Purgatory Or The Judgment Seat of Christ?

That would be OSAS (once saved always saved) and yes a lot of people on this board - particularly anyone of Baptist/presbyterian etc persuasion is going to sign on to that - as well as many others.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That guess above - is not exactly an exegetical review of 1John 5. Why not do one?

In 1 Tim 2 we are told to pray "for all mankind".

Sins whose payment is "death" include ALL sins (Romans 6:23) the wages of ALL sin is "DEATH".

The sin of 1John 5 is what is often called the unpardonable sin. Christ says that all sins may be forgiven - except one.

The RCC lists skipping out on church one Sunday as a "Mortal Sin". Certainly that is NOT what we see in 1John 5.

Your case could have been made from Matt 18's ending illustration but not from 1John 5.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Do you NOT believe that you are saved forever? If you do not believe in OSAS, why then do you go to church? Do you think you can earn your way to heaven by going to church? By memorizing the Rosary, etc.?

Do you think that the church offers you some form of protection? Look at history my man! Look at all those who lost there lives by being "in the church".

Furthermore, look at all those who 'hang around' the church, many of whom will not see eternal life because they do not believe in the source of eternal life, but rather in the church!

You want security? John 3:18! He who believes in Jesus is not condemned, but he who believeth not is condemned already.

 

Brother Ray --

Once again you show that you do not understand how a covenantal relationship works.

I agree that once we are adopted into the family of God by God's free sovereign grace, we never cease to be a son or daughter.

But we can throw away our inheritance. That is what the Prodigal almost did.

What if the Prodigal had actually died in the far country of sin? Would he have still received his inheritance? Of course not!!! But he would have died a son, right?

Eternal life is the inheritance of the believer. It awaits us and all who will remain in covenantal faithfulness to the Father. But those who sever the relationship by means of mortal sin and refuse to repent and return as did the Prodigal simply cannot inherit their inheritance. They have severed themselves from their covenantal union with the Father. All that remains is their rebellion and state of separation. In eternity, this state is called "hell". It is forever separation from God by the choice of the child who decides that sin in this life is more rewarding than promises of eternal life in the next.

Catholic theology does admit to the fact that the Scriptures speak of "the elect of God" (which fact surprised the heck out of me when I read it as a Protestant Calvinist). What we are not allowed to do is to assume on the mind of God and think that we are "elect" and therefore home free. Yes, God will keep His elect, but let us "work out our salvation in fear and trembling" (WHO was more elect than St. Paul I ask you?), not assuming upon the mind of God in this regard, for we do not know what the future will bring to us.

Cordially in Christ and the Blessed Virgin,


Brother Ed

 

Hi Ray,

You wrote, "This is a concept formulated by your church but is out of sync with what the Lord is saying to us in I John chapter five."

That's your opinion because you disagree with me. I can say the same thing about your opinion, can't I?

John clearly distinguishes between mortal (deadly) and non-mortal (non-deadly) sin in 1 John 5. The Catholic doctrine of mortal and venial sin makes sense of this distinction quite nicely. Of course, you're going to discount the Catholic interpretation because you adhere to the unbiblical notion of Once Saved, Always Saved. For you, no sin - for the Christian - is deadly. Either that, or deadly doesn't really mean anything.

Anyway what does charity have to do in particular with our enlivened soul? Spiritual and eternal life is what God does in us.

The life of God is charity/agape/love. This is the eternal, inner life of God - the life shared between the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit.

Neither mortal or venial sins destroy our relationship to the Lord, only our fellowship, our closeness to Him.

Well, I would say that my closeness to someone would be precisely my relationship with them. When I damage a friendship I have with someone by gossiping about them behind their back, it would be utterly silly for me to say, "Oh, our relationship hasn't been affected one bit! But, we aren't as close as we used to be." That would be nonsense, and it is nonsense with regard to divine friendship.

I agree that probably the Prodigal son committed the most serious of sins, {'riotous living'--Luke 15:13} but notice his words. 'I will arise and go to my Father.' Twice he says this. Notice sonship was absolutely not destroyed.

While the son still bore the image of his Father as all Christians continue to bear the mark/seal of baptism after their baptism, the son died spiritually as Christians may die spiritually if they commit mortal (deadly) sin. When we repent and are received back into the family, we become spiritually alive once again. As the Father of the Prodigal Son said..

"for this my son was , and is alive again" (Luke 15:24)

The son was dead because he had committed deadly sin, and when he repented, he came back to life. This life is, essentially, the indwelling presence of God's life in our souls. As Catholics, the technical theological term we give to this life is sanctifying grace.

"See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom 11:22) - This passage is not dealing with good Christians)

Well, Paul is addressing the Christians isn't he? Doesn't he say, "kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off"?

II Peter 2:20-21 is dealing with those who had the sanctifying effects from being attached to the church, but never had a live faith like you and I have experienced through grace.

Granted your interpretation (which I disagree with, of course), this would actually urge us not to be so confident that we have a "live faith experienced through grace" (your words), for those individuals would have thought they had a "live faith experienced through grace", yet - according to your interpretive framework - they didn't, in the end. So, what makes us more sure of our being in grace than them?

Also, this passage nowhere speaks of "sanctifying effects from being attached to the church, but never had a live faith like you and I have experienced through grace." No, nowhere do we see this spoken of.

Peter says, " For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them."

These Christians were delivered from the world's defilements; they knew the way of righteousness. And, then, they turned back from this state. They, essentially, fell from grace, as Paul warns the Galatians not to do in Galatians, Chapter 5:

In Galatians, Ch. 5, Verses 1 through 5, God's Word reads:

[1] For freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery. It is I, Paul, who am telling you that [2] if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. Once again I declare to every man who has himself circumcised that he is bound to observe the entire law. [3] You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we await the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only [4] faith working through love.

1. St. Paul is writing his converts at the church of the Galations. He addresses them by saying, "Christ set us free", "stand firm", "do not submit again to the yoke of slavery". These Christians addressed have been released from the slavery of Mosaic Law - they have converted & found faith in Jesus Christ.

2. The converts are commanded by St. Paul not to return to the former Mosaic Law they were held bound to; for if they do, Christ will no longer be a benefit to them, after he was of benefit to them in [1].

3. To have fallen from grace, the converts must have been in grace beforehand. When Christians, saved Christians, return to the justification of Mosaic Law, they become separated from Christ.

4. In further clarification, St. Paul clarifies that this Christian faith is a faith working through love, awaiting the hope of righteousness.

Ray, you believe that you were saved at the age of eleven and that you cannot ever lose that salvation no matter what you do.

Tell me, if you choose to commit a mortal/deadly sin today such as fornication and die without repenting from this sin, will you inherit the kingdom of God?

Scripture tells us, "For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins" (Heb 10:26).

Scripture also tells us, "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal 5:19-21).

Such mortal/deadly sin results in our disinheriting our inheritance as children of God. This is the reason Paul admonishes - time and time again - the Christians to whom he writes concerning such things. Otherwise, there is little to no reason for such instruction.

[ June 22, 2003, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Ray,

So your philosophy/quasi-theology lead us to believe that a Christian can be repeatedly saved, if he commits one of those mortal sins.

Yes, I believe that a Christian can be restored to grace after he/she commits a mortal sin through the sacrament of penance according to the Biblical precedent set in John 20:21-23.

Do you believe that you could still be saved if you committed murder tomorrow?

Was the Prodigal son physically dead? No. The story says that he returned to his father.

I didn't say that the son was physically dead. That's a non sequitur on your part. The point is that the son was spiritually dead: "for this my son was dead, and is alive again" (Luke 15:24). According to you, the spiritual death of the son is really meaningless with regard to salvation. You look past this fact.

Paul absolutely did not mean that these Christian were going to fall from grace and be escorted to the gates of Hell.

Oh, I see, so "falling from grace" doesn't mean that you've lost your salvation? So, I can no longer be in grace, yet still be saved? That's a paradox!

Ray-Yes, everyone has a will to backslide away from the Lord, but I know out of love He would deal with me, as previously mentioned in Hebrews 12:5-10. When you really have the grace of Jesus in you, as you know, you want to please and serve Him with your life. If you can flagrantly sin mortal sins, as you say, then one would really wonder if you were in the grace of Jesus Christ at all.

Ray, you didn't answer my question.

I asked you, "if you choose to commit a mortal/deadly sin today such as adultery
and die without repenting from this sin, will you inherit the kingdom of God?"

What is your answer?

 

Hi Ray,

You asked, "Re: Jn 14:6, Do you believe God's Word or are you faithless or possibly clueless about this spiritual fact coming from Jesus sacred lips?"

Now, now. There's no need to become rash and use such accusations as "faithless" and "clueless". That isn't a very charitable approach, and you won't get very far with me when you start down that path. So, I suggest altogether avoiding such language at this point in time if you wish for me to respond to you.

In Jesus' Last Supper Discourse in John 14:16, when Jesus says, "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever," you are assuming that Jesus is giving a catechesis on individual soteriology - that is - how an individual is saved. I can just as easily point out that this is not John's point, but, rather, that John is giving a Trinitiarian theology, pointing out the relations between the persons of the Godhead. When Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will be with you forever, I interpret such as God saying his Spirit will never leave the Church. I am not forced to say that I can never lose my salvation, which fundamentally contradicts whole sections of Sacred Scripture. It also fundamentally contradicts common sense, as we have seen and will continue to see regarding your personal salvation and the issue of possible mortal sin in the future.

I asked, "Do you believe that you could still be saved if you committed murder tomorrow?" to which you responded, "I don't see how any true Christian can commit murder."

Still, Ray, you're avoiding my question. I'll ask you again..

Do you believe that you could still be saved if you committed murder tomorrow?

You wrote, "The Prodigal son was not a true life story it was meant to portray the fact that Almighty God is always ready to receive the wandering sinner."

I agree on both points. But, you still can't get around the fact that (1) the son was once spiritually alive and in the family, (2) the son died spiritually and left the family through serious sin, and (3) the son came back to life again: "for this my son was dead, and is alive again" (Luke 15:24).

You can't avoid these three facts, and you're basically dodging the parable to uphold your notion that salvation can never be lost, which is an unbiblical tradition of men, as I have shown, am showing, and will continue to show.

You wrote, "The saved person never falls from grace"

If the saved person never falls from grace, then why does Paul state that this is possible?

"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace" (Gal 5:1-4).

Paul is clearly speaking to converted Christians who have been set free by Christ, and who are exhorted not to submit again to the Mosaic Law, for if this happens, "you have fallen away from grace".

Ray, I'm surprised, again you have avoided my question, which is quite simple.

If you choose to commit a mortal/deadly sin today such as adultery and die without repenting from this sin, will you inherit the kingdom of God?

I've asked you this simple question twice above, and you've dodged it twice now. Really, it's an easy question. A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

That's your opinion because you disagree with me. I can say the same thing about your opinion, can't I?

John clearly distinguishes between mortal (deadly) and non-mortal (non-deadly) sin in 1 John 5. The Catholic doctrine of mortal and venial sin makes sense of this distinction quite nicely. Of course, you're going to discount the Catholic interpretation because you adhere to the unbiblical notion of Once Saved, Always Saved. For you, no sin - for the Christian - is deadly. Either that, or deadly doesn't really mean anything.</font>[/QUOTE]It seems that the one who breaks the least of the laws, is guilty of ALL so where is the dividing line that separates mortal from venial?

 

Hi Ray,

You wrote, "I did give you an answer to your question but you did not like the answer I offered you."

Yes, you did give me an answer. In fact, you've answered my question several times. But, none of your answers are satisfactory (i.e., I "did not like the answer" you offered me). I'm giving you a question with a binary solution, and you have failed to provide a simple yes or no, and your enigmatic responses are indicative of the fact that your current position of once saved, always saved and the ability to know that you are in this "saved" category involves a fundamental contradiction in logical reasoning when faced with significant Pauline statements in the New Testament.

This is the contradiction that I have been driving you to see for yourself, and I believe that you see this by your lack of a satisfactory answer. You're - what we call - dodging the logical fallacy in your soteriological (salvation) and existential (personal knowledge) proposition.

You continued to write, "If you answer my most recent post that starts out, 'When Roman Catholic leaders . . . ,' I will give you a direct answer to your question."

Sure, I'll play your game: "If you answer this question, then I'll answer yours". If it takes my answer to one of your tangential questions in order to evoke a simple yes/no answer from you, I'll gladly hand you my opinion. Only, I pray that you aren't offering me a Catch 22, wherein you promise an answer, yet will fail to deliver with a substantial or definitive yes/no solution.

You wrote, "When Roman Catholic leaders, at the end of the 13th century, killed Waldenses and beheaded 50,000 Albigenses in France with in twenty-four hours, were they murders or were they doing the Lord's work?"

Of course, you are creating one broad generalization, which - in reality - entails numerous individual cases, all of which must be analyzed fairly as our current 21st c. American judicial system enforces the positive law case by case.

Albigensianism was not a Christian heresy, but an extra-Christian religion. What the Church combated was principles that led directly not only to the ruin of Christianity, but to the very extinction of the human race: basically, the Albigenses advocated and condoned a supreme threat threat to the social order (such as fraud, murder, and robbery) that is - in the order of justice - deserving of severe punishment. The Albigenses were dualists; they taught that the liberation of the soul from its captivity in the body is the true end of our being. To attain this end, suicide is commendable; it was customary among them in the form of the endura (starvation). The extinction of bodily life on the largest scale consistent with human existence is also a perfect aim. As generation propagates the slavery of the soul to the body, perpetual chastity should be practiced. Matrimonial intercourse is unlawful; concubinage, being of a less permanent nature, is preferable to marriage. Abandonment of his wife by the husband, or vice versa, is desirable. Generation was abhorred by the Albigenses even in the animal kingdom.

In the time of this heresy, penal codes were extremely different than those of our own time; this was an entirely different social order that viewed harsh punishment such as captital punishment by way of execution as less severe than we do today as 21st c. Americans. I do believe that the death penalty was, indeed by their own standards, inflicted too freely on the Albigenses, and when such occurred, then those were were responsible, individually, may very well have been accountable/culpable of comitting the sin of murder.

 

Without knowing exactly which model of soteriology that Ray holds to -- I can tell you that there are two forms of Calvinism that consistently lay claims to OSAS. The 5 point and 4 point Calvinists have a pretty good answer to the point above.


4 Point Calvinists do not hold to the "Perserverence" clause and this leads to the most consistent claim to OSAS AND assurance. In their view nothing you ever did or ever chose - resulted in your salvation - and nothing you ever do in the future or ever choose in the future can possibly cause you to lose - what you could not gain.

Five point Calvinists - DO hold to the perserverence caluse of TULIP and so they would argue that if you become a vile murderer - you simply show that you were never saved to start with. Whatever assurance you "thought you had" was no assurance at all. You were simply fooling yourself.

There are some Arminians that also hold to OSAS - but I don't know how they reason through that in a way that is consistent with Arminianism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yelsew asks --
It seems that the one who breaks the least of the laws, is guilty of ALL so where is the dividing line that separates mortal from venial?

This is a good question and it returns us to the point of the thread.

How in the world does the RCC claim to forgive unforgivable sin in Purgatory?

What consequence of sin is NOT forgivable and paid for by the blood of Christ BUT IS payable by the RCC writing a check for you in the form of an Indulgence to get you out of mythical-purgatory?

Where is this in all of scripture?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi Bob,

I am familiar with 4 & 5 point Calvinism; my former college roommate's father is a former PCUSA pastor (a C-67 subscriptionist).

The brand of 4 Point Calvinism that you speak of is simply ignoring the numerous Pauline texts that address (i.e., warn of) immorality and the lack of inheriting the kingdom of God. This is basically, a flat out denial of a good portion of Christian revelation.

An intellectually honest Five-point Calvinist must admit that there is no way he can know that he is one of the elect, and therefore, the proposed doctrine of OSAS is separated altogether from the existential question of whether one can be confident in his/her personal salvation, even if the proposed point of perseverence of the saints is indeed true (which it is not.. *grin*).

 

Yes, but you have to admit - even from an Arminian POV Perserverence works if we count backwards from the point of the end of a saved person's life to his conversion - He has certainly "perservered faithful until the end".

The only difference is that we would add that BEFORE that last segment there "may have been" other segments of time where He was saved - born-again and perservered but then fell away.

In Christ,

Bob

 

If you read 1 Cor 3 closely you will find that in all the examples given it is the "teaching" that is being burned away and evaluated. Paul is arguing that some lay a teaching foundation of gold and silver while others lay a teaching foundation of hay or straw. Weaker error prone teaching. This is not chapter about pastors caught up in adultery and vice and urging us not to bother about whether they should be censured.

Recall that in 2 chapters - 1Cor 5 he is going to argue that we should "turn such a one over to Satan" (cast him out of the church). But in 1 Cor 3 the argument is for tolerance and patience even with teaching that might be somewhat inferior.

2 Cor 5 DOES mention being judged (at the Judgment seat of Christ) for evil deeds done in the body (as you seem to note above) - but it does not hint that in that judgement - "heaven is the reward" for those evil deeds. At least not in 2Cor 5.

In fact in Romans 2:4-16 the opposite point is made. The point is made that evil deeds will get the reward of torment and fire.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Carson,
According to the Doctrine of Purgatory, it seems that if a saved person commits any sin whatever, even the little white lie, then dies immediately without confession, that person would not go to heaven, regardless of his faith. Such a situation would completely nullify Atonement, and Jesus would have died in vain!