Announcement

Collapse

MESSAGE TO ALL USERS

- You are responsible to know the rules. https://carm.org/forum-rules
- Log in using https://forums.carm.org, not http. Use https not http
- We are working/modifying super membership stuff (http://carm.org/super-members)
- 12/27/2019 As most of you are aware, the carm forums crashed a few weeks ago. These boards are their replacement. They are formatted the same as the old ones. All your previous posts and reputation points are gone since we are on a completely new server. My apologies for the inconvenience.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Matt Slick
Founder and President of CARM.org
See more
See less

the death of Jesus is NOT sufficient for the forgiveness of sins

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • the death of Jesus is NOT sufficient for the forgiveness of sins



    Originally posted by utilyan View Post

    "the rcc does not teach that the death of Jesus is sufficient for the forgiveness of sins. "

    AMEN! SCRIPTURE TEACHES THE SAME!
    Important detail Protestants throw a way the life and Resurrection. You folks act like Jesus is dead, not running his church.

    Scripture says without the Resurrection the death on the cross your FAITH is WORTHLESS, YOU are still in your sins.

    1 Corinthians 15

    12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.


    If you think everything got handled at the cross? Scripture says YOUR FAITH IS WORTHLESS.
    more confusion from the minds of Catholics:

    The resurrection is the Proof that Jesus is who He said He is, and that all the sins of every believer were paid on the Cross

  • #2
    Originally posted by tester View Post


    more confusion from the minds of Catholics:

    The resurrection is the Proof that Jesus is who He said He is, and that all the sins of every believer were paid on the Cross
    Originally posted by Originally posted by [B
    utilyan[/B] View Post]... If you think everything got handled at the cross? Scripture says YOUR FAITH IS WORTHLESS. ...
    utilyan speaks of faith in terms of submission to RCC and its CCC?
    Last edited by PeanutGallery; 01-12-2020, 02:41 PM.
    1Pet 1:18,19 ... redeemed with ... the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

    Comment


    • Balshan
      Balshan commented
      Editing a comment
      so true.

  • #3
    Originally posted by tester View Post
    ...

    The resurrection is the Proof that Jesus is who He said He is, and that all the sins of every believer were paid on the Cross
    Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world, believer and non-believer; God saves those who believe.

    1Cor 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
    1Pet 1:18,19 ... redeemed with ... the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

    Comment


    • #4
      Originally posted by tester View Post


      more confusion from the minds of Catholics:

      The resurrection is the Proof that Jesus is who He said He is, and that all the sins of every believer were paid on the Cross
      Originally posted by utilyan View Post


      "the rcc does not teach that the death of Jesus is sufficient for the forgiveness of sins. "
      Of course not, the rcc thinks its mass is propitiatory, as is penance and purgatory. Popes save, and wafers are god. Yep, its a real hoot in the rcc
      Rom 5:1
      5 Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, NASB

      Rom 5:6
      6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. NASB

      Rom 5:8
      8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. NASB

      Rom 5:10
      10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. NASB

      Comment


      • #5
        Originally posted by tester View Post


        more confusion from the minds of Catholics:

        The resurrection is the Proof that Jesus is who He said He is, and that all the sins of every believer were paid on the Cross
        Does not say we are PROOF by Resurrection. We are saved by his life. His death is not sufficient for SALVATION, PERIOD.

        Romans 5

        10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

        Comment


        • #6
          Originally posted by utilyan View Post

          Does not say we are PROOF by Resurrection. We are saved by his life. His death is not sufficient for SALVATION, PERIOD.

          Romans 5

          10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
          Is that why your church keeps Him on the cross? To remind you of His insufficiency?
          Rom 5:1
          5 Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, NASB

          Rom 5:6
          6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. NASB

          Rom 5:8
          8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. NASB

          Rom 5:10
          10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. NASB

          Comment


          • #7
            Originally posted by tester View Post
            more confusion from the minds of Catholics:

            The resurrection is the Proof that Jesus is who He said He is, and that all the sins of every believer were paid on the Cross
            Originally posted by utilyan View Post
            Does not say we are PROOF by Resurrection. We are saved by his life. His death is not sufficient for SALVATION, PERIOD.

            Romans 5

            10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
            what is that supposed to mean? where does tester's post say anything about 'we are proof ' of anything? proof of what?

            yes, His life, His death and rising again from the grave. If He'd stayed dead, He'd have been no different than any other man who died.

            Comment


            • #8
              Originally posted by mica View Post

              what is that supposed to mean? where does tester's post say anything about 'we are proof ' of anything? proof of what?

              yes, His life, His death and rising again from the grave. If He'd stayed dead, He'd have been no different than any other man who died.
              The way our posts are comprehended by RCs demonstates why they have trouble with scripture.

              Comment


              • #9
                Originally posted by tester View Post


                more confusion from the minds of Catholics:

                The resurrection is the Proof that Jesus is who He said He is, and that all the sins of every believer were paid on the Cross
                You Protestants and your darn debits and credits. As if redemption is nothing more than some fiscal transaction. As if a vengeful God sits up in heaven waiting to smite us---until His Son appeases His wrath through a horrible death.

                This isn't to say that Jesus does not "pay the debt" nor is it to say that Jesus death does not satisfy God's "wrath." It is to suggest that we might want to rethink what is meant by "debt" and "wrath."

                The "wrath" of God is not God smiting us and condemning us because of our sins. The punishment of sin happens because of the very nature of sin itself. God does not need to condemn us, we stand condemned of our own accord.

                We need only look to our own society today for an example. People en-mass have rejected Biblical teaching on human sexuality and the sanctity of innocent human life. What is this leading to? It is ultimately leading to a more violent society. What it means to be a family has been under attack since the 60's--and we see the fruits of this all around us--and those fruits are nothing good. The "wrath" of God here---isn't God sending plaques on us in punishment---but more the consequences of trying to overturn the created order. Society self destructs. God does not need to punish us, we do it ourselves by the rejection of His Word. Hell is not God's creation. We create our own Hell through sin.

                Redemption is more than God making a fiscal transaction also. The death of Christ on the cross consummates the union between divinity and humanity perfectly; a union that began in the first moment of the conception of Jesus. God enters fully into the human condition---a condition caused by sin through his life and death. God comes to where we are---but through obedience. It isn't that Christ does not pay the debt--it is that this "debt" is not just some fiscal transaction. The debt is paid through the uniting of the human and divine natures in the one divine person of Jesus Christ. Humanity can never be separated from God again because it has been joined to divinity in Jesus Christ. This is the objective nature of redemption.

                Yes, the sins of very believer were "paid" on the cross. But the believer must come to the cross (so to speak) and draw from it the healing waters that overflow from it. In other words---Christ did "pay" the "debt" but we must actively come to him and draw the graces of salvation. This is the subjective side of redemption. When we talk about Christ's victory, we are talking about the objective nature of redemption--not necessarily the subjective nature.

                I would also say that when Christ said "It is finished" on the cross, he was not referring to the work of redemption. (Yes, I know---I am an evil Catholic for saying that. What do you expect from some Mary worshiping, statue worshiping idolater? I didn't name myself Romishpopishpapist for nothing!) He could not have been referring to that since the Resurrection and decent of the Holy Spirit had not yet happened. And even when he did rise and the Spirit descended, the work of redemption is not yet finished. We are still waiting for Christ to come again and complete the work of redemption and fully inaugurate His Kingdom. When Christ said "It is finished" he was referring to his earthly work and life--not the work of redemption. I would also add that Christ still suffers and dies; he does so vicariously through his body--the Church. Thus "it is finished" cannot possibly refer to the work of redemption or even the suffering and death of Christ. Granted Christ no longer suffers and dies as he is the Head of the Body, but the Body suffers and dies--which means Christ suffers and dies through his union with the Body--for what happens in the body happens in the head.
                Last edited by Romishpopishpapist; 01-12-2020, 10:55 PM.

                Comment


                • #10
                  Originally posted by Romishpopishpapist View Post

                  You Protestants and your darn debits and credits. As if redemption is nothing more than some fiscal transaction. As if a vengeful God sits up in heaven waiting to smite us---until His Son appeases His wrath through a horrible death.

                  This isn't to say that Jesus does not "pay the debt" nor is it to say that Jesus death does not satisfy God's "wrath." It is to suggest that we might want to rethink what is meant by "debt" and "wrath."

                  The "wrath" of God is not God smiting us and condemning us because of our sins. The punishment of sin happens because of the very nature of sin itself. God does not need to condemn us, we stand condemned of our own accord.

                  We need only look to our own society today for an example. People en-mass have rejected Biblical teaching on human sexuality and the sanctity of innocent human life. What is this leading to? It is ultimately leading to a more violent society. What it means to be a family has been under attack since the 60's--and we see the fruits of this all around us--and those fruits are nothing good. The "wrath" of God here---isn't God sending plaques on us in punishment---but more the consequences of trying to overturn the created order. Society self destructs. God does not need to punish us, we do it ourselves by the rejection of His Word. Hell is not God's creation. We create our own Hell through sin.

                  Redemption is more than God making a fiscal transaction also. The death of Christ on the cross consummates the union between divinity and humanity perfectly; a union that began in the first moment of the conception of Jesus. God enters fully into the human condition---a condition caused by sin through his life and death. God comes to where we are---but through obedience. It isn't that Christ does not pay the debt--it is that this "debt" is not just some fiscal transaction. The debt is paid through the uniting of the human and divine natures in the one divine person of Jesus Christ. Humanity can never be separated from God again because it has been joined to divinity in Jesus Christ. This is the objective nature of redemption.

                  Yes, the sins of very believer were "paid" on the cross. But the believer must come to the cross (so to speak) and draw from it the healing waters that overflow from it. In other words---Christ did "pay" the "debt" but we must actively come to him and draw the graces of salvation. This is the subjective side of redemption. When we talk about Christ's victory, we are talking about the objective nature of redemption--not necessarily the subjective nature.

                  I would also say that when Christ said "It is finished" on the cross, he was not referring to the work of redemption. (Yes, I know---I am an evil Catholic for saying that. What do you expect from some Mary worshiping, statue worshiping idolater? I didn't name myself Romishpopishpapist for nothing!) He could not have been referring to that since the Resurrection and decent of the Holy Spirit had not yet happened. And even when he did rise and the Spirit descended, the work of redemption is not yet finished. We are still waiting for Christ to come again and complete the work of redemption and fully inaugurate His Kingdom. When Christ said "It is finished" he was referring to his earthly work and life--not the work of redemption. I would also add that Christ still suffers and dies; he does so vicariously through his body--the Church. Thus "it is finished" cannot possibly refer to the work of redemption or even the suffering and death of Christ. Granted Christ no longer suffers and dies as he is the Head of the Body, but the Body suffers and dies--which means Christ suffers and dies through his union with the Body--for what happens in the body happens in the head.
                  Really debits and credits that is the RC system do you do enough good works to balance out the bad works. The nuns told us it was like balance scales and you wanted the good side to be heavier. I like Bonnie's post about this an Jesus is the good weight or words to have effect.

                  To know the scriptural proof is not a debit and credit system, it is the safeguard against false teachings. By the way my God is not vengeful at all, He is loving. It is the RC God who is vengeful for who else would send babies as we were taught not an all loving God. Yes I know not doctrine, but it was taught as doctrine. I love the way the RC can change its teachings, by saying but it wasn't doctrine. It is a vengeful God that judges you on whether your deeds are good enough and if they are not its hell or purgatory. No it is the RC who promote a vengeful God by encouraging things like the crusades and the inquisitions.
                  Last edited by Balshan; 01-12-2020, 11:17 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    Originally posted by Balshan View Post

                    Really debits and credits that is the RC system do you do enough good works to balance out the bad works. The nuns told us it was like balance scales and you wanted the good side to be heavier. I like Bonnie's post about this an Jesus is the good weight or words to have effect.
                    So let me make sure I understand what you are saying: you are basing your views on Catholicism based on what nuns taught you in your grade school/high school theology classes? Isn't that sort of like basing your views of history on what you were taught by your history teachers--namely that Columbus proved the world was round--because people thought the earth was flat? Here is another great one from history I learned: George Washington was so honest he could not tell a lie--he chopped down the cherry tree. Except that never happened. Here is another great one from history: George Washington was the first president of America. Nope.

                    Most people continue their education beyond high school in history, science, etc, but they don't do so in theology. So please-----I don't want to hear what nuns taught you in high school--unless you want to couple that with what your history teachers taught you about history.

                    To know the scriptural proof is not a debit and credit system, it is the safeguard against false teachings.
                    Yes--assuming you understand correctly what the Scripture is teaching. I do not mean to suggest that Scripture is unintelligible or that we cannot get a basic understanding. I do mean to suggest that we do get it wrong as individuals sometimes.

                    By the way my God is not vengeful at all, He is loving.
                    Sir, the poster is the one who used the language of "debts" being "paid." Protestants are the ones who say "He paid the price." And yes--Jesus did. But understanding redemption in those terms---might be helpful for a 10 year old-----but I think we need to move beyond that as we mature and gain a deeper understanding of what redemption really is.

                    It is the RC God who is vengeful for who else would send babies as we were taught not an all loving God. Yes I know not doctrine, but it was taught as doctrine.
                    Yes--the way our history teachers presented it as truth that Columbus set out to prove the Earth was round, or that Paul Revere road through on horse back shouting "The British are coming." Again sir, the nuns were taking heady concepts and dumbing them down. And you even admit that Limbo is not doctrine--at least you know that!

                    Do you even know or understand the real theology of Limbo or just what well intentioned nuns taught you?

                    I love the way the RC can change its teachings, by saying but it wasn't doctrine.
                    If it wasn't doctrine---nothing is changing. Limbo was just a theological fad. Theology is like everything else---fads come in and out of fashion. But before you criticize Limbo, maybe I ought to explain it so you at least know what you are criticizing.

                    Limbo was actually a theological theory that highlighted the MERCY of God over and against his vengeance. You see--when we are redeemed (justified) we are given SUPERNATURAL life. In other words--our humanity is elevated when justified--God grants us SUPERNATURAL happiness. We possess a state of happiness that is beyond the power of our natures. Baptism (if you believe the Scriptures) is a necessary component of salvation. Infants who die without being baptized--then----cannot be saved. But they are guilty of no personal sin. It does not seem just that an all loving God could send an infant to Hell for sins they never committed. Yet at the same time does not seem just that an infant can be saved when God so clearly said that Baptism is necessary for salvation. God cannot contradict Himself. Limbo was a state of natural happiness. Those in Limbo did not suffer. They were as happy---as they could NATURALLY be, as happy as their human natures could allow them to be. Hence, God in his mercy neither condemned the infant to an eternity of Hell, yet was consistent with what he told us in Scripture. Limbo, in other words was a compromise between justice and mercy--and I think a darn fine one actually.

                    Now---the belief in LIMBO has fallen out of fashion and those who die without baptism are just commended to the love and mercy of God--and we have great hope in their salvation. But--the belief is still considered orthodox--that is--even though no longer in fashion, theologians are free to defend the view. I personally do not believe in LIMBO--though as I indicated above, I respect the view but do not myself hold it. I believe--that the God revealed on the cross is bigger than that and better than that.

                    It is a vengeful God that judges you on whether your deeds are good enough and if they are not its hell or purgatory. No it is the RC who promote a vengeful God by encouraging things like the crusades and the inquisitions.
                    Again sir, this is a childish understanding of the Catholic view of good works, purgatory, Hell etc. It is fine if you are 10 years old. Not to toot my own horn but I was taught similar things. I am an adult now and I no longer need these childish concepts to understand my Faith.

                    And what about the Crusades? The Crusades were defensive in nature. The Muslims were invading and attacking. I grant the crusaders weren't perfect--but the intention of the Crusades was to liberate the holy land. Is there something wrong in principle with the concept of wanting to defend your lands and churches? You mean to tell me Protestants would just allow a foreign aggressor to take their lands without defending them? Is your position that all war is morally unjustifiable; that our Christian Faith demands we be pacifists? As for the Inquisition---which one are you talking about? The Inquisition wasn't this all-powerful monolithic thing---despite what the Monty Python skits or History of the World comedy lead you to believe. Whatever abuses may have happened, particularly in the Spanish Inquisition---which the Spanish government controlled, the pope had little control over it, the intent of the Inquisition was to root out heresy. Is there something wrong in principle with wanting to root out and find those seeking to undermine, twist and distort God's truth?
                    Last edited by Romishpopishpapist; 01-13-2020, 12:36 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      Originally posted by Romishpopishpapist View Post
                      ...
                      I would also add that Christ still suffers and dies; ... Granted Christ no longer suffers and dies as he is the Head of the Body, but the Body suffers and dies--which means Christ suffers and dies through his union with the Body--for what happens in the body happens in the head.
                      Are you stating Christ's death and suffering is not finished, and the RCC must continue the suffering and dying?


                      1Pet 1:18,19 ... redeemed with ... the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Originally posted by PeanutGallery View Post
                        Are you stating Christ's death and suffering is not finished, and the RCC must continue the suffering and dying?

                        Who said anything about the RCC in this case?

                        This is not rocket science. Follow the bouncing ball:

                        If it is true that the Church (however YOU understand the Church to be) is the Body of Christ, if it is further true that Jesus is the head of the Church, and if it is true that the Church and head are united, it logically follows that Christ suffers and dies vicariously--that is----through the members of the Church who suffer and die--because of their union with Christ their head.

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by Romishpopishpapist View Post

                          So let me make sure I understand what you are saying: you are basing your views on Catholicism based on what nuns taught you in your grade school/high school theology classes? Isn't that sort of like basing your views of history on what you were taught by your history teachers--namely that Columbus proved the world was round--because people thought the earth was flat? Here is another great one from history I learned: George Washington was so honest he could not tell a lie--he chopped down the cherry tree. Except that never happened. Here is another great one from history: George Washington was the first president of America. Nope.

                          Most people continue their education beyond high school in history, science, etc, but they don't do so in theology. So please-----I don't want to hear what nuns taught you in high school--unless you want to couple that with what your history teachers taught you about history.



                          Yes--assuming you understand correctly what the Scripture is teaching. I do not mean to suggest that Scripture is unintelligible or that we cannot get a basic understanding. I do mean to suggest that we do get it wrong as individuals sometimes.



                          Sir, the poster is the one who used the language of "debts" being "paid." Protestants are the ones who say "He paid the price." And yes--Jesus did. But understanding redemption in those terms---might be helpful for a 10 year old-----but I think we need to move beyond that as we mature and gain a deeper understanding of what redemption really is.



                          Yes--the way our history teachers presented it as truth that Columbus set out to prove the Earth was round, or that Paul Revere road through on horse back shouting "The British are coming." Again sir, the nuns were taking heady concepts and dumbing them down. And you even admit that Limbo is not doctrine--at least you know that!

                          Do you even know or understand the real theology of Limbo or just what well intentioned nuns taught you?



                          If it wasn't doctrine---nothing is changing. Limbo was just a theological fad. Theology is like everything else---fads come in and out of fashion. But before you criticize Limbo, maybe I ought to explain it so you at least know what you are criticizing.

                          Limbo was actually a theological theory that highlighted the MERCY of God over and against his vengeance. You see--when we are redeemed (justified) we are given SUPERNATURAL life. In other words--our humanity is elevated when justified--God grants us SUPERNATURAL happiness. We possess a state of happiness that is beyond the power of our natures. Baptism (if you believe the Scriptures) is a necessary component of salvation. Infants who die without being baptized--then----cannot be saved. But they are guilty of no personal sin. It does not seem just that an all loving God could send an infant to Hell for sins they never committed. Yet at the same time does not seem just that an infant can be saved when God so clearly said that Baptism is necessary for salvation. God cannot contradict Himself. Limbo was a state of natural happiness. Those in Limbo did not suffer. They were as happy---as they could NATURALLY be, as happy as their human natures could allow them to be. Hence, God in his mercy neither condemned the infant to an eternity of Hell, yet was consistent with what he told us in Scripture. Limbo, in other words was a compromise between justice and mercy--and I think a darn fine one actually.

                          Now---the belief in LIMBO has fallen out of fashion and those who die without baptism are just commended to the love and mercy of God--and we have great hope in their salvation. But--the belief is still considered orthodox--that is--even though no longer in fashion, theologians are free to defend the view. I personally do not believe in LIMBO--though as I indicated above, I respect the view but do not myself hold it. I believe--that the God revealed on the cross is bigger than that and better than that.



                          Again sir, this is a childish understanding of the Catholic view of good works, purgatory, Hell etc. It is fine if you are 10 years old. Not to toot my own horn but I was taught similar things. I am an adult now and I no longer need these childish concepts to understand my Faith.

                          And what about the Crusades? The Crusades were defensive in nature. The Muslims were invading and attacking. I grant the crusaders weren't perfect--but the intention of the Crusades was to liberate the holy land. Is there something wrong in principle with the concept of wanting to defend your lands and churches? You mean to tell me Protestants would just allow a foreign aggressor to take their lands without defending them? Is your position that all war is morally unjustifiable; that our Christian Faith demands we be pacifists? As for the Inquisition---which one are you talking about? The Inquisition wasn't this all-powerful monolithic thing---despite what the Monty Python skits or History of the World comedy lead you to believe. Whatever abuses may have happened, particularly in the Spanish Inquisition---which the Spanish government controlled, the pope had little control over it, the intent of the Inquisition was to root out heresy. Is there something wrong in principle with wanting to root out and find those seeking to undermine, twist and distort God's truth?
                          RCs are so arrogant. But if anyone has a debit/credit system it is the RCC. As usual the RCs justify all the evil it has done in the past and what is amazing I found out the history I was taught at school was false. I had a lot of research to do after the false teaching of the RCC and its schools. The teaching was dishonest and bias.

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            Originally posted by Romishpopishpapist View Post

                            Who said anything about the RCC in this case?

                            This is not rocket science. Follow the bouncing ball:

                            If it is true that the Church (however YOU understand the Church to be) is the Body of Christ, if it is further true that Jesus is the head of the Church, and if it is true that the Church and head are united, it logically follows that Christ suffers and dies vicariously--that is----through the members of the Church who suffer and die--because of their union with Christ their head.
                            Yep the true church has nothing to do with the evil institution and to distinguish between them your institution is the RCC. Full of false teachings that come from the evil institution.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X