A S
criptural Refutation of the Claim that the Roman Church is the Church that Christ founded
Romanists claim that their organization is the church that Jesus founded. Protestants, they allege, are heretics that have broken away from the true church of Christ. However, the following argument will completely refute their deception.
1. For if the church that Christ founded is the church of the New Covenant, then the church consists only of those who have become members of the New Covenant.
2. And the church that Christ founded is the church of the New Covenant.
3. Therefore, the church consists only of those who have become members of the New Covenant.
4. And if those who constitute the church are members of the New Covenant, then they are the recipients of the promises of that New Covenant.
5. And those who constitute the church are members of the New Covenant.
6. Therefore, they are the recipients of the promises of that New Covenant.
7. And if they are the recipients of the promises of the New Covenant, then they have come to know God as the one who forgives all of their sins and remembers their iniquities no more, for this is promised by God in Jeremiah 31:34.
8. And they are the recipients of the promises of the New Covenant.
9. Therefore, they have come to know God as the one who forgives all of their sins and remembers their iniquities no more, for this is promised by God in Jeremiah 31:34.
10. If the Roman Catholic “Church” is the church that Christ founded, then it is also the church of the New Covenant, and if it is the church of the New covenant, then it consists only of those who are the recipients of the promises of the New Covenant, and if they are the recipients of the promises of the New Covenant, then they have come to know God as the one who forgives all of their sins and remembers their iniquites no more, for this is promised by God in Jeremiah 31:34.
11. However, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that purgatory exists as place where remain sin is purged from the believer before he enters heaven.
12. But if their sins must be purged in purgatory, then it follows that their sins have not been forgotten by God.
13. And if their sins have not been forgotten by God, then they have not been forgiven.
14. And if they have not been forgiven by God and had their sins forgotten by Him, then they have not come to know Him as the One who forgives all of their sins and remembers their iniquites no more.
15. And if they have not come to know God as the One who forgives their sins and remembers their iniquities no more, then it follows that they have not received the promises of the New Covenant.
16. And if they have not received the promises of the New Covenant, then they are not those who are members of the New Covenant.
17. Therefore, since they are not members of the New Covenant, they are not the church that Christ founded.
-h.
Would I be right in saying that your argument basically boils down to this: Jeremiah 31:34 says that God will forgive His people’s sin, the Catholic Church believes in a purification after death so therefore the Catholic Church can’t be Christ’s Church?
I wrote a brief reflection on Purgatory a while ago, I would be interested to hear your thoughts about it:
http://restlesspilgrim.net/blog/2011/05/31/purgatory/
Well, in a sense. You see, I understand the twists and turns Romanist theologians do in order to avoid drawing the logical implications of their doctrines, so I tried to be as specific as possible. God forgives all of the sins of His elect people, and He also remembers them no more. Purgatory contradicts this.
-h.
All of this hinges on your interpretation of Jeremiah 31:34. At what point in time do you believe God forgives the sins of His people? At what point does this forgiveness get applied to each believer? Does this include all future sins?
Here’s something that might help. In 2 Samuel 12:13-14 it is written “Nathan replied, ‘The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the LORD, the son born to you will die’”
Had David sinned? Yes. Had he repented? Yes. Had God forgiven him? Yes. Were there still consequences to what David had done? Yes.The above passage therefore demonstrates the principal that a sin can be forgiven but that it still carries consequences. This therefore opens up at least the *possibility* of Purgatory.
Out of interest, do you hold to any concept of purification prior to entry into Heaven?
“All of this hinges on your interpretation of Jeremiah 31:34. At what point in time do you believe God forgives the sins of His people? At what point does this forgiveness get applied to each believer? Does this include all future sins?”
No, it hinges upon what God says: “I will forgive their sins, and I will remember their sins no more.”
“Here’s something that might help. In 2 Samuel 12:13-14 it is written “Nathan replied, ‘The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the LORD, the son born to you will die’”
Had David sinned? Yes. Had he repented? Yes. Had God forgiven him? Yes. Were there still consequences to what David had done? Yes.The above passage therefore demonstrates the principal that a sin can be forgiven but that it still carries consequences. This therefore opens up at least the *possibility* of Purgatory.”
This example does not help your religion’s belief in any way, RP. You see, David’s sins were forgiven and there were indeed consequences, but those consequences followed while he was still alive on earth – not afterward.
So your analogy is a false one.
“Out of interest, do you hold to any concept of purification prior to entry into Heaven?”
What do the Scriptures say?
> “You see, David’s sins were forgiven and there were indeed consequences, but those consequences followed while he was still alive on earth – not afterward.”
Why does that matter? Your thesis appears to rely entirely on the logic that if sins have been forgiven then purgatory makes no sense. Yet the above passage demonstrates that, although a grave sin was forgiven, there were still consequences which had to be dealt with.
You assert that your argument hinges on what God says, rather than what you say. Yet to read Scripture is to interpret Scripture. My interpretation of that passage is different from yours. This is why I asked the follow-up questions. I’m trying to understand how you understand the forgiveness spoken of by Jeremiah and how you understand its application to God’s people. I’m trying to understand the theological framework in which you’re interpreting this passage. It is therefore helpful to me if you can answer my questions. I asked you if you hold to any concept of purification prior to entry into Heaven and you ask me what the Scripture say. I know how *I* interpret them, but I don’t know how you do…
“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem…and to the spirits of just men made perfect…” – Hebrews 12:22-23
“Why does that matter?”
Because they are distinct categories of existence. You are arguing fallaciously, RP.
“Your thesis appears to rely entirely on the logic that if sins have been forgiven then purgatory makes no sense.”
Sort of. I think you’re missing the point. The New Covenant of which Jeremiah speaks is dealing with soteriology, as is clear from the New Testament’s explanation of it in the book of Hebrews. Therefore, it is dealing with the forgiveness of sins and the non-remembrance thereof (in God’s record) with respect to man’s state after he dies. Paul says elsewhere, “for me to live is Christ and to die is gain.” Does he mean that to live is to be wanting in the character of Christ and to die is to gain 10,000 years in purgatory where he will be purged in fire of the remainder of his sins? No, when a man who is in Christ dies He goes straight to heaven to worship His Lord and God who redeemed him.
“Yet the above passage demonstrates that, although a grave sin was forgiven, there were still consequences which had to be dealt with.”
You are missing the point of this Scripture as well, which supports the Biblical doctrine of substitutionary atonement. For you see, the point is not that sins can be forgiven and yet have consequences. Rather, consider:
Who sinned? David.
What was the result? He deserved to be punished.
What is the punishment for sin? Death.
Did he then die? No.
Why? Because he was forgiven.
Then how is God just? Because another died.
Who died? The son of David.
Let that sink in. I know that your religion is opposed to the plain teaching of God’s Word, but for the sake of your soul’s salvation consider:
Yes, God forgave David’s sin. And yes the death of David’s son was an immediate, although indirect, consequence of his sin. Nevertheless, the bigger picture is this: David’s son, a son who had not actually sinned, bore the punishment that David should have received (according to the Law, cf. Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22).
God is merciful, but God is just.
Therefore, God forgave David.
However, the son of David had to die.
This typological portrait of what Christ has done for His elect people is set in stark contrast to your religion’s teaching on what the greater Son of David accomplished on Calvary.
“You assert that your argument hinges on what God says, rather than what you say.”
It does.
“Yet to read Scripture is to interpret Scripture.”
Yes. And those who have the Spirit of Truth illuminating the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures at least in a manner that is conducive to faith, hope, and love (as Augustine states in his book on Christian Doctrine).
“My interpretation of that passage is different from yours.”
Of course it is.
Your private interpretation differs from my interpretation of the Scriptures. I grant you that.
And, therefore, on the basis of your own religion’s claims, your interpretation is, well, completely uncertain – no matter how well you argue it. What is the point of arguing with me, then, if you have not been given the infallible interpretation of the text?
“This is why I asked the follow-up questions. I’m trying to understand how you understand the forgiveness spoken of by Jeremiah and how you understand its application to God’s people.”
I understand it how the author of Hebrews understands it: Complete pardon from the curse and condemnation of the Law have been fully granted to God’s people. They will not, therefore, have to be purged of their sins once they have passed from this life into God’s presence, for that is what Christ has done for them. His inheritance is theirs.
“I’m trying to understand the theological framework in which you’re interpreting this passage. It is therefore helpful to me if you can answer my questions. I asked you if you hold to any concept of purification prior to entry into Heaven and you ask me what the Scripture say. I know how *I* interpret them, but I don’t know how you do…”
You not only don’t know how I interpret the Scriptures, you are also at a loss as to the infallible interpretation thereof. So, again, why bother?
But be that as it may, I let Scripture interpret Scripture. I am a Reformed Baptist, but I am willing to reform if the Word of the Living God (i.e. the Scriptures) so commands me.
“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem…and to the spirits of just men made perfect…” – Hebrews 12:22-23
Upon receiving the inheritance purchased for them, proleptically, by the Lord Jesus Christ. These men have been perfected by the work of God in Christ, not through the fires of purgatory.
There is only one fate of the dead that is defined as a place of fire: Hell.
All who have been justified by faith alone in Christ alone on the basis of God’s Word alone to His glory alone will awake to see His glorious face.
-h.
Hiram, if I may make some observations?
First of all, it grieves me to see somebody be so verbally abusive towards the Catholic Church, and dialogue with them in such a condescending manner. It seems to me that the proper way of interacting with one another would be to do so in with a spirit of love and decency, not with sarcastic remarks and false assumptions that are continuously clung to. This, after all, if the more Christ-like way.
Just a thought.
Also, I do not believe that Purgatory contradicts Scripture at all. Restless Pilgrim is right. It hinges on your interpretation of Jeremiah 31:31-34. However, I do believe that Hebrews can shed some insight onto this subject, because the author quotes the passage from Jeremiah.
” ‘The days will come, says the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah;
not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of the land of Egypt;
and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord:
I will put my law into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
And they shall not teach every one his fellow
or every one his brother, saying, “Know the
Lord,”
for all shall know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will be merciful towards their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.’ ” (Heb 8:8-13)
The whole context surrounding Hebrews 8 is the emergance of a New Covenant; of the people leaving the Old and coming into the New. This is clear and therefore cannot be denied, unless you in some way have a surprising twist. Thus, the author is speaking of the sins of the past before coming to faith and before entering into the New Covenant. He is not speaking of the sins a Christian commits whilst under the New Covenant.
This also makes sense, because later on it speaks of how God disciplines us so that “we mare share in his holiness” (Heb 12:10). If our sins are forgotten, then why would God discipline us so that we can become holy and be assimilate to His likeness? Why do the “just” need to be made “perfect” (Heb 12:22-23)?
It’s because the forgetting of sins is in reference to the former sins before coming to faith.
Everything that Jesus speaks about in the Gospels affirms this. Notably, John 20:22-23.
“And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’”
Here, an inescapable question emerges: If all of our sins (past, present, and future) are forgotten through Jesus, then why give the apostles the authority to forgive sins? I understand that this opens a whole new topic that will likely derail us from the current subject at hand, but it is inescapable. Why? Because this opens the box for the question of application. How is the forgiveness of Jesus applied to our lives? At what point are we forgiven? Do our sins affect our justification? etc, etc …
Because of the context that Hebrews gives us concerning Jeremiah, Purgatory in no way contradicts Holy Scripture and nor does it undermine the “Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). In fact, it only reinforces it.
In regards to the nature of Purgatory, and the aspect of punishment, I would appreciate your thoughts on the teachings of Jesus and of St Paul. For example, how Jesus speaks of the person who will not get out of jail until he has paid the last penny (Matthew 5:25); Jesus’ reference to forgiveness in the next life – which also doesn’t make sense when holding to your interpretation of Jer 31:31-34 (Matthew 12:32); Jesus’ warning about the servants who will receive either a light or harsh beating (Luke 12:47-48); and of St Paul’s warning that on the Day of Judgment some may be saved, but only as through “fire” (1 Corinthians 3:10-17).
Whilst I strongly disagree with how to dialogue with Catholics, I understand where you are coming from and would appreciate hearing your thoughts.
Peace :)
Hey Batman, thanks for stopping by the blog.
Here are my responses.
“First of all, it grieves me to see somebody be so verbally abusive towards the Catholic Church, and dialogue with them in such a condescending manner.”
I didn’t think I was being either abusive or condescending. But you are entitled to your opinion.
“It seems to me that the proper way of interacting with one another would be to do so in with a spirit of love and decency, not with sarcastic remarks and false assumptions that are continuously clung to. This, after all, if the more Christ-like way.
Just a thought.”
You are mistaken, not knowing Christ nor the Scriptures. For Christ says to the Pharisees, “You are of your father the devil.” He also calls His enemies “serpents.” In another place he calls them sons of hell. The list could go on, but if you read the Gospels with an eye for this: Christ has harsh words for those who stood in opposition to Him.
Now, I don’t said anything nearly as harsh as the Lord God Christ did to those who opposed Him.
“Also, I do not believe that Purgatory contradicts Scripture at all.”
Of course you don’t – you’re not allowed to believe that it contradicts Scripture at all.
“Restless Pilgrim is right.”
No, he isn’t.
“It hinges on your interpretation of Jeremiah 31:31-34.”
The writer to the Hebrews interprets the text for me.
“However, I do believe that Hebrews can shed some insight onto this subject, because the author quotes the passage from Jeremiah.”
He interprets it.
“The whole context surrounding Hebrews 8 is the emergance of a New Covenant; of the people leaving the Old and coming into the New.”
Yes. The Old typological system of sacrifices was now done away with. There was no longer a need for daily sacrifices, blood sacrifices, in the the worship of God. The ritualism of the Old Testament had now come to a close, for Christ had fulfilled all that is written of Him in type and shadow as well as propositional revelation.
“This is clear and therefore cannot be denied, unless you in some way have a surprising twist.”
I don’t deny it.
“Thus, the author is speaking of the sins of the past before coming to faith and before entering into the New Covenant. He is not speaking of the sins a Christian commits whilst under the New Covenant.”
Speaking of amazing twists. Where does the text say this, Batman? It doesn’t. You need to interpret it that way, I understand; however, that is not at all indicated in the text.
“This also makes sense,”
No, it doesn’t. You have drawn a completely invalid inference.
“because later on it speaks of how God disciplines us so that “we mare share in his holiness” (Heb 12:10).”
You are ignoring the context of Hebrews 12, Batman. God the Holy Spirit is speaking of the current persecution and ostracization of the Jewish converts to Christ. Their faith was being tested, they were being pushed to deny the Christian faith (i.e. justification by grace alone through faith alone) and return to a dead system of rituals.
“If our sins are forgotten, then why would God discipline us so that we can become holy and be assimilate to His likeness? Why do the “just” need to be made “perfect” (Heb 12:22-23)?”
If you are a Romanist, and you deny justification by faith alone, then your sins have not been forgiven. I want to be clear about that because you have used the word “our,” when it doesn’t apply to Romanists but only Christians who believe Christ’s Gospel and who have been forgiven of all of their sins.
Now, once again, you are committing the same category mistake as RP. The author of Hebrews speaks of the Lord God disciplining His children here on earth, not in purgatory. Therefore, this text has nothing to do with purgatory. Rather, God is edifying His people via persecution and suffering here on earth. Why? Because it reveals the character of their faith: Whether it is truly in Christ’s atoning work and that alone, of if it is in their former religion’s dead system of works.
“It’s because the forgetting of sins is in reference to the former sins before coming to faith.”
This sort of eisegesis is not something you should take lightly, Batman. Your soul is in the hands of Christ Almighty, your very life is in His Omnipotent hands. You are breathing because He is allowing you to breathe at this very moment. In a nanosecond, Christ can call you to account for your twisting of His Word to suit your own purposes. And there won’t purgatory to pay, there will be hell.
Now, regarding the text of Scripture you are abusing. Read the context and you will see that you are in error. The text is not speaking of their chastisement being a means of removing their sins. Rather, their suffering via persecution is meant to expose the false believers and reveal the true believers. The false believers are being outed by the Lord God Almighty. Christ speaks of this in His parable of the Sower. The false Christian has no root and, therefore, withers up under the heat of persecution.
“Everything that Jesus speaks about in the Gospels affirms this. Notably, John 20:22-23.”
Nothing in the Word of God supports your interpretation of the text,
John 20:22-23 does not grant Christ’s followers (including the women) the ability to forgive sins. For it is written “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Therefore, only God can forgive sins. And this God is the Man, Christ Jesus. But you are veering way off course here.
“And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’”
Do you have an infallible interpretation of this passage?
“Here, an inescapable question emerges: If all of our sins (past, present, and future) are forgotten through Jesus, then why give the apostles the authority to forgive sins?”
And here is another inescapable question: If the text merely mentions “the disciples” then why do you assume that it is speaking of the apostles only?
And this raises another question: If granting the forgiveness of sins was a prerogative and power granted to the apostles by the Lord Jesus Christ breathing the Holy Spirit on them and then saying those words, then why didn’t the Lord Christ breath on Thomas or grant him the same ability to forgive sins?
If Christ truly granted the apostles alone the ability to forgive sins, then Thomas never received this ability. And if he never received it, then your religion is in error. And if it is in error – well, your magistrium and pope are not infallible.
“I understand that this opens a whole new topic that will likely derail us from the current subject at hand, but it is inescapable.”
It is a rabbit trail. The Lord Jesus Christ may have or may not have spoken those words to the ten disciples that were in the room (seeing as Thomas was not there and never received that word or the Spirit from Christ – at least if we follow your religion’s reasoning). We don’t know this. what we do know is: They could not have been given the ability to forgive sins, for that is God’s prerogative and power alone.
“Why? Because this opens the box for the question of application.”
No, it doesn’t.
“How is the forgiveness of Jesus applied to our lives?”
Again, if you are a Romanist, then the forgiveness of Christ is not applied to you. Repent of your idolatry and turn to Christ alone and you will be forgiven of all sins. His righteousness imputed to your account. Until then you are under the wrath of God.
“At what point are we forgiven?”
Those who believe the Biblical Gospel, i.e. the Gospel of the freely imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ to all who believe, the forgiveness of sins is complete. At that moment.
“Do our sins affect our justification? etc, etc …”
No. Justification is a forensic act of God. He has either declared you righteous on the basis of Christ’s perfect substitutionary sacrifice, or He has not done so. There is no sliding scale of justification-ness.
Because of the context that Hebrews gives us concerning Jeremiah, Purgatory in no way contradicts Holy Scripture and nor does it undermine the “Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). In fact, it only reinforces it.
“In regards to the nature of Purgatory, and the aspect of punishment, I would appreciate your thoughts on the teachings of Jesus and of St Paul. For example, how Jesus speaks of the person who will not get out of jail until he has paid the last penny (Matthew 5:25); Jesus’ reference to forgiveness in the next life – which also doesn’t make sense when holding to your interpretation of Jer 31:31-34 (Matthew 12:32); Jesus’ warning about the servants who will receive either a light or harsh beating (Luke 12:47-48); and of St Paul’s warning that on the Day of Judgment some may be saved, but only as through “fire” (1 Corinthians 3:10-17).”
Christ is speaking about Hell in Matthew.
His reference of THE sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit not being forgiven in the age to come does not imply that there are other sins that will be in the process of being forgiven in the age to some. It is a way of saying: There is no hope ever of being forgiven if one blasphemes the Holy Spirit.
However, extend your idea a little more and you’ll see that you are contradicting the book of Revelation that tells us that there will be no more sin in the age to come – i.e. the eschatalogical age where sin,death, and the devil have been cast into Hell forever.
“Whilst I strongly disagree with how to dialogue with Catholics, I understand where you are coming from and would appreciate hearing your thoughts.”
I understand your dislike of my sharp criticism of your religion, if it is your religion (I’m assuming that it is); however, I have nothing personally against you.
-h.
first off.. happy new year
@BATMAN
——————————————————————————————
The whole context surrounding Hebrews 8 is the emergance of a New Covenant; of the people
leaving the Old and coming into the New.
——————————————————————————————
What is the Old Covenant? New Covenant?
Does the Old Covenant remember sins year after year? can it take away all sins?
Does the New Covenant remember sins day after day? does it take away all sins?
Is the blood of Jesus like the bulls of goats?
——————————————————————————————
Thus, the author is speaking of the sins of the past before coming to faith and before
entering into the New Covenant. He is not speaking of the sins a Christian commits whilst
under the New Covenant.
——————————————————————————————
When Jesus died at the cross, Were you already alive?
dont you think all your sins are future?
In the context of HUMAN time – Past, Present and Future sins were forgiven.
In the context of God’s time – past sins were forgiven
HEBREWS 9:25-28 (LEB)
and not in order that he can offer himself many times, as the high priest enters into the
sanctuary year by year with blood not his own,
since it would have been necessary for him to suffer many times from the foundation of the
world, but now he has appeared once at the end of the ages for the removal of sin by the
sacrifice of himself.
So what Jesus did, He went to the end of time, offered His blood as a final sacrifice for all
mankind.
that is the goodnews, All your sins were forgiven.
you are righteous before God, apart from works. You are holy before God apart from behavior.
If that makes you want to sin? then receive the grace of God, so that you become part of the
children of light.
Romans 6:14 (ESV)
For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace
Are you under the Old covenant (Law) or Under the New Covenant (Grace)?
——————————————————————————————
This also makes sense, because later on it speaks of how God disciplines us so that
“we may share in his holiness” (Heb 12:10). If our sins are forgotten, then why would
God discipline us so that we can become holy and be assimilate to His likeness?
——————————————————————————————
Hebrews 12:6
For the Lord disciplines the one whom he loves,
and punishes every son whom he accepts.”
The word Discipline in greek is “paideuó”
“paideuó” means to train, educate, teach
The word punishes in greek is “mastigoó”
“mastigoó” flog, scourge, the victim being strapped to a pole or frame
Question
When you recieve Jesus and became a Son of God (John 1:12)
did God
a. flog
b. scourge
c. the victim being strapped to a pole or frame
WHO DO YOU THINK WAS “FLOG”, “SCOURGE”, “STRAPPED TO A POLE” ?
It was supposed to be Us because of our Sins!
BUT JESUS TOOK OUR PLACE! JESUS WAS FLOG, SCOURGE, STRAPPED TO A POLE
Does God break your leg in order to teach you proper walking poster?
Does God makes you blind in order to teach you not to lust?
Does God kills your children in order to teach you to love your children?
All our punishments were bored in Jesus body at the cross!
——————————————————————————————
It’s because the forgetting of sins is in reference to the former sins before coming to faith.
——————————————————————————————
All your Sins were future when Jesus died, before you even commit one, you have been forgiven
again, If that makes you wanna sin more….
then receive the grace of God, so that you become part of the
children of light.
Romans 6:14 (ESV)
For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace
Are you under the Old covenant (Law) or Under the New Covenant (Grace)?
——————————————————————————————
“And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they
are retained.’”
——————————————————————————————
BEFORE JESUS DIED AT THE CROSS FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
********************************
John 20:23
If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them,
they are not forgiven.”
AFTER JESUS DIED
********************************
Colosians 3:13
Forgive as the Lord forgave you
Ephesians 4:32
forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
1 John 2:12
I write to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.
BEFORE JESUS DIED
********************************
Matthew 10:33
But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven.
AFTER JESUS DIED
********************************
John 21:15
After breakfast Jesus asked Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than
these?” “Yes, Lord,” Peter replied, “you know I love you.” “Then feed my lambs,”
Jesus told him.
———–
The message we should be preaching now should be
about the forgiveness of Sins
about your right standing (righteousness) with God
about the Love of God for you, and not your Love for God
not to preach (LAW)
forgive men else you wont be forgiven
rather preach (GRACE)
forgive because you have been forgiven
——————————————————————————————
Here, an inescapable question emerges: If all of our sins (past, present, and future) are
forgotten through Jesus, then why give the apostles the authority to forgive sins?
——————————————————————————————
John 20:23
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them. If you retain the sins of any,
they are retained.”
- First : let us talk about the blood of Jesus who takes away the sins of the world -
When we acknowledge we were sinners and believe in Jesus and received the forgiveness
It was all our sins – past, present and future were forgiven. Because the blood of Jesus
is eternal.
whereas the blood of bulls and goats will last for one year for the covering of sins.
Now, that forgiveness of sins is readily available to all man in this world, living or
yet to be born.
but the blood of Jesus will be effectual only when paired with faith.
once sins are forgiven, all of them (past present future) are forgiven.
- Second : lets talk about the apostles -
the word forgive used in John 20:23 in greek is “aphēte”
Interestingly, I cannot find the word “aphēte” after book of John.
I cannot find the word “aphēte” in Paul’s letters, John’s, Jame’s and the rest
Very interesting, the word Forgiven in john 20:23 in greek is “apheōntai”
“apheōntai” appeared once after the book of John.. in
1 John 2:12
I write to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name
Now, wanna know the word Paul used?
Colosians 3:13
Forgive as the Lord forgave you
Ephesians 4:32
forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
The greek word for “forgive/forgave” in Paul’s letter is “charizomai” – means “I show favor to”
Totally awesome… Grace…
WE FORGIVE BECAUSE HE FIRST FORGAVE US
WE LOVE BECAUSE HE FIRST LOVE US
WE BELIEVE BECAUSE HE FIRST GAVE US THE FAITH
So the answer to your question, is another questions
————
If all of our sins (past, present, and future) are forgotten through Jesus, then why give
the apostles the authority to forgive sins?
————
Why did the apostles never used that authority to NOT forgive sins?
Can we unforgive ourselves when the blood of Jesus took away all our sins?
——————————————————————————————
In regards to the nature of Purgatory, and the aspect of punishment, I would appreciate your
thoughts on the teachings of Jesus and of St Paul. For example, how Jesus speaks of the person
who will not get out of jail until he has paid the last penny (Matthew 5:25)
——————————————————————————————
There is no purgatory. Unless you are using another bible.
Jesus, was the one who paid all our debts, until the last drop of penny.
This verse was before Jesus hanged at the cross. does not apply to believers
——————————————————————————————
and of St Paul’s warning that on the Day of Judgment some may be saved,
but only as through “fire” (1 Corinthians 3:10-17).
——————————————————————————————
Two kinds of Work.
1. Work by Flesh
2. Work worked by faith
the work produce by flesh (self effort) will be burned ()
the work produce by faith itself (spirit) will yield a reward. (1 cor 3:14)
so who’s foundation are we gonna build upon? JESUS!
when we preach to believers
you are righteous before God.
all your sins are forgiven
God loves you
you are justified by faith not works…
verse 15 says
15 But if their building is burned up, they will suffer loss. They will be saved, but it will be like someone escaping from a fire.
does not necesarily imply a temporary medium..
———————————————————————————————————————
long post…
grace and peace
Hiram, your latest canard in your diatribes againt Catholicism seems to be “without an official infallible pronouncement from the magisterium Catholics cannot interpret the bible”….wrong as usual…
I addresed your argument here: http://michaelcmorris.blogspot.com/2011/12/does-purgatory-disprove-roman.html
Pilgrim and Batman have addresses my major arguments, however I would also like to hear your explanation for why the son of David should have to die if God forgave and forgot his son…please limit your response specifically to that text without your addition concerning Christ.
After all what is the purpose of punishing David by killing his son if the sin was forgiven and forgotten.
Michael, you are a funny guy :) This post is not an example of diatribe, it’s an example of how your religion contradicts the Word of God. I will answer your question, but first answer mine: on what authority do you claim to correctly interpret the Scriptures? Isn’t it solely the little man in Rome who has that ability?
Hi I like your Psalm 23 post and I wrote something similar. Sorry the comments were closed in that post.
http://involutedgenealogies.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/some-more-thoughts-on-psalm-23/
http://oldtestamenttrinity.blogspot.com/2012/01/psalm-23a-trinitarian-psalm_03.html
> “Yes, God forgave David’s sin. And yes the death of David’s son was an immediate, although indirect, consequence of his sin.”
Then surely at the very least you have to reassess the way you conceive sin, the consequences of sin and forgiveness? David had been forgiven! Given the way you speak of forgiveness elsewhere, shouldn’t that have meant there were no further consequences to bear?
You may think that I’ve committed a category error since this passage speaks about life on earth rather than life after death, but I don’t see why that invalidates the principle this Scripture demonstrates. Also, given the Jewish practise of praying for the dead (as witnessed by the Book of Maccabees, whether you regard it as Scripture or not), it would appear that I’m not alone in this regard.
> “David’s son, a son who had not actually sinned, bore the punishment that David should have received”
So the life of the sinless son is offered in advance of his death for the sanctification of his parent? It’s funny, I’d never before seen this passage as an argument for the logic of the Immaculate Conception… ;-)
> “Yes [to read Scripture is to interpret Scripture]. And those who have the Spirit of Truth illuminating the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures at least in a manner that is conducive to faith, hope, and love (as Augustine states in his book on Christian Doctrine)…”
And would it be fair to conclude that you believe that you have this Spirit and I do not? I’m actually surprised that you quote St. Augustine, given that he believed in Purgatory. In your theology would this mean that he’s now in Hell?
> “What is the point of arguing with me, then, if you have not been given the infallible interpretation of the text?”
I find this point rather odd. Is there something that I’ve said which is inconsistent with Catholic teaching? If so, please point it out.
But seriously, is this how you believe the Catholic Church operates? Do you believe that no layman, priest or bishop allowed to teach or explain the Scriptures unless all those specific verses have been given an infallible interpretation?! If this is truly what you believe then I’m afraid you are mistaken.
And even if that were the case, given that as a Protestant you don’t accept the Magisterial authority in Scriptural interpretation, it would make very little sense for me to argue in those terms.
> “I am a Reformed Baptist, but I am willing to reform if the Word of the Living God (i.e. the Scriptures) so commands me.”
Doesn’t this just mean that you’re willing to revise your own interpretation of Scripture?
> “Upon receiving the inheritance purchased for them, proleptically, by the Lord Jesus Christ. These men have been perfected by the work of God in Christ, not through the fires of purgatory.”
Can you please take me step-by-step through this? Hebrews says that they were “just men” who were “made perfect”. How exactly did they become “just men” apart from the atoning work of Christ? It would be through the atoning work of Christ that they would be justified, no? If so, how is there room for perfection?
> “Those who believe the Biblical Gospel, i.e. the Gospel of the freely imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ to all who believe, the forgiveness of sins is complete. At that moment.”
Do you see room for any change in the believer between his death and his entry into Heaven? In my blog entry I posted above I pose the following situation:
“There are two members of my family who, after a significant falling-out, no longer speak to one another. Yet they both profess faith in Christ. If these two people end up together in Heaven while remaining in their current state, I’m pretty sure Heaven won’t remain ‘heaven’ for very long… I am certain that a work of God’s grace must take place within both of their hearts before they’ll be ready to worship before the same throne.
When this happens it will not be a pleasant experience for either one of them, just as the process wouldn’t be painless if they reconciled while alive on earth. Letting go of pain is often painful in and of itself. However, I fail to see how such hurt could be carried with them past Heaven’s gates. Rancid wounds must be lanced if they are to heal…”
Will Heaven be filled with “just men made perfect” or will it simply contain a collection of snow-covered dunghills?
“Then surely at the very least you have to reassess the way you conceive sin, the consequences of sin and forgiveness? David had been forgiven! Given the way you speak of forgiveness elsewhere, shouldn’t that have meant there were no further consequences to bear?”
No. The eternal consequences of sin have been dealt with fully by Christ at the cross. There is, therefore, NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. This doesn’t mean that in this life there won’t be consequences. If I rob a bank and then am genuinely repentant for my sin, this doesn’t mean that God won’t allow me to get caught.
“You may think that I’ve committed a category error since this passage speaks about life on earth rather than life after death, but I don’t see why that invalidates the principle this Scripture demonstrates.”
The very fact that it is a category error disqualifies it from being used to as an illustration of the principle that forgiven sins will have consequences after one dies. In other words, it is not demonstrating the principle your religion has concocted.
“Also, given the Jewish practise of praying for the dead (as witnessed by the Book of Maccabees, whether you regard it as Scripture or not), it would appear that I’m not alone in this regard.”
Whatever the Jews did that finds no basis in Scripture, and the Maccabeean texts are definitely not Scripture, is of no consequence to me. The Apocryphal books are heretical (see my post on the book of Tobit for just one example of the gross theological errors it contains).
“So the life of the sinless son is offered in advance of his death for the sanctification of his parent?”
No. You’ve misunderstood me. The death of David’s son is a type of the death of the Son of David, Jesus Christ. It has nothing at all to do with the heretical doctrine of Purgatory.
“It’s funny, I’d never before seen this passage as an argument for the logic of the Immaculate Conception… ;-)”
No offense, RP, but there is no logic in the immaculate conception – at least no sound logic.
“And would it be fair to conclude that you believe that you have this Spirit and I do not?”
If you believe the doctrines of Rome, then you have not been born again. And if you have not been born again, you do not have the Spirit of Christ. And if you do not have the Spirit of Christ, you are none of His.
“I’m actually surprised that you quote St. Augustine, given that he believed in Purgatory. In your theology would this mean that he’s now in Hell?”
I love Augustine. Only the Lord God knows who are His and who aren’t. But do I believe Augustine is in hell because he believed in Purgatory? Well, I don’t know if he did. I know that your apologists say that he did, but they also say that Christ taught His disciples the heresy of transubstantiation – and that is a flat-out lie. So I don’t feel fit to comment on whether he did or not. But if he did believe in Purgatory, I don’t count this against his salvation. The church was gradually growing more and more corrupt, and Augustine got a lot right. So I praise God for the good that came from his pen.
“I find this point rather odd. Is there something that I’ve said which is inconsistent with Catholic teaching? If so, please point it out.”
You can’t say anything inconsistent with Romanist teaching; you aren’t allowed to. So, no you haven’t said anything inconsistent with Romanist teaching.
“But seriously, is this how you believe the Catholic Church operates? Do you believe that no layman, priest or bishop allowed to teach or explain the Scriptures unless all those specific verses have been given an infallible interpretation?! If this is truly what you believe then I’m afraid you are mistaken.”
This is how Romanists treat me and all of my Christian brothers and sisters. I’m merely accepting their position as true for the sake of demonstrating the Romanist’s powerplay when it comes to interpreting Scripture.
“And even if that were the case, given that as a Protestant you don’t accept the Magisterial authority in Scriptural interpretation, it would make very little sense for me to argue in those terms.”
I was arguing ad hominem (not abusive or circumstantial ad hominem, but simply to the man/ad hominem). I think you are aware of that. Your comments on the Scripture are a private interpretation. And you may be allowed to interpret the Scripture however you desire, but you cannot say authoritatively “Scripture x definitely teaches doctrine, principle, or practice y.” That is the little man in Rome’s job ;)
“doesn’t this just mean that you’re willing to revise your own interpretation of Scripture?”
Sure. If Scripture calls for it. But in this case, it doesn’t.
“Can you please take me step-by-step through this? Hebrews says that they were “just men” who were “made perfect”. How exactly did they become “just men” apart from the atoning work of Christ? It would be through the atoning work of Christ that they would be justified, no? If so, how is there room for perfection?”
I didn’t say that they were justified apart from the atoning work of Christ. I said that they were justified by the atoning work of Christ proleptically. Christ’s sacrifice applied to them prolepticaly, it applies to all future believers projectively (so to speak).
“Do you see room for any change in the believer between his death and his entry into Heaven?”
To be absent from the body is to present with the Lord. Therefore, Purgatory is a false doctrine.
“There are two members of my family who, after a significant falling-out, no longer speak to one another. Yet they both profess faith in Christ. If these two people end up together in Heaven while remaining in their current state, I’m pretty sure Heaven won’t remain ‘heaven’ for very long… I am certain that a work of God’s grace must take place within both of their hearts before they’ll be ready to worship before the same throne.
When this happens it will not be a pleasant experience for either one of them, just as the process wouldn’t be painless if they reconciled while alive on earth. Letting go of pain is often painful in and of itself. However, I fail to see how such hurt could be carried with them past Heaven’s gates. Rancid wounds must be lanced if they are to heal…”
Will Heaven be filled with “just men made perfect” or will it simply contain a collection of snow-covered dunghills?”
Scripture says that those whom He justified, He also glorified. Justification is a forensic declaration that the elect are righteous. Sanctification is the process whereby the believer is conformed to the image of Christ during the believer’s time on earth. This is an imperfect work, sure. However, glorification is the truth that upon death the believer is fully conformed to the image of Christ with this one exception: His body has not been yet glorified.
Yeah, Augustine believed in Purgatory:
“But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come.” – St. Augustine, City of God.
I’m a little confused as to how “If you believe the doctrines of Rome, then you have not been born again” and “But if he did believe in Purgatory, I don’t count this against his salvation” can easily co-exist, but okay.
You didn’t really answer my question about Hebrews though: If those described become “just men” through the Sacrifice of Christ, how is there room for them to be “made perfect”?
> “[Sanctification] is an imperfect work, sure”
It’s imperfect on earth, but does it remain imperfect in Heaven? Do the Saints in Heaven still have attachment to sin?
> “However, glorification is the truth that upon death the believer is fully conformed to the image of Christ”
You’re going to have to explain this a little bit more to me as I’m afraid as my knowledge of Reformed Theology is limited and I’m not quite sure what this term means to you. This sounds to my Catholic ears as a process of perfection which takes place after the death of those who have died in friendship with God…
(Augustine believed the Apocrypha was canonical too, so I don’t think he’d have agreed with your blog entry on Tobit)
@Hiram: I agree with your post. But add some fuel to the fire: Isn’t ‘confession’ also a reminder of sin? Is it ever!
Michael Addison
Hiram
Do you not tire of this game. I know I have shown this to you before…however I will answer your question as I wish to see the maneuvering you will do to answer mine.
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”81).
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
CCC available here: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Now, concerning the learned theologian currently occupying the chair of St. Peter, whom you belittle: his task is to ensure that Christ’s bride remains faithful to His teaching. So at times yes it has been necessary to declare certain scriptures have an infallible interpretation. Witness the Protestant Rebellion. When it was necessary to dogmatically and infallibly define Christ’s teaching on the Eucharist.
So now I have answered you: please tell me why the son of David should have to die if God forgave and forgot his sin.
Michael,
it isn’t a game. I was ignorant of what private interpretation meant. However, now I know that it means “Any interpretation of which Rome does not approve.” So you’re right, you are authorized to interpret the Scriptures in whichever way you choose – so long as you by no means contradict Mr. Ratzinger and his buddies.
Whether he is learned or not, he is not a Christian. Nor is he the successor of Peter. Nor is he the visible head of the Church. I don’t know Joseph personally, so my grudge isn’t against him per se. It’s against the pride that fills his heart that causes him to say: “I will ascend into heaven, I will be like the Most High.” There is One Shepherd and Head of the Church: Jesus Christ the Righteous.
As for the Protestants, they rebelled against a false form of Christianity in much the same way that the early Christians rebelled against a false Judaism. And in much the same way, your religion’s leaders murdered many true Christians (without showing any signs of repentance).
Now, I say this with concern for your soul Michael: The pope does not come to faith in Christ, he will be in hell suffering the wrath of God eternally. Your service to him, which you incorrectly believe is service to Christ, will only be met with the same hell of fire if you likewise do not repent.
Regarding the Eucharist, I urge you to read the Scriptures again. Tell me if Christ means what He says when He declares: “It is not what goes into a man’s mouth that makes him unclean, but what comes out of it.” For if what goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, then what goes into his mouth, likewise, does not make him clean, for abstinence from that which is unclean implies a consumption of that which is clean. How does Christ teach the heresy of transubstantiation when He emphatically declares that food does nothing for the state of a man’s soul?
Lastly, concerning the Scripture dealing with David’s sin and the death of his son: There is no principle here upon which to base your false doctrine of purgatory. You, as well as RP, are committing a category error. There is a hell for those who trust in anything but the shed blood of Christ, and there is a heaven for the elect of God which He saved through the shed blood of His Beloved Son.
To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, the Holy Spirit says elsewhere. Then why do you insist on contradicting Him? Why do you think, furthermore, that this passage supports your heresy when David tells us that his son will be in heaven and that he will see him? He mentions nothing of purgatory either for himself or for his son.
David’s sin had consequences in this life, to be sure. But this does not imply that all sins have consequences in this life; much less does it imply that sins have consequences in the life to come. Life on earth is one thing, life after death is quite another.
David learned a lesson, but his sin was completely forgiven, for he himself says: “Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven, whose sins the Lord does not count against him.” David is not speaking of some abstract entity that exists only ideally – he is speaking of all who are justified by faith alone (among whom he may be counted). What was the lesson learned? That his Son would die in his place so that God could be Just and the Justifier of those who believe in Jesus.
What temporal lesson did he learn? That even the king is not exempt from being obedient to God’s Law. God sanctifies those whom He has elected, called, and justified. And this sanctification ends in glorification (cf. Rom 8:29).
If you repent of your idolatry and trust in Christ, perhaps you can know these things for yourself. However, so long as you persist in your rebellion against Christ you remain blind and under the wrath of God,
-h.
Hiram,
It is a game because I know you have seen that particular section of the Catechism before. Regardless, please stop misquoting St. Paul, I know you think you are quoting him but you are misquoting him and thus rendering the quote irrelevant to the discussion.
[6] Therefore having always confidence, knowing that, while we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord. [7] (For we walk by faith, and not by sight.) [8] But we are confident, and have a good will to be absent rather from the body, and to be present with the Lord. [9] And therefore we labour, whether absent or present, to please him. [10] For we must all be manifested before the judgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil.
[11] Knowing therefore the fear of the Lord, we use persuasion to men; but to God we are manifest. And I trust also that in your consciences we are manifest.
2nd Cor. 5:6-11
Further since he said it best here is how Jimmy Akin explains how this perfectly supports the idea of Purgatory….
Notice that Paul is speaking of himself with the plural “we” in this passage, as he shows in verse 11, mentioning his evangelizing ministry and contrasting the “we” who persuade men and are known to God, with the hope that “your conscience” also has the same view of us. His words clearly have application to other people in principal, but he is speaking primarily of himself.
So what Paul says here is (v. 6) that he knows while he is in the body he is away from the Lord, which is certainly something that is true and which no Catholic would deny. We are not in the immediate, unmasked, visible presence of Christ in this life. So to this verse, a Catholic can simply say, “So what? Who does not know these things?”
Paul then states (v. 8) that he would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. This is the one which Protestant radio personalities slur into “to be absent from the body is to be present with Christ.” That is what Paul said.
First of all, he is speaking concerning himself, remember, not concerning people in general. There are quite a lot of Christians, and to be frank, it is the majority of them, who would much rather be present in the body than die and go to be with Jesus. Paul’s preference for death to be with Jesus over life to stay in the body is a universal sentiment among Christians.
Second, he is expressing a . He something to happen. But there is a big difference between saying that one wants something to happen and that it will infallibly happen.
Third, there is an even bigger difference between saying one wants two things to happen and to say that when one happens the other will happen instantaneously. For example, if I as a single person said, “I want to go home and eat dinner,” I would not mean that the instant I go home I will be eating dinner. Since I am a single person, before I can dinner I have to dinner. There is obviously some time lag between my home-going and my dinner-eating. The same would can be said in the case of a person who says, “I want to go home and watch my favorite program.” When one goes home, that does not mean one is instantaneously watching one’s favorite program. In fact, it may be before one’s favorite program comes on.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/how2purg.htm
The rest of your post doesn’t bear a reply… it’s just more of your usual bigoted drivel. But I was tired of seeing you misquote St. Paul.
Further Purgatory is not some middle destiny all those souls who find themselves in Purgatory will at some point enjoy the Beatific Vision, however they first need to purge themselves of all attachments to self.
Hey Michael, I will address your points as they appear.
1. “It is a game because I know you have seen that particular section of the Catechism before.”
No, it isn’t a game. I’m not a Romanist, so I haven’t memorized everything I’ve read in your religion’s literature.
2. “Regardless, please stop misquoting St. Paul, I know you think you are quoting him but you are misquoting him and thus rendering the quote irrelevant to the discussion.”
I’m summarizing what he says in 2 Corinthians 5. Is that okay? Or should I write Mr. Ratzinger and ask for permission
3. “Further since he said it best here is how Jimmy Akin explains how this perfectly supports the idea of Purgatory….”
He does nothing of the sort.
4. “Notice that Paul is speaking of himself with the plural “we” in this passage, as he shows in verse 11, mentioning his evangelizing ministry and contrasting the “we” who persuade men and are known to God, with the hope that “your conscience” also has the same view of us. His words clearly have application to other people in principal, but he is speaking primarily of himself.”
False. Paul is speaking of those who are preaching the Word of God (i.e. the Gospel) in contrast to those who are identifying themselves as super-apostles. The primary “we” is the immediate “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother…” (2 Cor 1:1). So Paul’s words apply to himself and Timothy, in the immediate sense, and to all who are preaching the Gospel in the broader sense.
5. “So what Paul says here is (v. 6) that he knows while he is in the body he is away from the Lord, which is certainly something that is true and which no Catholic would deny. We are not in the immediate, unmasked, visible presence of Christ in this life. So to this verse, a Catholic can simply say, “So what? Who does not know these things?”
The question for you, then, is this: Is one away from the body when he is dead? Yes. Therefore, if he belongs to Christ, and he is away from the body when he is dead, then he is with Christ immediately when he dies.
6. “Paul then states (v. 8) that he would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. This is the one which Protestant radio personalities slur into “to be absent from the body is to be present with Christ.” That is what Paul said.”
Loaded language. Akin is not addressing the fact that the “Protestant” slurring of Scripture is not a slurring at all but a paraphrase of what is in the text. Paul draws an inverted parallel.
First he says, “While we are at home in the body, we are away from the Lord.” Then he says, “We would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” When I say “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” I am saying nothing different than what Paul is saying: To be away from the body is to be at home with the Lord. When the Christian dies, he immediately goes to see his blessed Redeemer face to face.
Paul is, moreover, not speaking only of himself. Akin is wrong. He knows not the Scriptures. The “we” is not a royal we, or editorial we, but a literal we.
7. “First of all, he is speaking concerning himself, remember, not concerning people in general.”
False. I’ve demonstrated that Akin is plain wrong about this. He wants it to be Paul speaking only of himself, because he thinks that will be his way out of dealing with the clear meaning of the text. This is not only sad, but blasphemous.
8. “There are quite a lot of Christians, and to be frank, it is the majority of them, who would much rather be present in the body than die and go to be with Jesus.”
I don’t think this is what Scripture teaches at all. Those who have been born from above desire that which is above, viz. Christ!
But that is beside the point. What is important to note is that Akin is using a personal anecdote to try subtly bolster his claims. This is lame-sauce 100%.
9. “Paul’s preference for death to be with Jesus over life to stay in the body is a universal sentiment among Christians.”
Amen. Wait…did Jimmy mean to write that? Or is he missing the word “not” just before the phrase “universal sentiment.” Something tells me that he omitted the word “not.” lol
10. “Second, he is expressing a . He something to happen. But there is a big difference between saying that one wants something to happen and that it will infallibly happen.”
He is expressing the desire of those who preach the Gospel, and the desire of all who truly know Christ.
11. “Third, there is an even bigger difference between saying one wants two things to happen and to say that when one happens the other will happen instantaneously.”
This is completely irrelevant. Paul is equating absence from the body for the believer with presence with the Lord for the believer.
Akin is faceplanting -
real bad.
12. “For example, if I as a single person said, “I want to go home and eat dinner,” I would not mean that the instant I go home I will be eating dinner. Since I am a single person, before I can dinner I have to dinner. There is obviously some time lag between my home-going and my dinner-eating. The same would can be said in the case of a person who says, “I want to go home and watch my favorite program.” When one goes home, that does not mean one is instantaneously watching one’s favorite program. In fact, it may be before one’s favorite program comes on.”
Lame. This has nothing to do with what is the real emphasis here. Yes, Paul is expressing a desire for something. True. And that which he desires is to be present with the Lord when he is absent from the body. This is more or less what he states in Philippians 1:23b: “To depart and be with Christ…” (which is a reference to his departing from this world directly into the presence of Christ. Therefore, the point here is…..To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. And to be present with the Lord is better than to “remain in the flesh” (cf. Phil 1:24).
Akinfail.
13. I wasn’t misquoting Paul, I was paraphrasing what he clearly teaches.
14. I have not presented any drivel, nor am I a bigot.
15. I understand what Purgatory is: It is a non-existent place that nullifies the work of Christ. Ipso facto, it is false.
-h.
I wholeheartedly AGREE, Hiram. The romanist religion is a CULT, actually, which makes up its own rules and regs as it pleases.
The fable of ‘purgatory’ was invented by old ‘innocent IIIrd’, who was far from innocent in any way. It also implies BY this imaginary thing that Jesus left some things unfinished b4 He died on that cross.
The tall tale of ‘transubstantiation’, the buying and selling of useless ‘indulgences’, the ‘queen of Heaven’ nonsense, praying to Mary and statuary, the superstitious wearing of useless ‘scapulars’ — ALL are against the Bible.
The horrific tortures that cult used against real Christians could only have been invented by its master, Satan. Romanism has destroyed more families than any other religion, and it still does today. The sexual scandals it has kept hidden for so many years are now being exposed, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.