking for?

bhedr: "2. Does God punish the New Creation that was given birth by the ressurection; essentially does God continue to punish his own self in purgatory or was it completed on the Cross? Believe...I say believe in the ressurection and hope in His promise; don't reject such a glorious offer."

I don't understand the question. We have been saved (Eph 2:8), we are being saved (1 Cor 1:18), and we will be saved (Matt 24:13). Christ died for our sins (1 Cor 15:1-4; 1 John 2:2; 1 Tim 2:4-6) and we work out our salvation in fear and trembling (Phil 2:12-13) is the Catholic and biblical teaching.

Resurrection is spelled like this, although yours is a common mis-spelling, probably due to a lack of reading. Sorry.

Yes, do join us at the Catholic Answers forums. Most of us don't bite, until you start quoting or recommending Dave Hunt, Alexander Hislop, Edmund Paris, Avro Manhatten, or Jack Chick.
PhilVaz

Apolonio said...

bhedr: " 'The Two Babylons' by Alexander Hislop. I know Chick has taken it upon himself to reprint this old book but it really has no ties to him and for you theologicaly sophisticated it may meet your needs."

Sorry Alexander Hislop's book is trash. What I was hoping for was at least James White level scholarship in here. James White the Reformed Baptist apologist will tell you that Hislop is a basically a theological and historical dunce. Please read some real historians such as JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines or Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition, readily available at your local public bookstore or library. Get educated. Hislop, Hunt, Chick are garbage and totally unreliable. Ask White if you don't believe me.
PhilVaz

Apolonio said...

behdr: "If any of my Catholic friends are wondering what an Ana-Baptist is then visit my blog and click on the Trail Of Blood link. Some stuff there may be helpful to you as well."

Thank you, but you really need to get yourself educated. The Baptists do not trace back to the Anabaptists, they are a different theology, different century.

"Although no reputable Church historians have ever affirmed the belief that Baptists can trace their lineage through medieval and ancient sects ultimately to the New Testament, that point of view enjoys a large following nevertheless. It appears that scholars aware of this claim have deemed it unworthy of their attention, which may account for the persistence and popularity of Baptist successionism as a doctrine as well as an interpretation of church history. Aside from occasional articles and booklets that reject this teaching, no one has published a refutation in a systematic, documented format. The present work is an effort to supply this need so that Baptists may have a thorough analysis of successionism, together with a reliable account of their origins as a Protestant religious body." (McGoldrick, preface page iv)

"It is the purpose of this book to show that, although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the Reformers." (ibid, page 2

Trail of Blood is garbage. McGoldrick the baptist historian will tell you that. I suggest a good trip to your library, look up the book by Baptist historian James Edward McGoldrick titled Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History (1994).

I'll make this clear once again as I've studied this stuff for 15 years: Dave Hunt, Jack Chick, Avro Manhatten, Edmund Paris, Alexander Hislop, and J.M. Carroll are theological and historical dunces. Their theology is poor, their history is false. McGoldrick will document that for you, James White would agree, and Steve Camp too if he knows his Reformed theology and history.
PhilVaz

Apolonio said...

Tim: "Anyway, I went on Catholic.com and thought I might try to find it. However I ran across a cute little button on the home page that said, How to be a Catholic. I clicked on it and hoped to learn something."

Good, that's a start, you found Catholic.com, now you have 8 years worth of radio programs to listen to. Begin. :-)
Here are some of those programs, to download see archives at Catholic.com

PhilVaz

Tim said...

apolonio,

It is amazing to me that you missed my point when you were quoting me. It seems I must do all those things I mentioned and then I now need to listen to 8 years of radio programs? Wow, I really do need purgatory, I am so behind. What would I do without Christ and His perfect righteousness? I guess I could start my pilgrimage toward Rome:)

Apolonio said...

Tim: "It seems I must do all those things I mentioned and then I now need to listen to 8 years of radio programs?"

Yes, the first 3 years or so are linked at my site. :-)

I got your point (that somehow Christ is missing in Catholicism) and ignored it since it was obviously wrong. All you need to do to find Christ is walk into any Catholic church and attend a Mass. Look up, you will see a crucifix. Christ is preached, Christ is present in the Eucharist, at every Catholic Mass, all over the world, every day. I'll repeat that Protestants are called Christian brothers in the Lord according to Vatican II (see Decree on Ecumenism). You don't need to accept purgatory, but you can try to understand that Catholic teaching (btw, St. Augustine was pretty clear on purgatory as well).
PhilVaz

Tim said...

apolonio,

You said, "I got your point (that somehow Christ is missing in Catholicism) and ignored it since it was obviously wrong."

Sir, you got it wrong. I didn't say He was missing from Catholicism. I said He was missing from what I would consider one of the most important pages on Catholic.com, that is the page on How to become Catholic. On that I was correct. Anyone can check it out at:

http://www.catholic.com/library/How_to_Become_a_Catholic.asp

You continued, "All you need to do to find Christ is walk into any Catholic church and attend a Mass. Look up, you will see a crucifix."

Is that Jesus on the cross? or an idol? Jesus is no longer on the cross my friend. His work is complete and you blaspheme Him and His work with such idolatry. That is not Christ. It is not even a clear likeness of Him. It is only a man made object that cannot speak, hear, or save. The Mass, as well, though I know many will object and say it is the presentation of the one sacrifice of Christ. Pardon me, but the New Testament is clear that God was pleased with Jesus offering His sacrifice alone. No one else can offer it. He alone is my High Priest.

You continued, "Christ is preached,"

but a powerless Christ who is unable to save unless the creature works alongside him.

"Christ is present in the Eucharist"

As though you could physically ingest the Son of God, and that in installments. You may not get enough, for even in that you may commit some mortal sin and be damned.

"I'll repeat that Protestants are called Christian brothers in the Lord according to Vatican II (see Decree on Ecumenism)."

No thanks. Vatican II will suffice. For all to read:

i. This sacred council accepts loyally the venerable faith of our ancestors in the living communion which exists between us and our brothers who are in the glory of heaven or who are yet being purified [in purgatory] after their death; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea [787], of the Council of Florence [1438-42], and the Council of Trent [1545-63].

I'll just take one of the things from Trent, since there are many we could site. This one has to do with the Mass.

"If any one saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema" Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1). The Mass is not a true and proper sacrifice to God. Only the one sacrifice of Christ is a proper sacrifice to God. I must be anathema. In biblical language that means cut off from the church and thus cut off from the possiblity of salvation. Many of my Protestant brothers would agree, therefore, Vatican II in affirming the previous Councils, since they can do no other, since they are "infallible" do not accept and cannot accept us as Christian brothers for we are anathematized by their own words.

URL - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

thessalonian said...

Littlegal,

My apologies. I did read it wrong. Thanks for the prayers.

I'll try make a few more comments latter tonight or tommorrow.

God bless

thessalonian said...

Littlegal,

My apologies. I did read it wrong. Thanks for the prayers.

I'll try make a few more comments latter tonight or tommorrow.

God bless

thessalonian said...

Littlegal,

Sorry for misreading your words. Thanks for the prayers. I prayed for you as well. I'll try to post more later.

Tim said...

Ryan,

Thanks fro the thread link. I already saw that. While you have been very cordial, I took a look at the link and found that there seemed to be only 2 or 3 commentors. I think dialogue on this blog is great and informative. However, I noticed that PHilvaz was one who obviously looks down upon us lowly Protestants and feels he can't have a reasonable conversation because we are not sufficiently educated (I assume that means Catholicism). That's probably why there will be no discussion.

I have offered Scripture, not Jack Chick, Dave Hunt or anyone else. Therefore, as far as I am concerned I am sufficiently educated. Catholic material abounds on the web, as well as Protestant. I think we have endeavored to understand one another and try to understand our differences. My desire is that God might give life to those needing it. Maybe it's a Protestant who comes to this blog who has all his theology right, but has never been born again or maybe it's a Catholic who, in ignorance has embraced a false gospel and is blinded to the truth. In either case, God is glorified when His true gospel is proclaimed, for He loves to smell the fragrance of it, whether it leads men to life or to death (cf. 2 Cor. 2:14-16).

Is the whore link supposed to be the Dave Hunt link??

Breuss Wane said...

>We need to go beyond the Bible

Well, no we don't. Sola Scriptura. The moment we go outside of scripture to define salvation as anything other than the way scripture defines it (sola fide), is the moment we damn ourselves (Revelation 22:18,19).

Breuss Wane said...

Brian wrote:
>Where have you been btw?

In Akron, visiting with R. C. Sproul.
:-)

Tim said...

STeve.....

You can't touch this......(du nu nu nu, nu nu, nu nu) LOL

Amen! Amen! Amen!

Breuss Wane said...

ryan & amy wrote:
>Peter makes no exceptions for public >or private when he says to speak the >truth in love.

Actually, Peter did makes exceptions. In speaking about the Pope and those like him, Peter said:

"false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep...these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, while they feast with you. They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing,..These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption."

Peter could not have been plainer about the Pope.

SJ Camp said...

Dear Fellow-Bloggers:

It's hammer time!

-This discussion will not be moving to catholicanswers.com. that is against our policy here at this blog (your post has been deleted). Nice try... but no thanks. I would encourage any of you not to get sucked into their forums... it is a theological black hole at best--unless you are posting to call them to repentance

-Thess made the comment yesterday that I would be no match for him and that I would "loose" every time. I'm sure I would "loose" every time, but lose? NEVER. There you go again Thess in true Romanist form... misappropriating words just like you do to Scripture. :-).

-Col. 1:24. The "filling up which is lacking in Christ's affliction" is not purgatory as Romanists will contend. Paul said that "he was filling up..." - not stated in the future; not stated as an addition to justification (which in Romanist doctrine is progressive not forensic); the Apostle is not affirming that something was not complete of the Lord’s work on the cross--His affliction; and Paul is definitely not stating this as a future purging needed to enter heaven.

This is what it means: if Jesus were still on earth in the flesh with us, they would still be persecuting Him. Because we are His people, we will now receive the persecution for His names sake. We are filling up which is lacking in Christ's affliction. In other words, He took the blows for us on the cross; we must take the blows for Him in this world as His servants (John 15; 2 Tim. 1:8; 3:12; 1 Pt. 4:12-16). This is done on behalf of His body, the church. Paul's love for the Lord compelled him to endure much suffering for the sake of the gospel, the person of Christ and on behalf of the church. He was, "an ambassador in chains." He is not speaking of purgatory, but of earthly persecution for the gospel of Jesus Christ (cp, Matt. 5:1-12; 2 Cor. 11).

-Romanists say (as they have on this blog) that they are saved entirely by grace. That is a lie--they are not being truthful. If you have read as I have the Tridentine documents, Vatican 1 and II; 1994 Catechism of the Church, etc. they believe something gravely different. They assert many different forms of grace and applications of grace. They definitively deny sola fide; and sola scriptura by Romanist decree. The Church of Rome for them is a surrogate Christ and they don't even recognize the Scriptures as their final authority.

-Here is something that JPII signed off on before entering perdition by petition from over six million Romanists supporting the Fifth Marian Dogma: "With filial love, we the faithful wish to humbly petition you, the Vicar of Christ, to solemnly define as Christian dogma the Church's constant teaching on Mary's co-redemptive role with Christ the Redeemer of humanity. It is our belief that such a definition will bring to light the whole truth about Mary, Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, Spouse of the Spirit, and Mother of the Church. Therefore, it is our prayer that the Holy Spirit will guide you, Holy Father, to define and proclaim the Blessed Virgin Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces and Advocate for the people of God."

Rome has affirmed such.

In addition, Romanism teaches without equivocation that justification is not the divine, forensic declaration that a sinner is right in His sight based upon faith alone on the work of Christ alone, including the imputed righteousness of Christ which provides us with a perfect standing before God. Instead, justification and sanctification are made the same thing, so that one is justified by baptism initially, causing one to enter "the state of grace." You can do good works in the state of grace that are meritorious before God, but, the commission of a mortal sin destroys that state, and makes you an enemy of God once again. You can become re-justified through the sacrament of penance, though the temporal punishment of sins remains.

Pray for our dear Roman Catholic friends: they do not understand the gospel of grace of our Lord Jesus Christ; and have been blinded by "the god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:1-5). Pray that God would grant them saving-faith and translate them out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of His glorious Son (Col. 1:9-14). We are the most blessed of all people beloved; we get the privilege of going into a lost world and sharing with them how they can have the forgiveness of sins, eternal life, peace with God, and worship Him forever.

One final question for our Romanist blogentators: if purgatory is to be a final cleansing of sins to complete our sanctification, is it a purging of our flesh or spirit or both? If we have been crucified with Christ (which signifies the death of the old nature); and the new I, Christ, lives in us (Gal. 2:20 - and Christ in you the hope of glory Col. 1:5); then the struggle that we face in this life is being new creations in unredeemed flesh... correct? So does purgatory purge our flesh? It couldn't could it... We do wait, as Paul said, for the redemption of the body (Roms. 8:23) and therefore we present our bodies now as living sacrifices (Roms. 12:1) and the members of our flesh as weapons of righteousness (Roms. 6-7).

Rhetorically speaking, is the purging of purgatory for our new natures? Our unredeemed flesh? Both? What?

Purgatory is an invention by sinful man to avoid the consequences of their sin—nothing more, nothing less; and making turning the grace of God into a work of human righteousness. But this is common for any cult or false religion masquerading as Christianity absent of Christ and His gospel of sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus. Our Lord spoke of Romanism in Matthew 7:21-23 in very definitive terms: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” Notice the broad was here is marked “Jesus” – and they even attribute their salvation to Christ as Lord. But they come to Him solely on the merits of their best good works (Romanism’s claim by obeying the Pope and the their decrees) for entrance into glory and eternal life. But the Lord declares their good works as nothing but “lawlessness” – iniquity.

We need to go to all Romanists and proclaim to them the true gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Pray for them to respond to the call of the cross by God granting to them saving faith for salvation.

In closing, Paul’s admonition to the Romanists of his day, the Judaizers, is a fitting close: “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves! For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.”

Sparks said...

The pot seemed to have been stirred enough, but since I've read this far I may as well have a go at it too.

I'm a layman, not a theologian.
But, if I am reading correctly some of the pro-catholic posts here, and that information is true, aren't those of us who call ourselves Christians in danger of eternal damnation for not following the teachings of Rome?

How about the praying to a false god (Mary) other than the one true God? Other than the miracle of a virgin birth to the Lord Jesus Christ, what exactly did Mary do to attain the status of one who intervenes with God on behalf of catholics? As a sinner in need of a Savior how can Mary, mother of Jesus, be considered Holy and worthy of prayer to her? Jesus Christ during His ministry never attributed any holiness to his earthly mother. None of the writings of the New Testament attribute any holiness to the mother of Jesus.

A young woman has been attending our church. About a month ago, she came forward during the invitation and accepted Jesus Christ into her life as Lord and Savior. Right then she asked to immediately be baptised (by immersion) in her street clothes! This past Friday night she was telling some of her new brothers and sisters in Christ how her catholic family has disowned her for rejecting the teachings of their church and accepting Jesus Christ as her personal Savior. There were several other former catholics who are now Christians who expressed the same type of rejection by their families as well.

The things I hear repeated over and over again by former catholics who are now Christians about how they have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ in their entire lives, never read the Bible, never taught anything other than catholicism.

How can former catholics,different people from different parts of the country, all say the same things about what they were taught or not taught as catholics; and the grace, peace and love they now know as followers of Jesus Christ?

Father God, Holy is your name before all you have created both in earth and heaven. Father, you alone are worthy of all honor, praise and glory! I praise You Lord. Please pour out your Spirit upon those who teach doctrines contrary to your Holy Word, so that they may see the Truth and grace of your Son Jesus' complete sacrifice to pay for all of our sins. Father, your grace through Jesus is sufficient for all. In the name of Jesus, Amen.

Bhedr said...

Amen Steve! Amen!

To those of you who refer to protestant or Baptist books as trash. Fine! Hey the Popes over the years never wrote anything that contradicted itself did they?.......*?* uuuuh, ya think?

Hey you guys can insult my intelligence and feel free to do so as I don't care about myself or the learning disabilities I grew up with; my focus is on the Glory of Christ. Hey he made me with learning disabilities. It is my thorn in the flesh and praise God for my weakness. I just hope YHVH sees fit to reveal to you His Name.
My heart breaks at your rejecting Christ alone as sufficient. Oh come to him please dear friend before it's too late. He will save you even now if you repent of your false ideas of him and see who He really is. He is the God of Israel not Rome and you must be born into this house, as there is no other nation he revealed himself to.

Hey fellow campsters are you getting a Steve Hays vibe when talking to these guys. It is interesting how that spirit of intellegentsia manifests itself. i.e-"You come to me with staves?"

Lord I thank you that you have revealed yourself to babes. Amen,Selah.

thessalonian said...

Steve,

Your namecalling, accusations, and distortions expose you as you really are. It starts with a b. Comments like these don't show concern for souls. You call us Romanists which is a derogatory term. You call us liars. That's really in the spirit of love isn't it? It's of the same spirit as your childish picture.

Lot's of nonsense being spoken right now. I'll try to have some time for some of it latter. Though this may well be a pearl casting venture.

Bhedr said...

>In Akron, visiting with R. C. Sproul.
:-)<

Aw man you guys get to do all the fun stuff. Ah I envy you with a Godly envy:-)

Bhedr said...

>Though this may well be a pearl casting venture.<

Ouch! I guess being called a pig isn't all that derogatory.

Ryan & Amy said...

It has been claimed that Catholics preach a different Gospel than Protestants. This is admittedly true. It is also true that Protestants preach a different Gospel than other Protestants. Sometimes radically different, sometimes not so different. There are over 25,000 different versions of this Gospel (Protestantism) by the most recent count I have seen. This should give cause for alarm. Sadly, it doesn't. Some Protestants say that you agree on the essentials, like Faith Alone. Church of Christ doesn't buy that. They can read James 2:24. Some Protestants say that it's eternal security, Once Saved Always Saved. Lutherans and Anglicans don't believe that. They can read Romans 11:22. Some Protestans say baptism is only a symbol; some say it is the mechanism of spiritual rebirth. Some Protestants say that the Lord's Supper is only symbolic. Some say that Christ exists in the host.

So tell me - If I were to leave the Catholic Church, to whom would I go? Baptists? Lutherans? Church of God? Church of Christ? Church of Christ in God? The Quakers? The Shakers? The Mary Eddy Bakers (..er...Mary Baker Eddy...Christian Scientists...)? Alright, so I'm having a little fun with this. But that's precicely the point! If I wanted to I could start my own church, and you would embrace me as a brother. Why? Do you see how little sense that makes?

So yes, our Gospels are different. It is my belief that some Protestants somewhere have come up with all of the different doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church, just never all together. For example, C.S. Lewis believed in Purgatory, and he was Anglican. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all believed in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin. And the list goes on.

To truly see if yours is an "original" or "intended" Gospel, you have to look at the Early Church. We have the writings of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, ready to read for anyone who wants to. Ignatius and Polycarp learned the Gospel from the Apostle John, for example, and we have tons of their writings. How about reading them and seeing if your faith matches? For those who would reply that Ignatius and Polycarp weren't Apostles, I would reply that neither were Luke or Mark, but that doesn't stop you from believing their writings.

Just check it out. See if you would be comfortable worshiping in the 1st century. You may want to start by reading the Didache. Here's a link.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

God Bless,
RyanL

Terry Rayburn said...

Wow! I've been gone all day and night. You all have been busy.

Great comments, born-again ones!

Steve, when you refer to their claims of salvation by grace as "a lie", you hit the nail on the head.

We want to be gracious to the deceived Catholic pew-sitter, but my experience has been that the "informed" Catholic apologists are not at all above mis-representing Catholic thoeology.

Contrary to my old friend-in-print, Walter Martin, I have believed for many years that the RCC is a bona fide cult.

Typical marks of a cult often include:

1. An exalted human leader [the Pope],

2. A distortion of the person and work of Christ [the awful veneration of the wine and wafer as "Christ"; the re-sacrifice of the Mass; salvation through sacraments and good works],

3. Exclusive group "safety", promoting fear to anyone who would dare to leave the reservation [even not attending Mass has been taught for hundreds of years as a Mortal sin],

4. The willingness to twist, distort and outright lie, in order to achieve converts or keep members [the outrageous claims of "salvation by grace" within the RCC, as in this thread, for example].

But as 1 Cor. 2:14 says:
"But a natural man [one who is not born again, having received the Spirit] does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

Or as Jesus said clearly to Nicodemus in John 3:
Unless a man is born again, he cannot even SEE the kingdom of God [let alone understand free grace].

May God open their eyes to the once-for-all finished work of Jesus, and the Sabbath rest for the people of God, wherein they rest from their works as instruments of salvation.

Carpe gratiam,
Terry

Ryan & Amy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ryan & Amy said...

Terry,

What's the 9th Commandment?

Perhaps you should observe it.

O, my Jesus, forgive us our sins and lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy,
RyanL

Terry Rayburn said...

Ryan,

You come closest to rightly arguing your case when you at least attempt to make a case with scripture.

But the three-legged stool of your last post has three very flimsy (and silly) arguments:

1. You say that Protestants disagree on their own doctrines and even the gospel.
---True, but that doesn't mean that Catholicism is correct. A pointless argument. Because there are Protestant "works salvationists" doesn't make works salvation any less evil.

2. You say that C.S. Lewis and some Reformers believed some peripheral RCC doctrines.
---First, it's what they believed about Christ and His work on the cross that matters to their salvation; second, it's the infallible scriptures that should guide our doctrine, not fallible men.

3. You say, "To truly see if yours is an 'original' or 'intended' Gospel, you have to look at the Early Church. We have the writings of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries..."
---You couldn't be more wrong. The very purpose of the scriptures is to give authoritative truth to us, so that we wouldn't be at the mercy of following "the early church", or any later church, but the Word of God.

Your arguments are ancient ones, but not ancient enough. The more ancient scriptures are quite sufficient for these things, and the New Covenant of free grace cannot be mixed with works or it is no longer grace.

"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." (Rom. 11:6)

"It is no longer on the basis of works."
"It is no longer on the basis of works."
"It is no longer on the basis of works."
(Honestly, does that really require clarification?)

Terry

littlegal_66 said...

thessalonian said:

"littlegal,
My apologies. I did read it wrong.
Sorry for misreading your words.
Thanks for the prayers."

thessie,
Apology humbly accepted, but perhaps apologies to others should be forthcoming? I will continue to be in prayer for you, especially after seeing your last post to the thread. I would continue to urge you to please objectively and prayerfully consider the comments you've read within this thread.

And as for sledge's last post, I assure you that he did not forfeit a portion of today's gorgeous Middle Tennessee Sunday afternoon with his family to prepare and formulate his rebuttal ONLY to prove he can win a debate. That might have been part of it, : ) but I don't believe it was his main motivation. This is a matter of eternal proportions.

And let me say that for me, this has been the most provocative of all the comment threads thus far on Campi's blog.....156 posts, and still counting.....my goodness! Is that a record, El Stevebo?

SJ Camp said...

The "b" that Thess was calling me and referring to, is Biblicist.

Romanists can't stand Biblicists... and here's why. Truth can always stand the test of scrutiny; error never wants to be challenged. Rome has always been afraid of sound doctrine because it unmasks them as it did with the heretics in Paul, Peter, and John's time as well.

One final thought before retiring tonight: isn't it amazing when the light of biblical truth is turned on in the room that the brood vipers of Rome's Mother Church scatter under the nearest Marian rock; or to hide beneath some Pope's bones or relics; or to swither to a pile of rusted rosaries or apocryphal writings.

They seldom reply Scripturally from careful exegetical study (though I do appreciate their attempting to proof text some of their replies), historical research, or from the infallible, inerrant truths of the Word of God? Tridentine claims can be summed up in the words of a song from the group Kansas,"dust in the wind... all it is, is dust in the wind."

At this blog we are dedicated to biblical world-view truth claims and discussion. It's amazing to me that our Romanists, still with 487 years of advance prep and study time, still haven't been able to develop their claims from the pages of God's Word alone, but must rely upon the doctrines of Pope's, councils, priests, etc. which the Apostle Paul calls "the doctrines of demons." Like Hymaneus and Alexander, they have ship-wrecked their faith.

In the reformed tradition, we have a great burden for lost souls. And that is why at the end of the day, I must encourage you all to continue to pray for our Romanist contributors on this discussion, that the Lord would sovereignly grant them saving faith and godly sorrow for repentance from their sin and from the dead idols of Benedicts work righteousness to come to Christ alone for salvation. My greatest longing and prayer is to see them our brothers and sisters in Christ... amen?

Praise be to the Lord that nothing can shake the reality of sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, and solus Chrisus. Not even an intellectually dishonest group like catholicanswers.com.

Still Pounding on Wittenberg's Door,
Sole Deo Gloria,
Steve Camp
2 Cor. 4:5-7

thessalonian said...

No, Steve it has nothing to do with sound doctrine, which you wouldn't know if it bit you. It has everything to do with the level that these conversations go to with anti-catholics. Where is the reason for the hope that is within you Steve. That hope is the Gospel of anti-catholicism, insults, and hatred of the Church that Christ left on this earth. Paul didn't spend all his time putting down the doctrine of others. In fact in the aeropogus in Acts 17 he showed the method that the Catholic Church used to convert most of the world that the protestants parasitically divided afterward. He used what truth God had implanted in their hearts to express the truth of Christ. Steve, you have no identity without Catholicism. No Gospel to preach. You strike at the Church that Christ placed on this earth. That is your Gospel. You won't even admit of the motherhood of Mary to the Son of God even though Elizabeth clearly expresses it and the scriptures demand that conclusion. You won't admit that she was more blessed than all men and women except Christ himself. This is simple to show. Children are a blessing Steve. Check it out in Psalm 128. Now how could any child be more of a blessing than the infinite God man who was an infinite blessing. No I don't run from your attacks on Christ's Church. I simply am sorrowful to tears at times that you cannot see the truth. You cannot see what God has done in and through man and you feel that you must deny the God of the universe working in and through you as some false humility. You call his works in and through you filthy rags (I'm speaking generally of Protestants here, not just you). Then you twist and distort the teachings of Catholicism and use derogatory name calling and accusations of liars to spread your Gospel of anti-catholicism and claim your concerned for our souls. No Steve, I don't buy it. Sorry. You anti-catholics are a dime a dozen. You have no identity without Rome. Now I am sure you can find a misspelling or typo in all of that to springboard your next post with some trite belittling. God bless you for it. The reasonable man who is not blinded by hatred of Christ's Church will see through it.

Peace.

thessalonian said...

Steve's amazed that in 487 years we Catholics haven't become Protestants. I'm amazed that in 487 years my phonebook has become much thicker from all the denominations practicing Sola Scriptura, the most devisive and unbiblical doctrine in the history of Christianity. The doctrine that has as it's strategy divide and conquer. Ever heard of that one? It's not a strategy for the defense. It's amazing to me that when you ask protestants where is that in the Bible, they will pipe up, oh, why in 2 Tim 3:16. Of course they fail to see the preceding versess that make it clear Paul was only talking about the old testament. Then when you bring up 2 Thes 2:15, oh well that was for the time of the Apostles, it no longer applies. Hmmmm. So the Apostles were teaching SS to Timothy and the Ephesians and Oral + written teachings to the Thessalonians. Very odd indeed. No if the Apostles were operating under scripture + oral tradition they could not have taught anywhere in scripture to false dogma of Sola Scriptura. It's a tradition of man, meant to lead men astray. To divide and conquer and it has done a fine job. 99% of all denominations began when this became the law of the land among those who did not want to submit to authority, something quite common in mankind since the days of the Garden of Eden. It is a modern day Korah's rebellion just as Jude noted was going on in his time. It is every man and his Bible rather than listening to the shepherds that God promised, Jer 3:15 who will give knowledge and understanding. No, it is every man for himself with his bible and if you have a different interprutation start your own Church. These days it should be non-denominational because that's what's in and it allows you to avoid the baggage of having to have set doctrine. If something offends a particularly generous giver, you avoid it (yes I've seen it in my wife's ex-nondenominational denomination.). Every man becomes a Pope in this system. No, I'll stick with 2000 years of solid teaching based on the works of Christ and his apostles and not the minds of men coming up with their own story. Teachings that can be traced back to Christ in legitimate ways, rather than picking every heretical group along the road that went so far as to say that the Old Testament was not God's word and that sex is okay because the body is evil and should be abused or something like that, and claims that they were a part of their religous heritage. And, oh, don't believe what Augustine said about them. They were Christians. :(.

Have a nice day :)

thess

thessalonian said...

Let's get back to the subject matter:

questions for protestants.

A) Do you sin on a daily basis? If I don't admit that I do John will convict me of being a liar so I amswer yes.

B) Do you have tendancy toward sin. Once again I stand convicted.

C) Will you be able to enter heaven with these tendancies? (HINT: Nothing unclean shall enter Rev 21:27) NO is my answer.

Now there are two possilities:
1) You will not ever get in to heaven.

2) These tendancies will need to be purged out of you by the grace of God and the fire of his love.

If you agree to 2 that is the nuts and bolts of the concept of purgatory.

thessalonian said...

Terry,

Do you think that God exalt's men to positions? When he does should we acknowledge it. It is the rebel mentality that is so prevalent in men that I spoke of above that deneis that God has placed men over us. But Paul says "obey and submit to your leaders who have concern for your souls" Heb 13:17. Protestants say, well only if they agree to my holy spirit's interpretation of the Bible. I.e. they become their own Pope and exalt themselves over scripture is the end result.

Blessings to ya bud.

Tim said...

Thess,

It seems you are upset. At least a couple of things, " I'll address in your last few posts.

You said, "It's amazing to me that when you ask protestants where is that in the Bible, they will pipe up, oh, why in 2 Tim 3:16. Of course they fail to see the preceding versess that make it clear Paul was only talking about the old testament." Maybe you missed the fact that Paul in 2 Timothy is about to die. It is his last letter. But the apostle Peter said indicates that Paul's writings were Scritpure (2 Pet. 3:15-16)....and that's New Testament.

You said,"In fact in the aeropogus in Acts 17 he showed the method that the Catholic Church used to convert most of the world that the protestants parasitically divided afterward." Yep, that's what many who were killed during the crusades and the dark ages, in the Spanish Inquisition, during the reign of bloody Queen Mary, and various other times and even in some predominant Catholic nations today would have said. No force there. Just lots of loving words calling men to repentance. I remember reading that in history.

As for the division among Protestants, I know we only find two terms to use, though many of those religious groups you identify as Protestants have more in common with your religion than the tenants of Christianity (ie. Church of Christ). Many do not protest Rome. And let's make sure we are out on the table here and that all information is clear, just because you have a majesterium, and tradition, and some early church writings along with councils and a supposedly "infallible" pope doesn't mean your not subject to the same thing. So you can stop with the whole 2,000 year scenario. Catholics are divided as well. They are into the thousands of denominations of Roman Catholics. Be honest. That doesn't take away from a biblical argument.

Finally, you said," Let's get back to the subject matter:

questions for protestants.

A) Do you sin on a daily basis? If I don't admit that I do John will convict me of being a liar so I amswer yes.

B) Do you have tendancy toward sin. Once again I stand convicted.

C) Will you be able to enter heaven with these tendancies? (HINT: Nothing unclean shall enter Rev 21:27) NO is my answer.

Now there are two possilities:
1) You will not ever get in to heaven.

2) These tendancies will need to be purged out of you by the grace of God and the fire of his love.

If you agree to 2 that is the nuts and bolts of the concept of purgatory."

I wish you had read Terry's post earlier. What wonderful words they were. Even though he said it several times, you must have eyes, but see not. "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." (Rom. 11:6)" Thess, grace is unmerited. It is enabling power from God, but if you have to do something........hmmmmmmmm.......let's follow the bouncing ball.....Grace.....is.....no......longer.....grace.

Last comment. I here you saying these purging fires are the fires of His love. I would love to hear where that is in Scripture and the only times I really see the issue of fire used is in reference to unbelievers, not believers.

Breuss Wane said...

>hatred of the Church that Christ >left on this earth.

In anathematizing itself in its own Council of Trent, Rome ceased to be a church, regardless of its outward appearances.

RyanL said...

Terry,

You say that I can't use history. Sledge comes in and says that Catholics seldom use history to defend their position. Which is it?

It has been claimed that Catholics don't use scripture to defend their position. Rubbish. I have never read a papal encyclical that didn't quote heavily from scripture. The Catechism is laden with footnotes from scripture. Furthermore, when I reply with scripture it is never addressed in subsequent posts, and when I correct the illigitimate use of scripture (i.e., changing words - Steve), it's neither acknowledged nor addressed. The one instance where a reply was addressed was Col 1:24. If you read Steve's reply, you'll see how woefully unsound it is. If Paul can add something in any way to Christ's work, the theology expressed on this board is for exposed as a tradition of men. Re-read the verse. Col 1:24.

Let me reiterate. Look the the Early Church. Why? After all, it's not scripture! I'll tell you - it's about how you read scripture. The whole of Catholic Tradition is about HOW to read the scriptures. Catholic Tradition, from everything I have ever read, is limited only to what is in scripture, be it explicit or implicit. General Revelation was closed with the death of the last Apostle. Period. There remain, however, things that are implicitly taught in scripture that are important for our salvation. That's the kicker - implicit. Like the Trinity. It's not explicit (the word is never used), but it's there nonetheless. If a certain verse in scripture could go either way, you look to the Early Church, those who learned at the feet of the Apostles, to tell you how the Apostles understood it. If your understanding is contrary to what the Apostles taught, guess what - IT'S OF MEN! It's what's called the Anti-Gnomian Heresy. Or, for those who would like to see it in scriptures, the Nicolaitins (Rev 2:4-6). They taught to disregard the teachings of the Apostles. They taught that we could do it on our own, come up with our own doctrines, away from the Church. Christ has some not nice things to say about them in Revelations. Look it up.

NOW, the first 3 centuries of the Church had no bible. Some Churches had individual books, some had all of the books, some had more than enough, and some had less. All Churches believed that their "new testament" was inspired by God. Some thought the Shepherd of Hermas was inspired. Others (in the vein of Martin Luther), thought that the book of James was not inspired. How did this get resolved? In 382 a bunch of CATHOLIC BISHOPS got together and said that this is what the New Testament is, and this is what it is not. Without their authority, there would be no New Testament as you know it today. There is NO INSPIRED TABLE OF CONTENTS. So, if the first 3 centuries had no inspired table of contents, had no printing presses, had no personal versions of the King James Bible, how did they learn the Gospel? From their Bishops. Let me quote some more scripture here, this from the KJV:

Acts 1:20
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Hmmph. Where are all of the Reformed Baptist Bishops?

Bottom line:
Sola Scriptura is un-Biblical. The Bible teaches that we have an authoritative Church. We need to listen to that Church. Yes, that Church can NEVER violate the holy word of God. NO, that Church is not a "Bible-Only" Church. The Church was never supposed to be Bible-based! The Bible is a Church-based book!

Here's some scripture about Apostolic Succession:
Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, "he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me." Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ's authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).

Luke 9:1; 10:19 - Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural (diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).

Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, "he who hears you, hears Me." When we hear the bishops' teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.

Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.

Num 16:28 - the Father's authority is transferred to Moses. Moses does not speak on his own. This is a real transfer of authority.

John 5:30 - similarly, Jesus as man does nothing of His own authority, but He acts under the authority of the Father.

John 7:16-17 - Jesus as man states that His authority is not His own, but from God. He will transfer this authority to other men.

John 8:28 - Jesus says He does nothing on His own authority. Similarly, the apostles will do nothing on their own authority. Their authority comes from God.

John 12:49 - The father's authority is transferred to the Son. The Son does not speak on his own. This is a transfer of divine authority.

John 13:20 - Jesus says, "he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me." He who receives the apostles, receives Christ Himself. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects Christ.

John 14:10 - Jesus says the Word He speaks is not His own authority, but from the Father. The gift is from the Father to Jesus to the apostles.

John 16:14-15 - what the Father has, the Son has, and the Son gives it to the apostles. The authority is not lessened or mitigated.

John 17:18; 20:21 - as the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the apostles. The apostles have divinely appointed authority.

Acts 20:28 - the apostles are shepherds and guardians appointed by the Holy Spirit / 1 Peter 2:25 - Jesus is the Shepherd and Guardian. The apostles, by the power of the Spirit, share Christ's ministry and authority.

Jer. 23:1-8; Ezek. 34:1-10 - the shepherds must shepherd the sheep, or they will be held accountable by God.

Eph. 2:20 - the Christian faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles. The word "foundation" proves that it does not die with apostles, but carries on through succession.

Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:9,14 - the words "household," "Bride of the Lamb," the "new Jerusalem" are all metaphors for the Church whose foundation is the apostles.

And as for C.S. Lewis...if he believed in Purgatory (which he did), how is his view of Christ's salvific work different than the Catholic view? How is this a perifrial doctrine? Would you condemn him to Hell as well for understanding that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven", and thereby lose one of the greatest Christian writers of the last two centuries?

Finally, Breuss, you need to clean up your act. Discuss without venomous slander, or don't discuss at all. If you would make a claim about Catholic teachings, back it up with a citation. Actually, that goes for everyone. Drop the venom, as it is clearly not "of God", and make sure you back up your allegations with citations.

In Christ, Savior of the world and Lord of my life,
RyanL

SJ Camp said...

Good morning Thess and all from CatholicAnswers.com:

Two things for you and other Romanists consideration:

1. You wrote in a much earlier post: ""We are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone; not of works lest any man should boast."

If that's really true Thess, then you are a genuine believer in Christ and my brother in the Lord! But what it also means is that you're a bad catholic--which is how it ought to be. :-).

2. You also said: "These tendencies will need to be purged out of you by the grace of God and the fire of his love - …that is the nuts and bolts of the concept of purgatory.

You had also mentioned that purgatory is a place where the "stain of sins" has to be dealt with. This is why I keep coming back to justification by faith alone in Christ alone.. If you really understood the atonement, then you would realize that on the cross our Lord Jesus Christ has already removed all stain of all sin for all who would believe by the granting of His sovereign grace. The guilt, penalty, and stain of sin has already been thoroughly expiated in Christ. And even more than this... the very wrath of God against our sin has also been propitiated (satisfied) in Christ (cp, 1 John 2:1-2; Heb. 2:17; Roms. 5:1-2; Roms. 3:21-26). There is no more payment, purging, cleansing of our sin or the stain of sin in regards to eternity that needs to be accomplished or done to us. We are complete in Christ. And as we daily walk with the Lord (Eph. 4:1), we are being sanctified (conformed to Christlikeness) and will be completed in our glorification when we are home with the Lord (Jude 24).

What a theology of purgatory is actually saying is that Christ’s work of justification and sanctification is not sufficient and there must additional work completed upon ones dying before entering heaven. I agree with you entirely when you said, “no unclean thing can enter heaven.” That is correct. But we are already completely cleansed from the stain, penalty and guilt of sin through Christ and His sacrificial death on the cross—that is our hope (Titus 3:4-7). There remains no additional purging for our sins—it has all been accomplished through Christ!

As the old preacher once said, "we've died once to the penalty of sin; we die daily to the power of sin; and one day we will be freed from the presence of sin."

Here is our hope, your hope too, for now and eterntiy:
"Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;24and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." -Hebrews 10:19-25

Grace and peace to you,
Campi
2 Cor. 3:5

RyanL said...

Steve,

If Christ paid the full price, such that there is no temporal punishment left for any sin, I have just one question for you:

Why do Christians still die?

God Bless,
RyanL

SJ Camp said...

Dear Ryan:

You wrote: "Bottom line:
Sola Scriptura is un-Biblical. The Bible teaches that we have an authoritative Church. We need to listen to that Church. Yes, that Church can NEVER violate the holy word of God. NO, that Church is not a "Bible-Only" Church. The Church was never supposed to be Bible-based! The Bible is a Church-based book!"


This is the nexus of the issue and I am delighted to hear you admit it. This is Romanism's bane in a nutshell. Your authority lies in a skewed church; our authority lies in a sufficient Scritpure.

Steve

RyanL said...

Steve,

I admit freely that we are not a Sola Scriptura Church.

How about addressing the substance of the issue, and the majority of my post?

God Bless,
RyanL

RyanL said...

Furthermore, if you believe in your sufficient scriptures, why don't you believe in the Church like they tell you to?

What is the pillar and foundation of Truth?

God Bless,
RyanL

SJ Camp said...

Ryan:

U Wrote:If Christ paid the full price, such that there is no temporal punishment left for any sin, I have just one question for you:

Why do Christians still die?


Because we wait for the redemption of the body; because we still live as new creations in unredeemed flesh; because we live in a fallen sinful world.

The Apostle Paul answers this question definitively when saying, "What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

13Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."
-Romans 7:7ff

Apolonio said...

My comments pretty much stand. All of you arguing against Catholicism in here need to get an education. And its www.catholic.com and look for the discussion forums. Let's see what we have so far, and some of the responses I've made....

(1) Dave Hunt, Avro Manhattan, J.M. Carroll, Alex Hislop (all mentioned in here) are supposedly reliable historians and reliable critiques of Catholicism even though they are shown to be completely unreliable by even Protestant scholarship (I would recommend James White, and Christian Research Institute, and Baptist historian James Edward McGoldrick here, along with Anglican historian JND Kelly and Lutheran historian Jaroslav Pelikan for scholarly responses)

(2) salvation is by works according to Catholic teaching even though myself and others have already shown that is incorrect according to the Catechism, salvation is by grace and all of grace, "merit" is God crowning his own gifts to us according to St. Augustine as I've shown

(3) the crucifix is an idol, Catholics are idolaters, you might want to consider Galatians 2:20; 6:14; and 3:1 "before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified" etc. We are to be "crucified with Christ" and take up our cross daily, and follow Him (Matt 16:24; etc). The crucifix is a daily reminder of that where we identify with the Savior.

(4) the Mass is wrong since Jesus is supposedly still dying on the cross since Catholics don't believe in the resurrection -- that is a total mirepresentation and if you don't understand that there's no point in continuing the discussions in here since that is called "bearing false witness." Read the sections in the Catechism on the Eucharist and Mass, very carefully.

(5) the comments on purgatory I think have already been dealt with by Ryan, Thess and others, the idea that we continue to sin, and we are not perfectly sanctified at death

(6) sola scriptura I think has already been disproved as unbiblical, unhistorical, and illogical by Ryan and others, you cannot even know what Scripture is without the Catholic Church

(7) sola fide (faith alone) is not only rejected by Catholics, but by Orthodox and all Christians who lived between the apostles and Martin Luther, so that should tell you that your interpretation of Scripture is wrong since nobody got the gospel right

If Steve Camp doesn't kick us out, I'll continue for a while in here but it just gets too confusing. I would suggest if you want an organized discussion under several topics, we move this to the www.catholic.com discussion boards.
PhilVaz

SJ Camp said...

Dear Ryan:

As you referred to, but didn't cite, the Apostle Paul says in 1 Tim. 3:15 that, "but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."

Greek phrase: "stulos kai hedraioma tes altheia" - "the pillar and support of the truth. " These words are in apposition to "ekklesia and oikos." The church is the Truth's support--not the other way around. There is no authority for any church apart from Scripture. It bows the knee to the Word of God; the Word surrenders its authority to no man--especially a Pope claiming that even traditions and teachings of the church have equal authority to the Scriptures.

FOURTH SESSION: DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES:
"If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts [the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees], as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."

Scripture says:
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" -2 Timothy 3:16-17.

"Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" -Jude 3.

"But know this first of all, that (N)no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" -2 Peter 1:20-21.

"You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN'" -Matthew 15:7-9.

DEF: 1. Paul and Barnabas are called pillars in Gal. 2:9 and we as believers also in Rev. 3:12. Paul also refers to our sure foundation in 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 Cor. 3: as well.

from the Greek word "hedraioo" which means to make stable. This word ocurrs here first and only in ecclesiastical writers later. Probably it means stay or support rather than foundation.

Supporting the truth, butressing the truth is quite different than being its foundation.
God has even given His Word preeminence even above His name (Psalm 138:2) and it is completely authoritative for all matters of life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3-4). The Word of God (only the 66 books of the O.T. and N.T. canon) is not subservient to the churches authority. Only a hellish arrogance would seek to lift itself above the Word of God and say assert that the Word is to be church based--not the church Bible based.

I was on the EWTN radio network last year where a Romanist priest (Father Heretikon) claimed that even the N.T. wiritings were not authoritative Scripture and had no unique authority or merit greater than the traditions, customs, even the visions and dreams by saints of the Roman Church. Do you agree with that? Surely I would hope not.

Steve
Col. 1:15-20

SJ Camp said...

Dear Philvaz:

I would never "kick you out" unless you violate the rules of this blog. You are welcome here anytime.

Here is Trent on the Mass in case you haven't read it recently:

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST:
"If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).

Scripture says:
"While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins -Matthew 26:26-28

Explanatory Note: (This was only a symbol--not our Lord's literal body.)

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST:
"If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 8).

Scripture says:
"In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. -1 Corinthians 11:25-30

Explanatory Note: (It is received as an outward symbol only of the finished work of Christ on the cross. The bread and wine have no inherent power in themselves and do not become the literal body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. This would suggest that the Lord's sacrifice on the cross was not sufficient and that a continual "bloody" sacrifice through the mass is necessary for salvation; making communion a work.)

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: "If anyone says that in the Catholic Church penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord for reconciling the faithful of God as often as they fall into sin after baptism, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 1).

Scripture says:
"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" -Titus 3:11-13

"I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us. For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death" -2 Corinthians 7:9-10

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation" -Romans 5:8-11

Explanatory Note: (It is the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, God's gift of repentance, and His daily sanctifying grace in our lives that conforms us to Christlikeness. There is no other sacrifice or penance needed for our sins--it was all accomplished in Christ alone. All of our sins, their guilt and penalty, and the wrath of God which burns against us and our sin was completely satisfied in the once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross and secured by His bodily resurrection from the dead. There is no other penance needed or required by God. To suggest otherwise is to say that Christ's sacrificial work is not enough, "it is finished" as our Lord cried from Calvary is a lie, it turns the grace of God into lasciviousness and perverts the gospel of grace of our Lord. That is nothing less than a hellish, satanic deception.)

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE:
"If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to salvation; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human contrivance, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 7).

Scripture says:
"Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people" -Hebrews 2:17

"For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" -Hebrews 4:15

"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" -Hebrews 10:10-14

Explanatory Note: (We have been thoroughly and completely sanctified, made holy and set apart from this world unto eternal life by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. He alone is our only priest, our High Priest, not like the unholy, fallible, sinful priests of earth. We are complete in Christ alone.)

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE:
"If anyone says that the confession of all sins as it is observed in the Church is impossible and is a human tradition to be abolished by pious people; or that each and all of the faithful of Christ or either sex are not bound thereto once a year in accordance with the constitution of the great Lateran Council, and that for this reason the faithful of Christ are to be persuaded not to confess during Lent, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 8).

Scripture says:
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" -1 John 1:9

"How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which He [Jesus Christ the Lord] was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" -Hebrews 10:29

Explanatory Note: (Confess means "to agree with." When we confess our sins to the Lord, we are agreeing with Him that what we have done is sin, sin against Him, and He cleanses us from all unrighteousness. No Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, or Parish Priest can forgive sin, issue absolution, or cleanse our sinful unclean heart.)

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE:
"If anyone says that God always pardons the whole penalty together with the guilt and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing else than the faith by which they perceive that Christ has satisfied for them, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 8).

Scripture says:
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men" -Romans 5:12-18

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS:
"If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 1).

Scripture says:
"For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God" -Romans 6:10

"who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself" -Hebrews 7:27

"and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" -Hebrews 9:12

"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" -Hebrews 10:10

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" -1 Peter 3:18

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS:
"If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3).

Scripture says:
"whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed" -Romans 3:25

"Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people" -Hebrews 2:17

"and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world" -1 John 2:2

"In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" -1 John 4:10

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS:
"If anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate masses in honor of the saints and in order to obtain their intercession with God, as the Church intends, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 5).

Scripture says:
"and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God" -Romans 8:27

"Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them" -Hebrews 7:25

Explanatory Note: (Only One intercedes for us: Jesus Christ the Righteous. It is not Mary, the Saints, the Pope, or the Church. Why? It takes a perfect High Priest in heaven to intercede for us. Christ alone is worthy makes that intercession for He alone is seated at the right hand of the throne of God--the place of rule and authority.)

Solus Christus,
Campi

PS - Scripture listings and explanatory notes by Steve Camp

RyanL said...

Oh...are we doing the cut-and-paste thing now? I have VOLUMES I would like to cut-and-paste if that's the standard...

How about simply referencing the website you got this from, and then using this site to explain your inference with logic and reason?

A shotgun approach to apologetics...how novel...and still no response to the substance of my posts...

God Bless,
RyanL

RyanL said...

Here's the source...

http://www.sounddoctrine.net/Nick/The_Mass_Deception_Romanism.htm

Still want to claim it's "all you"?

God Bless,
RyanL

Apolonio said...

Steve Camp: "I would never 'kick you out' unless you violate the rules of this blog. You are welcome here anytime."

OK, good to know. I have to hand it to you, at least you know how to copy/paste many pages from the Council of Trent into your own blog. :-) However, I'm not sure you or the others here are totally understanding it based on some of the comments made. But that's ok. I haven't read a whole lot of Calvin's Institutes either.

And to be clear -- neither I nor the Catholic Church condemns you. The "anathemas" as I've already pointed out, were written for Catholics to Catholics about Catholics. They were not written to Protestant (or Orthodox) Christians in the 21th century. I would suggest, if you want to be fair to Catholic teaching which I'm sure you do, read the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican Council II.

Steve Camp: "Here is Trent on the Mass in case you haven't read it recently"

Yes I have a copy of the Council of Trent, and it is readily available online. But do you understand that what Trent is teaching here is based on the Scriptures, and the Church Fathers who interpreted those Scriptures as Catholics (and Orthodox) do today?

I would recommend especially St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD), St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 AD), and the eastern and western Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries: St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Basil the Great, St. Ambrose of Milan, and St. Augustine. Plenty of articles on my site and the www.catholic.com site about them. The Church Fathers understanding of the Scriptures on the Eucharist and Christ's sacrifice is identical to what you see there in the Council of Trent and the Catechism. Christ's one sacrifice is sufficient for our salvation, and it is made present and applied in the Mass, since sanctification is ongoing. It is in the application where we disagree.
PhilVaz

SJ Camp said...

Interesting. You belittle Breuss for not citing the allegations. I cite them, and you're upset that I quoted from "your" churches documents and cut and pasted those quotes to the blog? Now you say I should simply link to those sites...

Again, how very typical of a Romanist who can't face, respond, or deal exegetically on the truth of the Word of God when discussing an issue of concern about Romanistic doctrine; wanting to divert attention to something this ridiculous.

Ryan, you've just tipped your hand--thank you.

Steve
John 6:35-45

Terry Rayburn said...

One of the most deceptive things the RCC does (cults always deceive) is cite history to support itself, then deny the history of the "Church" itself.

For example, the mention again in this thread that the "anathema" pronounced on "salvation by grace alone" believers doesn't mean "damnation". And now the added comment that it was only written for Catholics, and that the new Vatican II ecuminism includes the big tent.

1. "Anathema" sure used to mean "damnnation" when the RCC was mass murdering and torturing "heretics" in the bad ol' days (they tend to do this when they have political power).

2. It never seems to occur to Catholic apologists who cite doctrinal changes in the RCC, that the very change itself shows the fallability of the RCC and it's Pope formerly.

3. Question to my Catholic friends: Is it a Mortal sin to miss Mass?

If "No", then the RCC has reversed it's formerly "infallible" teaching.

If "Yes", then Protestants must be damned, since they are unable to gain back their grace-state by the RCC sacraments.

This is not rocket science theology, fellas.

But it is deception.

Terry

RyanL said...

Steve,

I'm not faulting you for citing the Council of Trent. I would make it required reading, if I could, so that when read in their entirity those reading can see how it is a coherent, biblical council (just like in Acts 15).

I am faulting you, however. I'm faulting you for pulling a laundry list of allegations from another website and portraying them as your own work. Additionally, I'm faulting you for not addressing PhilVaz's, Thess's, or my posts. I'm faulting you for shotgun-ing allegations that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Pick a subject, and stick with it.

We are not discussing the biblical basis for the mass. That is a distractor. We are not discussing sacrimental confession. We are not discussing the Eucharist. I would gladly discuss any and all of these with you, but we need to address them one at a time rather than you alleging dozens of topics and then sitting back and saying, "Defend!"

So let's recap. You claimed that indulgences were unbiblical, and that purgatory was unbibilical. To get there you talked about the sufficiency of Christ's atoning work. We agreed that Christ's work was sufficient. We differed in the application, which has yet to be addressed by your "camp". You cited scripture. We cited scripture. This led us to the issue of authority and the right interpretation of scripture. We claimed that those who learned from the Apostles believed the same interpretation of scripture as Catholics (and Orthodox) currently believe. You have not addressed this either. You claimed that Sola Scriptura is the normative condition of the "church". We said that is unbiblical. You claimed that scripture is inerrant. We agreed, but asked how you came to that conclusion. You have not responded. You claimed that the scriptures were the only truth to be obeyed. I replied that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. You said that foundation is an erronious translation. I now reply that the NIV translates it thus:
1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
The KJV translates it "ground". Regardless, you say that that verse means nothing (making the word of God to no effect), because it is Bible that makes the Church. I disagree. The Church pre-dated the Bible. Period. That's history. In 34 A.D., after Christ arose from the dead, there was a Church and there were no "epistles". No New Testament. How did that Church survive? Easy - God provided an authoritative Church to tell people the Good News. What did they teach? Read the Early Church.

I think that's sufficient for now to get us back on track.

Still waiting for a response to the substance of my previous posts.

In Christ, and Him crucified,
RyanL

Tim said...

apollonio,

you said,"The "anathemas" as I've already pointed out, were written for Catholics to Catholics about Catholics. They were not written to Protestant (or Orthodox) Christians in the 21th century. I would suggest, if you want to be fair to Catholic teaching which I'm sure you do, read the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican Council II."

Uh.......maybe we missed the history lesson of what Trent was for. Weren't they called to deal with the teachings of the Protestant Reformation? Hmmmmm. Also, the councils do not distinguish between Catholics and Protestants. They simply refer to "anyone".

As for your previous response concerning the crucifix. How nice to just interpret Scriptures completely out of context and then suppose they have your meaning. You sight "Galatians 2:20; 6:14; and 3:1 "before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified" etc. We are to be "crucified with Christ" and take up our cross daily, and follow Him (Matt 16:24; etc)." Simply amazing. Yes all of those verses certainly depict crucifixes to me. Did anyone else see those gold, silver, or wooden carved images?? maybe platinum?? Velvet? paper? No they are not there. They are not speaking to that issue at all. I must say if the Scriptures aren't clear enough to remind us of Christ and His crucifixion, then we need a whole lot more than some crucifix. God gave a word book, not a picture book and I would say there's probably a very good reason for doing so.

Finally, you said, "the Mass is wrong since Jesus is supposedly still dying on the cross since Catholics don't believe in the resurrection -- that is a total mirepresentation and if you don't understand that there's no point in continuing the discussions in here since that is called "bearing false witness." Who said that? Did I miss something. I know that's not a response to me. I never said Catholics don't believe in the resurrection. I simply pointed out the fallacy of your claim that somehow Rome was being honest in calling Protestants Christian brothers. I sure am glad God is more sound and stable that the ones who claim to speak for Him and then become wishy washy all over the place, like Rome. First we are anathema, now we are just wayward brothers off the path. Sorry, I'm not buying that one at all. Rome speaks with a forked tongue and out of both sides of their mouth. "Yes, Christ paid for your sins and it's by grace, but you must pay and be purged. Huh?? Sadly this theology, though apart from the concept of Purgatory has found its way into many non-Catholic (I'm not using Protestant) churches. What a dishonor to Christ and His active and passive obedience.

RyanL said...

Terry,

Is it your contention that Protestants never tortured or murdered Catholics while accusing Catholics of heresy?

Is it your contention that anathemas are unbiblical?

Is it your contention that no "church" can pronounce anathemas?

Is it your contention that you know better than
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm
what the true meaning of anathema is in the Catholic Church?

I thought you were reasonable...

God Bless,
RyanL

Joel said...

Boy, I step away for a couple of days and trhe comments really pile up. :)

"1. "Anathema" sure used to mean "damnnation" when the RCC was mass murdering and torturing "heretics" in the bad ol' days (they tend to do this when they have political power)."

I would submit that the massacre of Catholics in Protestant countries was proportionately bigger than the reverse during this time. It was a bad time, and there's plenty of blame to go round.

"2. It never seems to occur to Catholic apologists who cite doctrinal changes in the RCC, that the very change itself shows the fallability of the RCC and it's Pope formerly."

I'm not sure what "doctrinal changes" you mean (I still have to go back and read some of the comments), but you may be confusing doctrine with discipline. I don't believe any basic doctrine has actually been changed, and disciplinary changes (changes in practice rather than belief) are not a matter of infallibility, but merely of obedience.

"3. Question to my Catholic friends: Is it a Mortal sin to miss Mass?

If "No", then the RCC has reversed it's formerly "infallible" teaching.

If "Yes", then Protestants must be damned, since they are unable to gain back their grace-state by the RCC sacraments."

This is a two-part question. It can indeed be a mortal sin, depending on circumstances, for a Catholic to willfully or deliberately skip Mass, as it shows a contempt for Christ's presence there. That's not a blanket statement, though, and there are a host of factors that may mitigate or eliminate the sinfulness of it.

"they [Protestants] are unable to gain back their grace-state by the RCC sacraments."

Not true. If they are former Catholics, they can enter a state of grace by confession and repentence, and being reconciled to the Church. The confessional is open to any Catholic at any time, and after confession, all sacraments are available to them.

For baptized Protestants who have never been in communion with Rome, there is a little more to it, as the sacraments are open only to those Christians who believe in them. (You can understand why we wouldn't want to administer them to people who don't believe in them. Pearls before swine, and all that.) This includes not only RC, but Eastern Catholics without exception ("Roman Catholic" is only a part of the Church that's in communion with Rome), but also Eaastern Orthodox, insofar as their own churches will permit them to receive our sacraments. Something that gets forgotten is that the sin of heresy is not imputed to people born and raised in a heretical or schismatic sect, but only to those who deliberately leave the Catholic church for such a sect. So cradle Protestants are not considered heretics in the sense of the anathemas, as (I'm sorry if it sounds condescending) they know no better and truly desire to believe the truth and do God's will. We believe that God looks on the heart, and will have mercy on those who love and serve Him with all their hearts, if the sacraments are not available to them.

Apolonio, do you have anything to add to that?

Tim said...

Ryan,

I simply have a question and I know you have an answer. If one does go to purgatory, how come some can get out earlier through mass prayers being said for them, wearing the brown scapular and various other things, IF what you propose is true. These things can somehow atone and purge sin and sinful tendencies that Christ cannot? It seems to me that indulgences at its root is a cheapening of God's grace and makes Him into some swindling guy that you can "pay off". Father Peter Stravinskas said as much in the debate with James White. When asked if a person could just write a check out of Purgatory he said, "Well, pay me now or pay me later." Incredible!

I think the subject of Purgatory and indulgences says more about God, His power, His Son, His Son's work, and His holiness than it does the purging of men.

Joel said...

"And to Joel: I am honored that a papist will hang in there on this issue and have at it with me and the others on COT. You are welcome..."

Thank you for that, Steve. Ironically, you were a factor in my decision to become Catholic; it was a bit of a shock to find out how you felt about the Church.

littlegal_66 said...

I feel compelled this morning to offer the following "Public Service Announcement": If a thunderous, "Clang!" suddenly emanates from your PC or laptop, hang on tight and brace yourself; it's most likely the sound of "the hammer" dropping with fervor, striking a mighty blow to this entire topic. The sledge has shown much graciousness throughout this discussion, and it's amazing that he's exercised the restraint that he has. (How much longer until.......?)

Apolonio said...

Tim: "Uh.......maybe we missed the history lesson of what Trent was for."

500 years ago, Tim. 500 years ago Trent responded and those decrees were written to Catholics about Catholic for Catholics who left the Church. The Catholic Church was the only Christian Church around (beside the Orthodox). This was 500 years ago. Now you can read the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican Council II which calls Protestants "Christians" and brothers in the Lord based on their faith in Christ and their Trinitarian Baptism (Matthew 28:19). That is the OFFICIAL Catholic position today on Protestants (and Orthodox) according to the Catholic Church. Stop living in the past, and stop misrepresenting the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Tim: "Weren't they called to deal with the teachings of the Protestant Reformation? Hmmmmm."

Yes, 500 years ago, written to Catholics about Catholics for Catholics who left the Catholic Church. Trent was 500 years ago.

Today you can read the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican Council II which calls Protestants "Christians" and brothers in the Lord based on their faith in Christ and their Trinititarian Baptism (Matthew 28:19). To repeat myself once again: Trent was written to Catholics about Catholics for Catholics who left the Catholic Church. Today you can read the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican Council II which calls you a Christian and brother in the Lord. Now do you understand?

Tim: "Also, the councils do not distinguish between Catholics and Protestants. They simply refer to "anyone"."

Trent was written to Catholics about Catholics for Catholics who left the Catholic Church. This was 500 years ago. Now you can read the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican Council II which calls Protestants "Christians" and brothers in the Lord based on their faith in Christ and their Trinitarian Baptism (Matthew 28:19). I'll say it again if I have to. :-)
PhilVaz

Apolonio said...

Joel: "Apolonio, do you have anything to add to that?"

No you're doing fine. Actually this is PhilVaz posting as Apolonio since I helped Apolonio set up his blog on Blogspot. There is way too much misunderstanding in here to have a reasonable discussion. The folks who disagree with purgatory that is OK, but at least get the teaching right. Like the Mass, purgatory is simply the application of the work of Christ. It is all of grace, all God's grace. Many of the early Fathers were quite clear on the teaching, most especially St. Augustine. And yes he was a Catholic Christian. PhilVaz

DOGpreacher said...

Steve, Tim, Jeremy, littlegal, and several others...Thanks for your faithfulness...being prepared to give a witness of the hope...etc...

At some point, we must state the obvious for SOME (not all) of the detractors of the TRUE Gospel.

in John 8, Jesus tells some of the 'Religious Right'(or left?) of the day, that they neither know Him or His Father. Jesus knew a 'works' religion when He saw it, and He was saying this has nothing to do with Me or My Father.

The wonderful thing is to see these who WERE Catholic, and NOW have been born from above, showing forth a great witness.

BTW...those who say they were protestant Christians and converted to Catholic...1 John 2:19!

RyanL said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
RyanL said...

dogpreacher,

For those who left the Catholic Church to protest her rightful authority...1 John 2:19.

See how that works? Your argument cuts both ways, and is therefore an invalid argument.

If you think Catholicism is a "works based Gospel", please tell me why the Catholic Church condemned the Pelagians? Hmmph. We pronounced anathema there as well...why would we do that if that was what we believed?

Finally, you lay a claim to the "true Gospel". Why? Why should I believe you over the SDA's, the JW's, the Mormons, or the Amish? How would you support your assertion that you are infallibly correct and they are completely wrong? Aren't they "Bible-based"? Aren't they "Sola Scriptura"?

Still waiting for ANY of my claims to be addressed...

God Bless,
RyanL

RyanL said...

Tim,

Please read this:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1sb2.asp

God Bless,
RyanL

Apolonio said...

dogpreacher: "At some point, we must state the obvious for SOME (not all) of the detractors of the TRUE Gospel."

Here is your problem, let me state the obvious: THERE WAS NO TRUE GOSPEL THEN FROM THE DEATH OF THE APOSTLES TO MARTIN LUTHER, since no one in that period of 1,500 years interpreted the Scriptures to teach "justification by faith alone" and "imputed righteousness alone." Read evangelical scholar Alister McGrath book on the history of justification if you don't believe me.

Were there any Christians from the death of the apostles to Martin Luther, who taught the true Gospel? YES or NO? If YES, then NAME THEM. I just stated the obvious and challenged you with the obvious. According to you, the true gospel was totally lost since no one believed it.
PhilVaz

Tim said...

It really is amazing to be pointed to people in history for the clear teaching of the Word of God. That reply was weak at best.

500 years ago! 500 years ago! 500 years ago!

Maybe you're missing the point. If the church said it 500 years ago, why is it not true today? You will say, it was directed at Catholics. However, the Protestants were.......well.......Protestants. That's where they get the name. So were there different standards at Florence? Nicea? Laodecia? Trent? Can we not go to the writings and determine what they said or do we need the majesterium to interpret those things for us as well? Incredible!

The Old Testament was around for hundreds of years and the faithful people of Israel had no problem understanding it with the help of the infallible Roman Catholic Church. I am not claiming infallibility. So let's not go there. None of us are, including the Roman church, or the pope. That is the point I bring up concerning these councils. As Luther rightly said, "They often err and contradict themselves." I admit that sometimes we Protestants do the same as we grow in grace, but if you think that makes us wrong in our stand upon the Scriptures, the Word of God, then you are wrong.

No one addressed the point I made concerning Paul's writings as Scripture. It was either Thess or Apolonio or whoever is writing for him. Saying that only the Old Testament was Scripture and that was all they had. Maybe they didn't want to put their foot in their mouth again.

I am convinced that the more we write of the truth the greater the condemnation for those who are reading and are unwilling to see the truth. I pray that God may grant you repentance. What else can I do?

RyanL said...

Tim,

I think what PhilVaz was trying to say, in not so many words, was that there is a difference between material heresy and formal heresy. Material heresy is what is persisted in "in good faith", while formal heresy is persisted in by those who should know better. The 500 years ago reference was to state that this was true for the formal heretics of 500 years ago, but not for the material heretics of today. It would still be true, by the way, for the formal heretics of today; but too few of those exist for it to be significant for general discourse. Suffice it to say, by and large Protestants are the separated brotheren of Catholics, exactly as defined on the Decree on Ecumanism.

Clear things up for you?

Next, you claim that the people of the OT were Sola Scriptura. Would you please exegete Deu 17 (NIV):

8 If cases come before your courts that are too difficult for you to judge—whether bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults—take them to the place the LORD your God will choose. 9 Go to the priests, who are Levites, and to the judge who is in office at that time. Inquire of them and they will give you the verdict. 10 You must act according to the decisions they give you at the place the LORD will choose. Be careful to do everything they direct you to do. 11 Act according to the law they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left. 12 The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God must be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel. 13 All the people will hear and be afraid, and will not be contemptuous again.

Are they commanded to get out their Torahs and argue about interpretation? What leads you to the conclusion that they didn't need an interpreter, guided by God? Also, praytell, what is the "Chair of Moses" as spoken about by Christ Himself in Matt 23? Is there authority there to interpret scripture?

Finally, I don't know what "point" you haven't had answered. Could you please re-post it?

God Bless,
RyanL

StrangeLand Bass said...

Yes - right on Steve, er, uh, Sledge - When I check with the Word - Jesus dying words on the cross were "It is finished". As in complete - nothing I can add.

How can we add anything to God taking our place on the cross? Grace is sufficient - enough - nothing I can add.

Great blog Steve.

Wes

Tim said...

Yes Ryan,

I understood, but can you give us an example of formal heretics and material heretics Scripturally?

My point was, that Rome had no problem dealing with others in the same manner as those who were Catholics, then turned ex-Catholics, as they did those who were not part of her church before Vatican II. That simply is not true.

An earlier point Thess was trying to make in regards to 2 Tim. 3:16 was that, "It's amazing to me that when you ask protestants where is that in the Bible, they will pipe up, oh, why in 2 Tim 3:16. Of course they fail to see the preceding versess that make it clear Paul was only talking about the old testament." My response was clear from Peter's on words in chapter 3 of 2 Peter where even before the majesterium was ever around, Peter regcognized Paul's writings as Scripture, and that's New Testament.

Tom C said...

You really need to let the grace which you say infects your whole life, spill over into a gracious attitude to those with whom you disagree. These pictures may be funny to you, but they cause offence to many and are no sign of a Christian spirit.

Tim said...

As for defining the issue of Deuteronomy and the point you are trying to make. Since the people were to go to the judges, what happened when the judges became extremely wicked and the people followed after them? God sent prophets. We could say they were Reformers. They went against the "majesterium" and called people unto repentance to the Word of God, not just went along with everything that the majesterium said. Again, the Bible in its context conveys the same message. Men often err and it is very easy to fall into error, but when that happens God does raise up those who will even address those to whom authority is given and rebuke them WITH HIS WORD.

Jeremy said...

still learning and still fascinated. thank you all!

RyanL said...

Tim,

1. Scriptural evidence for material and formal heretics: Ananias and Sapphira - Formal heretics. Judiazers - Formal heretics. Gentiles prior to hearing the word preached - Material heretics. Sadducees - Material heretics (rejecting all of the OT except the pentatuch).

2. Peter's recognition of Paul's writings as scripture: Peter was the first Pope. He (along with the other bishops) was magisterium. Peter called Paul's writings scripture, therefore they were. Infallible. As for which writings Peter was talking about...how do you know? Was he talking about Romans only? What about "zero" Corinthians (Paul's letter to Corinth that preceeded 1 Cor)? Was that scripture? Does the Bible say, or do you have to rely on an extra-biblical source to know? What about Peter's writings themselves? Does scripture say that THOSE are scripture? Is there, in fact, an "inspired table of contents"? Where? How do you know that the scriptures are inspired? This brings me back to my earlier post (which was left unaddressed) of how do you know if the NT is inspired? It doesn't cut it to say that the Bible says it is inspired - after all, the Qur'an claims that it is inspired, as do the writings of Mary Baker Eddy. How do you know that the scriptures are inspired? I will submit that there are only two positions: Luther's and Calvin's. I'll wait to see which one you go with.

3. Deuteronomy. Are you claiming that the "Reformers" were prophets of God, speaking God's word infallibly like Isaiah or Elijah? I didn't think so. Are you claiming that it would exculpate a Jew from observing the rule of the judges to say, "I think circumcision is a spiritual thing, not a literal command - at least that's the way that I read the Torah." Is that your claim? That the Jews were "Sola Scriptura"? BTW, you didn't address "the Chair of Moses" and why Christ would speak like there is authority there...

God Bless,
RyanL

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 302   Newer› Newest»