Wrongly Dividing the Word:

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
yet Christ was not at all pleased with even the most minor edit/modify of one of the Ten Commandments -

[FONT=&quot]Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When Christ speaks of one of the Ten Commandments He tells us that they are the “Word of God” – the “Commandment of God” and “Moses said”

[FONT=&quot]Notice that in thi[FONT=&quot]s case in Mark 7 the Jews [FONT=&quot]are "making stuff [FONT=&quot]up" in their [FONT=&quot]baptizing the cups and pots - regar[FONT=&quot]ding what you [FONT=&quot]"eat and [FONT=&quot]drink" - regar[FONT=&quot]ding food and drink - being con[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]taminated[/FONT] by sin - Christ in Mark 7 declares that to be [FONT=&quot]nonsense even before the cross.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

What is the commandment of God in this verse?

A. Honor thy father and mother
B. Whoso curse the father or mother let him die the death

The answer is BOTH of them. The first one tells you to honor your parents and the other one tells you not to curse them else you should be killed.

But BobRyan ONLY sees Jesus offended at modification of the former which is one of the Ten Commandments. Why is this? If he admitted that Jesus was equally offended at modification of a commandment outside the Ten, he'd be I trouble because as a Christian he lives out innumerable modifications such as circumcision. So he will use Mark to show you that Jesus would not have the Ten modified but not the rest.

How is it a half-truth? It is true Jesus was offended at modification/editing of the Ten Commandment. But it is false that Jesus was offended at just that, he was offended over voiding of any part of the law

Here you engage in story telling and "making stuff up"

why do that?

IF Jesus had insisted that they enforce civil law penalties under the theocracy he would have had the adulteress stoned as they insisted. This is the very trap they wanted him to fall in -- and you have argued that He did fall into it in Mark 7 -- and obviously you are wrong.

In Mark 7 Christ is pointing out how serious the violation is - not that they should invoke civil laws of their theocracy - while not under a theocracy.

You are ignoring the details, the context and just looking for 'spin' as you JOIN the Jews in attacking Christ's Ten Commandments. Try truth.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[vooks]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
yet Christ was not at all pleased with even the most minor edit/modify of one of the Ten Commandments -

[FONT=&quot]Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When Christ speaks of one of the Ten Commandments He tells us that they are the “Word of God” – the “Commandment of God” and “Moses said”

[FONT=&quot]Notice that in thi[FONT=&quot]s case in Mark 7 the Jews [FONT=&quot]are "making stuff [FONT=&quot]up" in their [FONT=&quot]baptizing the cups and pots - regar[FONT=&quot]ding what you [FONT=&quot]"eat and [FONT=&quot]drink" - regar[FONT=&quot]ding food and drink - being con[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]taminated[/FONT] by sin - Christ in Mark 7 declares that to be [FONT=&quot]nonsense even before the cross.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]



Here you engage in story telling and "making stuff up"

why do that?

IF Jesus had insisted that they enforce civil law penalties under the theocracy he would have had the adulteress stoned as they insisted. This is the very trap they wanted him to fall in -- and you have argued that He did fall into it in Mark 7 -- and obviously you are wrong.

In Mark 7 Christ is pointing out how serious the violation is - not that they should invoke civil laws of their theocracy - while not under a theocracy.

You are ignoring the details, the context and just looking for 'spin' as you JOIN the Jews in attacking Christ's Ten Commandments. Try truth.

in Christ,

Bob

Why are you parading ignorance for all and sundry?
There is a clear COMMANDMENT in ' do not curse your parents' AND in 'honor your father and mother'. The former attracts death while the other carries a promise.

One of these is included in the ten, the other is not. BOTH are commandments blowing out of your ignorance the argument that commandments mean the ten and nothing but the ten.

Shadow chasers are a hopelessly ignorant bunch:laugh:

 

[BobRyan]

The point remains -- your attempt at vacuous rant is mere fluff.

If your only response is to demonstrate the truth my signature line... well then... next thread

 

[vooks]

No, brother vooks, the idea is given in Scripture, that it shall be a "City" "coming down from God out of Heaven":

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. - Revelation 21:2

But now they desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. - Hebrews 11:16

But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, - Hebrews 12:22

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. - Galatians 4:26​

The City of Heaven is clearly described in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and elsewhere. It is a literal tangible City, since the saints will have a "place" [John 14:1-3] therein, as well as in the New Earth.

Yes, God is indeed the Temple [never in question by myself, or to anyone capable of reading the texts], but so too His body, which will also live in country homes outside of the City, as in Isaiah, etc.

Ezekiel's Temple, speaks of the God's People, His Church. It is God who builds it, beginning with the Foundation Stone - Christ Jesus:

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. - 1 Peter 2:5

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. - 1 Corinthians 3:11

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; - Ephesians 2:20​

The final stones are almost ready, and then the end shall come.

God's promises never fail.

Again, see the true sacrifices here, based in the Lamb of God:

[1] - http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2225691&postcount=13
[2] - http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2225693&postcount=15​

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - 1 Corinthians 2:14​

Notice, to those that cannot see these things, it is because there is a vail over their eyes, having rejected God's Law, the transcript of His Character, even as it in the face of Jesus Christ:

But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ. - 2 Corinthians 3:14

But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. - 2 Corinthians 3:15

Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. - 2 Corinthians 3:16​

The Pharisees/Sadducees etc of old rejected Jesus Christ, while claiming to keep the Ten Commandments of God, but nullified them through their man-made traditions.

The Pharisees/Sadducees etc of today reject God's Holy Law, The Ten Commandments, while claiming to honour/follow Jesus Christ.

Same coin.

They mouth "Jesus", and "Lord, lord...", and think they shall enter Heaven:

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. - Luke 13:3

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. - Luke 13:5​

Two for a witness against all such, and a third:

And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: - Acts 14:15

Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. - Acts 14:16​

For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. - Exodus 20:11​

And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou [art] God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: - Acts 4:24​

And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: - Revelation 10:6

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, - Revelation 14:6

Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. - Revelation 14:7​

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: - Acts 17:30​

Look at this ignoramus prophesied of by Peter as both UNSTABLE and UNLEARNED.

There is no temple IN the city and no temple elsewhere.

And he never answered. Since New Jerusalem is a City without sun nor moon,and without a temple seeing God is its temple, what ELSE exists outside it to warrant a Temple? Will the temple be located in a place where the presence of God will not reach?:tonofbricks:

 

[vooks]

Jesus sitting/standing at the right hand of God and all aks is, is there a HOLIER place than that? The answer is NO!

The UNLEARNED and the UNSTABLE as usual ignore the question and hurl tons of garbage your way

Excellent! In order to be "sitting" at the "right hand of God", God the Father must then have ...? [Revelation 5:1,7; etc] Please think about that.

Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; Hebrews 8:1

[see also Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62, 16:19; Luke 20:42, 22:69; Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3,13, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22, Revelation 3:21; etc]​

A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. Hebrews 8:2

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. Hebrews 8:6​

Why accept one part and not the other in regards to the Heavenly ["true tabernacle"] Sanctuary?

And this is connected to:

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. Daniel 12:1

When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: - Luke 13:25​

To be sitting and 'seated' is not implying that Christ Jesus never gets up from the Throne. For here we see Jesus "standing", in the Ephesus Church:

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, Acts 7:55

And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Acts 7:56​

To be 'seated', means in authority. By the way, is Christ Jesus the Judge? What happens when the Judge is 'seated'?

Both, in Daniel and Revelation, Christ Jesus is seen moving from one location to another in the Heavenly:

Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; Revelation 2:1

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. Daniel 7:13​

The Throne of God is movable [see Ezekiel, etc]:

I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment [was] white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne [was like] the fiery flame, [and] his wheels [as] burning fire. Daniel 7:9

And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and [one] sat on the throne. Revelation 4:2​

Please consider these things. Jesus has dual functions, just as He is God/man, God/messenger, as he is King/Priest, Priest/High Priest, as He is Priest/Sacrifice, etc, etc.

To be "standing" is as Mediator/Advocate - Priest/HighPriest

To be "seated" is as Authority - King of Kingdom of Grace, on the "throne of Grace" [Hebrews 4:16], not yet on the Throne of Glory [Matthew 19:28, 25:31].

People that take the passages that Jesus is "seated" and take it to mean Jesus is eternally glued to the throne of Grace and cannot get up and move, have a great misunderstanding of how the Bible means to be so "seated".

 

[vooks]

Poor fickle apologists, UNSTABLE, UNLEARNED

Can you demonstrate brother vooks, from Scripture where it states that something needs to be 'repeated' [even 'verbatim', as some, though not all, would hold to] from the texts of Genesis to Malachi in the Texts of Matthew to Revelation to be valid, binding, etc? There is no such 'rule' in all of Scripture, but is indeed a man-made pharisaical tradition to negate God's own Commandments. Yet, did you not

Very simple.
Acts 15 Council was very clear on what was valid for a Gentile and what was not. So armed with the Acts 15 first Christian epistle and NT, I know very well what is expected of a Gentile and what is not.

On the other hand I would challenge the apologist to show me just one thing they do that was never mentioned in the NT.

The UNLEARNED can't prove that commandments is a term EXCLUSIVE to the Ten yet they rabidly believe it, while the rest are ordinances, statutes ......

The UNSTABLE believe moral laws are the Ten Commandments while the rest are ceremonial laws all this without proof

 

[vooks]

The UNSTABLE and UNLEARNED try as they may to support their faux-sabbath keeping arrive at this;

Timothy 6:1][/INDENT]
[04.] [Luke was with Paul on many occasions]

And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou [art] God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: [Acts 4:24]

But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. [Acts 13:14]

And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, [Ye] men [and] brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. [Acts 13:15]

Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with [his] hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience. [Acts 13:16]

And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath [the Gentiles asked to hear the message on Sabbath, the 7th day, for more than Jews kept the Holy Day of the LORD]. [Acts 13:42]

And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city [“Jews and Gentiles”] together to hear the word of God. [Acts 13:44]

And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: [Acts 14:15]

For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day [for there were many Strangers seeking God and kept Sabbath, but were not yet circumcised to become a full Jew, see Cornelius, etc, see Isaiah 56:6]. [Acts 15:21]

And on the sabbath we [We, being Paul and Luke [a converted gentile physician/historian]] went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made [Prayer being made on the Holy Sabbath out in nature]; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted [thither]. [Acts 16:13]

And Paul, as his manner was [just as Jesus, for his whole life, 33 ½ years], went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, [compare Luke 4:16] [Acts 17:2]

And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. [Paul kept Sabbath every week for 1 ½ years [78 est. Sabbaths], see Acts 18:11 in a house connected to the Synagogue, the next best thing after removing himself from the Synagogue, see Acts 18:7, see also John 16:2, but they continued to keep the 7th Day Sabbath of the 4th Commandment in homes, out in nature, etc.] [Acts 18:4]

For he spake in a certain place of the seventh [day] on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. [Hebrews 4:4]

And in this [place] again, If they shall enter into my rest. [Hebrews 4:5]

Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: [Hebrews 4:6]

Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. [Hebrews 4:7]

For if Jesus [Joshua] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. [Hebrews 4:8]

There remaineth [Apoleipo, (passive voice) to be left behind for others, remain unchanged, be reserved, in this case NOT meaning “abandoned”] therefore [ie, because of the already given argument and example of the wilderness in Hebrews 3-4, in that they (Israel; the first generation people) entered not into the promised land because of unbelief and through unbelief failed to keep the commandments of God] a rest [Sabbatismos, literally keeping Sabbath] to the people of God [ie. Christians, Spiritual Israel are to keep the 7th Day Sabbath, for as we enter into the rest given by Christ Jesus, we are then able to cease from our sins and works to obtain salvation, abide in Him, and we trust/rest in Him and obey Him when He asks us, "if ye love me keep my commandments" as is found in Exodus 20:6 and John 14:15]. [Hebrews 4:9]

For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his. [Hebrews 4:10]

Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. [Hebrews 4:11]​

...to be continued...

1. The early church especially Paul keeping sabbath.
Well, the church also kept other Jewish feasts and in any case, Paul became a Jew to the Jews and a Gentile to the Gentiles-1 Cor 9:20-21.
It is instructive to note that the early church ate fish yet our fickle apologist is probably a vegan after being threatened with hellfire for eating meat by Ellen White:laugh:

2. Sabbatismos of Hebrews 4
The context is VERY clear to all but the braindead; God's Rest not interrupting your work life every Saturday

3. Jesus kept it and we should follow him
He ate fish as well and kept ALL Jewish feasts. Keep all those and start eating fish you UNLEARNED hypocrite!:laugh:

Facts:
1. There is NO a sabbath commandment in the entire NT unlike the other 9
2. There is no sin of sabbath breaking in the entire NT unlike the innumerable sins of breaking the other 9
3. Sabbath and all Jewish feasts are shadows-Col 2:16, and regarding/not regarding any is TO THE LORD; a sabbath/Passover keeper and non-keeper are equals-Romans 14:6 :tonofbricks:

 

[JonC]

Much as we are to contend for our faith, supporting our faith using dishonesty is not the way to go. If your doctrine requires lies to prop it, perhaps it is time you discarded it

We understand things from our own tradition. This was the hardest thing for me to get over. When I tried to allow Scripture to dictate its meaning, I would often find myself carrying into my understanding what I had been previously taught. It is difficult, and I often fail, but at least I am aware when I revert back to my “tradition” dictating Scripture rather than Scripture dictating my understanding.

I say all of that to say this: there is no one so blind as an apologist. I don’t mean the biblical meaning of having an answer for our faith, but the more contemporary meaning of an intensively focused contention for our theology and ideologies. Many cannot see the forest for the trees. I don’t think they are “dishonest,” but they are ignorant. It is an ignorance that one either struggles against in order to understand the truth, or it is an ignorance towards which one remains unaware.

 

[lakeside]

In moral theology, ignorance is defined as a lack of knowledge that a person ought to have. Ignorance is distinguished from mere nescience, which is a lack of knowledge that a person has no need of. For example, a person who did not know the square root of 1429 would be ignorant of it if he were taking a math test, but he would be nescient of it if performing a task that didn't require the number.

Moral theology divides ignorance into a number of categories. The two I will consider here are invincible and vincible. Ignorance is invincible if a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence. Reasonable diligence, in turn, is that diligence that a conscientious person would display in seeking the correct answer to a question given (a) the gravity of the question and (b) his particular resources.

The gravity of a question is determined by how great a need the person has to know the answer. The answers to fundamental questions (how to save one's soul, how to preserve one's life) have grave weight. The answers to minor questions (the solution to a crossword puzzle) have light weight.

The particular resources a person has include (a) the ease with which he can obtain the information necessary to determine the answer and (b) the ease with which he can make an accurate evaluation of the evidence once it is in his possession. The graver the question and the greater the resources available, the more diligence is needed to qualify as reasonable. The lighter the question and the fewer the resources available, the less diligence is needed to qualify as reasonable.

Just as it is possible to show less than reasonable diligence, it is also possible to show more than reasonable diligence. Diligence can be supererogatory (and praiseworthy) if one shows more diligence than would be expected from an ordinary, conscientious person. Diligence can be excessive or scrupulous (and blameworthy) if someone spends so much time seeking the answer to a particular question that he fails to attend to other matters he should attend to, or if he refuses to come to a conclusion and continues seeking even when he has enough evidence.

Depending on its type and degree, ignorance may remove, diminish, leave unaffected, or even increase one's culpability for a materially sinful act (cf. CCC 1735, 1746, 1859). Conversely, it may have the same effects on one's imputability for a materially righteous act. Here we will deal only with the effects of ignorance on one's culpability for sin,

Part 2 to follow-

 

[lakeside]

Part 2 on ignorance

Invincible ignorance removes one's culpability for a materially sinful act, whether one of omission or commission (CCC 1793). Vincible ignorance may variously affect one's culpability for a sinful act, depending on the kind of vincibility. If some, but insufficient, diligence was shown toward finding the answer, the ignorance is termed merely vincible. If little or no diligence was shown, the ignorance is termed crass or supine. If one deliberately fostered the ignorance then it is termed affected or studied.

If vincible ignorance is merely vincible, crass, or supine, it diminishes culpability for the sinful act relative to the degree of diligence that was shown. If a vincibly ignorant person showed almost reasonable diligence, most of his imputability for the sin could be removed. If he was crassly ignorant, having shown little or no diligence compared to what was reasonable, little or none of his imputability would be removed.

Affected or studied ignorance can increase culpability for a sin, especially if it displays hardness of heart, whereby one would commit the sin irrespective of any law that might exist concerning it. Such an attitude shows contempt for moral law and so increases culpability (cf. CCC 1859).

Potentially, ignorance can diminish or remove imputability for any kind of sin. However, no one is presumed to be ignorant of the principles of moral law since these are written on the heart of every man (CCC 1860). It is possible for a person to be invincibly ignorant that an act is required by natural law. This may be true if the act involves a point that is not obvious, if the person is not mentally quick enough to discern the application of natural law to the case, or if he has been raised to strongly believe in a system that denies the point of natural law. However, such ignorance must be proven, not presumed.

In practical use, the terms vincible and invincible may pose problems for those unfamiliar with Catholic moral terminology. For many, vincible is a wholly unfamiliar term and invincible can suggest that which can never be overcome, no matter how much diligence is shown. Because of these difficulties, it may be advisable in practice to speak of innocent (invincible) and culpable (vincible) ignorance when addressing such people.

However, other individuals (notably radical traditionalists and Feeneyites) may view one as suspect if one substitutes the innocent/culpable ignorance terminology. When addressing such individuals, the standard terminology should be used.

A special case is the application of vincible and invincible ignorance to salvation. Failure to embrace the Christian faith (infidelity), total repudiation of the Christian faith (apostasy), and the post-baptismal obstinate denial or willful doubt of particular teachings of the Catholic faith (heresy) are objectively grave sins against the virtue of faith. Like any other grave sins, if they are committed with adequate knowledge and deliberate consent, they become mortal sins and will deprive one of salvation.

Also like any other grave sins, their imputability can be removed, diminished, unaffected, or increased by the varying types of ignorance. Invincible ignorance removes culpability for the sins against faith, merely vincible ignorance diminishes culpability (sometimes to the point of being venial), crass or supine ignorance will affect culpability for them little or not at all, and hard hearted, affected ignorance will increase culpability for them.

For those who have had their culpability for sins against faith removed or diminished to the point of veniality, they are not mortal sins and thus will not of themselves deprive one of heaven. A person who is ignorant of the gospel of Christ through no fault of his own (or, by extension, through his merely venial fault) can be saved—if he otherwise does what is required for salvation, according to the level of opportunity, enlightenment, and grace God gives him (CCC 847, 1260).

In such cases, people are not saved apart from the true Church. Though they are not "fully incorporated" into the mystical Body of Christ, they are "joined" or "related" to the Church Vatican II's language) by the elements of saving grace God has given them. One might thus speak of them as having been "partially incorporated," though not obtaining membership in the proper sense (Pius XII, Mysitici Corporis 22).

Unfortunately, there are a number of erroneous views regarding salvation and invincible ignorance that need to be pointed out. First, the fact that someone is invincibly ignorant of the true faith is not a ticket to heaven. A person who is not culpable for sins against faith may still be culpable for other mortal sins—the same ones people of faith can commit—and may be damned on that account.

Second, the fact that someone is invincibly ignorant does not mean that they should not be evangelized. Even if they are not culpable for sins against faith, the fact they are ignorant of the true religion and do not have access to the sacraments means that they are more likely to commit mortal sin and thus more likely to be damned. Christ did not leave us the option of only evangelizing some peoples (Mark 16:15) or of only teaching them some doctrines (Matt. 28:20). Consequently, it is a false understanding of evangelism or a false spirit of ecumenism that would suggest that classes of people can be left in total or partial ignorance of the true faith on the pretext that they are invincibly ignorant and should not be disturbed.

Third, those who have accepted the Catholic faith are in a special position concerning innocent ignorance. Vatican I taught that God gives special grace to those who have embraced the true faith so that they may persevere in it, "not deserting if he [God] be not deserted." As a result of this special grace, "those who have received the faith under the teaching authority of the Church can never have a just reason to change this same faith or to reject it" (Dei Filius 3; ND 124, D 1794, DS 3014). This applies, of course, to those who have genuinely accepted the Catholic faith under the influence of the Magisterium, not those who—though baptized or received into the Church—never actually accepted the Catholic faith due to absent or grossly defective catechesis.

Fourth, some radical traditionalists, those known as Feeneyites, assert that while invincible ignorance might excuse sins against faith, one would not thereby be excused from the necessity of baptism for salvation. This is false, since invincible ignorance excuses from acts of omission (such as failure to be baptized) as well as acts of commission. If one is invincibly ignorant of the requirement of baptism but would seek baptism if one knew it was required, then the lack of baptism will not be held against one. This is expressly taught by the Church (CCC 1260). One would thus be recognized as having baptism of desire, at least implicitly.

Fifth, Feeneyites sometimes assert that there are no individuals who are invincibly ignorant of the necessities of baptism and embracing the Catholic faith. This position reflects a misunderstanding concerning what constitutes reasonable deliberation for many in the non-Catholic world. If someone has never heard of the Christian faith, or if he has been taught all his life that the Catholic Church is evil, then it could well be that he would not discover the truth of the Christian faith or the Catholic Church merely by exercising reasonable diligence in weighing the various religious options presented to him.

In many parts of the world it is easy for people to display reasonable but not supererogatory diligence and be invincibly ignorant concerning the Christian faith in general or the Catholic Church in particular. The assertion that there are no invincibly ignorant people also is manifestly contrary to the teaching of the Church, which acknowledges that there are "righteous people in all religions" (CCC 2569).

 

[JonC]

lakeside....will you please do us a favor and just post a link to the Catholic Apologetic site you are using. It saves space and helps the "conversation" continue in a less disruptive manner.....at least for those easily distracted...like me. :wavey:

 

[lakeside]

JonC, gladly, I copied that post from Jim Adkins, another former Baptist writing that post for the "Catholic Answers " site. Hope you click to that site to read and digest it all. praying that you really read from Catholic apologist about Catholicism instead of non-Catholic apologist that are not Catholic, same goes for any other non-Catholics reading this.

 

[JonC]

JonC, gladly, I copied that post from Jim Adkins, another former Baptist writing that post for the "Catholic Answers " site. Hope you click to that site to read and digest it all. praying that you really read from Catholic apologist about Catholicism instead of non-Catholic apologist that are not Catholic, same goes for any other non-Catholics reading this.

I always do. You suggested another that had what you considered the correct translation of Scripture, but it was an email. The name led me to a Catholic Apologetic site (which I did read much of) but I never found a reference to the translation you were indicating. Do you have a preferred Catholic translation? I do see the NSRV Catholic edition available online, but I am not certain that you believe it acceptable. If we end up looking at Scripture it is, IMHO, best that we begin with the same translation if at all possible and I am more than willing to begin with yours.

 

[vooks]

Nothing is as confounding as cultists vigorously disputing their goddess:laugh:
Look at how BobRyan handles this question;

Originally Posted by vooks
Revelation 20 judgements and books opened and Daniel 7 books. Are they referring to the same event?

You answered

Not the same event - in Dan 7 it is before the 2nd coming.

In Rev 20 at the end of the chapter - it is after the Rev 19 second coming, and after the Rev 20 millennium.

Almost every Evangelical that accepts the pre-mill second coming knows this to be true.

Hard to find one that does not know it.

in Christ,

Bob

But Ellen White thinks differently

The books of record in heaven, in which the names and the deeds of men are registered, are to determine the decisions of the judgment. Says the prophet Daniel: "The judgment was set, and the books were opened." The revelator, describing the same scene, adds: "Another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Revelation 20:12.

Great Controversy Page 481

What do I do? Whom do I correct? One is already in hell and the other is in danger of the same. I will help the living one

 

[vooks]

The UNLEARNED and the UNSTABLE.
Question was, what verse shows sin transfer to the priest and then to the sanctuary by sprinkling of blood?

Here we are met with utterly childish rants and irrelevant scriptures that don't even attempt to answer this at all. This is not SDA gutters, here brains are fully engaged. Try and see if you can make sense from this glib

By contrast - this is the subject of the actual thread --

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

Originally Posted by BobRyan
The question of sin transfer -- via substitutionary atonement during the year and final atonement at the end of the year?

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

We already did that.

[FONT=&quot]In Lev 5:4-6[/FONT][FONT=&quot] we see that the sinner must confess his sin as part of this act of seeking forgiveness.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In Lev 10:16-18 we see that sin is transferred in the daily as part of the sin offering -- from the people to the tent of meeting by the act of the Priests.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Lev 10[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But Moses searched carefully for the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it had been burned up! So he was angry with Aaron’s surviving sons Eleazar and Ithamar, saying,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“Why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place[/FONT][FONT=&quot]? For it is most holy, and He gave it to you to bear away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lord[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 18 Behold, since its blood had not been brought inside, into the sanctuary, you should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, just as I commanded.”[/FONT]





[FONT=&quot]==========================================
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So the question is how does eating the meat of the sin offering or sprinkling the blood transfer sin unless sin had first been transferred as part of that act of confession in Lev 5.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A possible resolution --[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In Lev 4:15, 8:14, 18 Num 8:12[/FONT][FONT=&quot] we see that they were to lay their hands on the head of the sin offering.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In Lev 16:21 we see a case of laying hands on the head of the scapegoat and confessing sins.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
======================================
Quote:
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]RC Sproul

[/FONT][/FONT]Finally, the repeated sins of priests and people alike could build up to the point where not only the tabernacle but even the throne room of the Lord — the Most Holy Place or Holy of Holies — would also be contaminated. The Day of Atonement was designed to deal with all these realities.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devoti...day-atonement/[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

There is not a single scripture that teaches sin transfer to the sanctuary, transfer of repented and forgiven sins to the sanctuary by sprinkling of blood.

Blood cleanses, it NEVER defiles.....unless you have thawed your brains and are a dyed-in-the-wool Ellen White worshiper

 

[vooks]

READ the points in the posts - then we can talk - so far you seem to be content to avoid the Bible at all costs.

That approach you use - is from the dark-ages handbook of Bible-avoidance.

More Bible -- as you seem content to flee from it.

[FONT=&quot]In Lev 5:4-6[/FONT][FONT=&quot] we see that the sinner must confess his sin as part of this act of seeking forgiveness.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In Lev 10:16-18 we see that sin is transferred in the daily as part of the sin offering -- from the people to the tent of meeting by the act of the Priests.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Lev 10[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But Moses searched carefully for the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it had been burned up! So he was angry with Aaron’s surviving sons Eleazar and Ithamar, saying,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“Why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place[/FONT][FONT=&quot]? For it is most holy, and He gave it to you to bear away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lord[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 18 Behold, since its blood had not been brought inside, into the sanctuary, you should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, just as I commanded.”[/FONT]

BobRyan, seems you never thawed your brains after all. You had to have it first to thaw it.

Which part of Leviticus 10 says SIN IS TRANSFERRED IN THE DAILY
We have either blood sprinkled in the sanctuary or sacrifice eaten in the sanctuary as part of a sin offering rite. Question is, which of these transfer sin to the sanctuary and where is it written that either or both of them transfer sin in the sanctuary?

What we know is , without either of them, atonement is incomplete but where is it written that they transfer sins?


The UNLEARNED and the UNSTABLE, Jesus loves you and he says
James 1:5 New King James Version (NKJV)
5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

You need your brains restored first and then a double portion of wisdom sir/madam