Sincere question for catholics.

Living for Him,

I said...

And you said...

Both.

Not only me, but you as well if you have been born again. You have been made completly perfect in Gods eyes the instant Christ indwelt you. Christs rightiousness...and that of course is 100% sinless perfection...is imputed to every believer at the instant of their new birth. I am speaking of how God sees us...meaning positionally. Not how we might be behaving.

Our justification and eternal security is based on our 100% identification with Christ. Our practical sanctification is something that can improve...or digress. We will always be a "work in progress" in that regard. But all of that practical growth is from the perspective of rest and complete security, because our "position" is unchanging in any way through the imputation of Christs sinless rightiousness to us, permanently, at the moment we are born again. When we are born again Jesus Christ becomes our life, our rightiousness, and our security.

(continued)

 

(continued)

Here is some good food that I hope might be a benefit to you...

"II. To inquire what is meant by the imputation of this righteousness; which is the way in which it becomes ours and indeed is the only way in which it can become ours. The Hebrew word כשח in Genesis 15:6 and the Greek word logizwmai used by the apostle here, signifies to estimate, reckon, impute, or place something to the account of another.

So the righteousness of Christ is estimated, reckoned, and imputed to be his people's, and is placed to their account as such by God the Father, and looked upon as much by him as their justifying righteousness or as though it had been wrought by them, in their own persons. That this righteousness becomes ours this way, is manifest.

For in the same way that Adam's sin became ours, the same way the righteousness of Christ becomes ours; or the same way we are made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, are we made righteous by the obedience of Christ (Rom. 5:19). For as by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners. So by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous. Now Adam's sin became ours, or we were made sinners, through his sin; by imputation, it was reckoned, it was placed to the account of all his posterity. So Christ's righteousness becomes ours, or we are made righteous, through that righteousness of his; by the imputation of it to us, it is reckoned, it is placed to our account.

Again, the same way our sins became Christ's, Christ's righteousness becomes ours, as appears from 1 Corinthians 5:21. He who knew no sin, was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Now the way in which Christ was made sin for us, was by imputation; he never had any sin inherent in him, though he had it transferred unto him and laid upon him.

So the way in which we are made the righteousness of God, must be by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and indeed we cannot be made righteous any other way, than by imputation. For the objects of justification are ungodly persons in themselves; for God justifies the ungodly, as in the verse preceding my text. Now if they are ungodly in themselves, then they are not justified by a righteousness of their own, it must be by the righteousness of another. And if they are justified by the righteousness of another, that other's righteousness must be some way or other made theirs, it must be placed to their account, and reckoned as their own, which is only done by an imputation of it to them.

(continued)

 

(continued)

But,

III. I shall now consider the manner in which this righteousness is thus imputed, and that is, without works. That this righteousness is imputed without works, is manifest from the character the persons bear, whom God justifies, which is that of ungodly ones, as has been just now observed. If they are ungodly, they are without works; good works, or works of righteousness. If God therefore will justify such, as he certainly does, he must justify them by imputing a righteousness to them, without any consideration of works done by them. And, indeed, if God did not impute righteousness for justification in this manner, justification would not be an act of free grace, as it is always represented to be.

We may argue about justification, as the Apostle does about election, when he says (Rom.11:6), and if of grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace, otherwise work is no more work. We are said (Titus 3:7), to be justified, not only by the grace of God, but freely by his grace, to express the abundance and freeness of divine grace, in the free gift of righteousness unto justification of life.

Besides, if righteousness was not imputed without works, boasting would not be excluded, as it is in God's way of justifying sinners, by Christ's righteousness, without any consideration of them. And, indeed, works are not causes of any sort in the affair of justification, they are not the moving cause of it. For that is the free grace of God; nor are they the material cause of it, for that is the obedience and righteousness of Christ.

Nor are they the instrumental cause, for that is faith, nor are they the causa a sine qua non, or causes without which persons are justified, who never performed good works. And indeed those that are justified, are justified, if not without the presence of them, yet without the efficiency of them, or any consideration of them as having any casual influence on justification; for with reference hereunto, they are not to be admitted into the lowest class or range of causes.

It may perhaps be said, how then can the Apostles, Paul and James, be reconciled in this matter, seeing the one positively affirms (Rom. 3:28), that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law; and the other (Jam. 2:21, 24, 25), as positively asserts that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. To which I answer, there are two things, which when observed, will rectify and quickly remove the seeming difficulty, and reconcile the Apostles to each other, which are,

1. They speak of two different things."

web page


Hope that helps.

God bless,

Mike

 

That deals with how God relates to us very well - salvation - but doesn't cover the issue of how we relate to God - sanctification. This is the bit I struggle with - both theologically and literally! This sanctification thing is very much a work in progress for me, a daily process, and I find it hard to imagine that, were I to fall under a bus today, that I would instantly be translated into God's presence as holy and spotless before Him with all my imperfections having fallen away. No, correction, I don't have any problem with being instantly translated into God's presence at death; where I have the problem is with the idea that somehow all my problems, sins, imperfections, character flaws etc will somehow instantly vanish. That didn't happen when I got saved, and it seems to be taking all my life so far under the influence of the Holy Spirit; what's wrong with thinking that this work of the Holy Spirit continues, where necessary, after death?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt Black,

Theres a reason for that. Thats not what we were talking about.

Me, too!

But if you are born again you would be. Thats one of the most wonderful truths of the gospel! It something God wants us to understand and to live in the goodness of it. Its absolutly liberating...and it does not in any way negate our progressive growth from a practical point of view. It encourages it!

But of course they will. Those problems that we all strugle with are part of what the scriptures refer to as "the flesh". When we are translated into heaven that wich is sinful in us...stays here! We are in Gods presence in spirit form, awaiting the resurrection of our bodies. When we are rejoined to our bodies after the resurrection they will be recreated in a manner similar to Christ after His resurrection. It will still be us...but recreated without the sinfull tendancies.

Because we are still in "the flesh"

It will be like this all of our lives, but we should of course be seeing the "old man" being more and more "put off"(or dying) while the "new man" is being "put on" more and more.

Because "the flesh"...not necesarrily meaning our physical flesh(although it includes that) but rather our carnal nature...is no more.

I'm not an expert regarding these things...I hope I've articulated this semi adequately. Maybe clicking on the link I provided will lead to better explanations.

God bless,

Mike

 

DKH,

The Jews were required to go to the temple, offer sacrifice for their sins and wash in the temple pool.

When John was stating, "that Baptistism now saves you" he was letting the people know that a change was coming. Before they had to repeat their ceremonial washing and offering yearly because Christ hadn't made the sacrifice to redeem them yet.

Do you honestly believe that Catholics feel that there is "magical powers of some kind of holy water washes away sin"? It has nothing to do with the holy water or a priest. It is the power of God.

Catholics aren't the only ones who believe in Baptismal Regeneration. I showed on a previous post how the early Baptist believed this as well.

 

Any takers for this?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Any takers for this?

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]((Crickets))

 

I'll bite.

1. First of all "details".

That means you have to Quote the text -

2. Accuracy

I don't think there is such a text in all of the Apocrypha where someone actually (claims to REALLY) pray to the dead.

3. The Christians DID condemn doctrine based on dreams and imagination that are not from God - in Col 2.

In the case of the incident above - the author did not claim that he actually did pray to the dead in real life.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. Details --

Please quote the text where John says this to let them know that a change is coming.

#2. Accuracy

John never said that quote above. It is a quote post-cross long after the church age started.

Eisegeting the text is easy if you don't quote it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

1. Details --

You needed to actually read the post I gave showing the RC historians THEMSELVES making the claim that it is the "powers" of the priest to SAVE a soul WITHOUT the benefit of the Word of God (specifically in the case of infant baptism) that CREATED (over time) the evolution of the idea of a sacred clergy with a profane laity.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ask and ye shall receive :-

2 Maccabees 12:"38 Then Judas assembled his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was coming on, they purified themselves according to the custom, and kept the sabbath there.
39 On the next day, as had now become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kindred in the sepulchres of their ancestors. 40Then under the tunic of each one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was the reason these men had fallen. 41So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; 42and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened as the result of the sin of those who had fallen. 43He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin. "

2 Maccabees 15: "12 What he saw was this: Onias, who had been high priest, a noble and good man, of modest bearing and gentle manner, one who spoke fittingly and had been trained from childhood in all that belongs to excellence, was praying with outstretched hands for the whole body of the Jews. 13Then in the same fashion another appeared, distinguished by his gray hair and dignity, and of marvelous majesty and authority. 14And Onias spoke, saying, "This is a man who loves the family of Israel and prays much for the people and the holy city--Jeremiah, the prophet of God." 15Jeremiah stretched out his right hand and gave to Judas a golden sword, and as he gave it he addressed him thus: 16"Take this holy sword, a gift from God, with which you will strike down your adversaries.""

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Chapter and verse please.
Washing in the temple pool never took away anybody's sin (Jer.2:22)

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much potash, thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord Jehovah.

And where does Johns say this?

Absolutely, yes I do. In fact I believe it was you that quoted it some pages ago: "The waters of baptism washes away original sin." That is what you said isn't? How many sources would you like me to cite: the catechism, the documents of Vatican II. I can research them all for you. But you know I am telling the truth. The RCC believes that born again = baptism, and that baptism washes away sins. That is fact.
And that fact is no different than the Hindu belief that their holy water washes away their sin. Your belief is a Hindu belief. It is pagan. It was never believed or practiced by the early Christians.

Absolutely false. No baptist has ever believed this. If you claim that Baptists believe this you must be confusing Baptists with another group, because this is an important Baptist distinctive which defines a Baptist--that baptism always follows faith in Christ. Baptismal regeneration is a heresy. No baptist believes that. You are confusing Bapists with another group.

There are other cults that believe this and perhaps some Protestants as well. But Baptists are not Protestants, and shun the cults. All of this are simply red herrings. We are speaking of the Catholic Church vs. the Bible, and historic paganism that existed before the New Testament that was introduced at the formation of the Catholic Church when Chrisianity (so-called) was paganized in the early part of the fourth century by Constantine. Thus the beginning of the Catholic Church, and the entrance of such pagan practices of baptismal regeneration.

You are like a little child. My child argues the same way you do. She has a bed time at 9:00 p.m. Her argument is this: "But all my friends stay up til 10:00 p.m." So that must make it right you see. Your argument is the same. Other protestants and cults practice, so therefore it must be right. What a childish argument. Compare your belief to the Word of God, not to what other so-called Christian groups do.
DHK

 

Nothing like being attacked by DHK for daring to argue, huh, Living?

You could report him for calling you a child, but since he gets the reports anyway, it won't matter.

 

Living, please re-post what you had on the Baptists' former belief in baptismal regeneration. I am late coming in to this, and rather than scrolling through five pages of arguments...

 

This is a personal attack which you do over and over again without any warrant whatsoever. Read the post again. Saying that the argument or logic is childish is not the same as calling her a child. Saying that you have lied, slandered, and personally attacked me without any cause is true. What shall we do about this Tragic? This is a debate forum not a complaint forum.
DHK

 

DHK,

As demonstrated in the "Cornelius and his family" section of Acts.

The scriptures tell us that as they sat there listening to the message, they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit and born again.

AFTERWORDS, Peter asks who can forbid water for baptism, since Cornelius and his family had received the Holy Spirit just as they had.

Water baptism follows salvation, representing our the new life we have recieved through faith alone.

Blessings,

Mike

 

This is a personal attack which you do over and over again without any warrant whatsoever. Read the post again. Saying that the argument or logic is childish is not the same as calling her a child. Saying that you have lied, slandered, and personally attacked me without any cause is true. What shall we do about this Tragic? This is a debate forum not a complaint forum.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I'm attacking you by pointinng out that you attacked him???

Interesting world you've conjured up for yourself. It was completely and utterly unneccesary to call Living a child. It offered nothing whatsoever to the meat of the argument, and was meant solely to belittle him and make yourself appear the intellectual superior to him.

But yeah, I'm sure you think that this is the way Jesus did it.

 

This is a personal attack which you do over and over again without any warrant whatsoever. Read the post again. Saying that the argument or logic is childish is not the same as calling her a child. Saying that you have lied, slandered, and personally attacked me without any cause is true. What shall we do about this Tragic? This is a debate forum not a complaint forum.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I'm attacking you by pointinng out that you attacked him???

Interesting world you've conjured up for yourself. It was completely and utterly unneccesary to call Living a child. It offered nothing whatsoever to the meat of the argument, and was meant solely to belittle him and make yourself appear the intellectual superior to him.

But yeah, I'm sure you think that this is the way Jesus did it. </font>[/QUOTE]Another unwarranted, slanderous personal attack. If you had any evidence of where I called any individual a child you would quote it. But you don't. So I'll take your matter up with some of the other moderators.
DHK

 

The word dinosaur didn't come to us until the mid 1800s. Before that, they were called dragons. Dragons are in the bible.