Roman Catholics Believe in 'Plenary Indulgences,' but . . .

[shnarkle]

Then why do we need to worry about false prophets?

You just answered your own question. The bible points out that it isn't possible for the elect to be deceived, yet we also see claims to be alert for false prophets. Are those warnings directed at the elect? I don't see anyone making that claim. When one sees an organization engaging in deception, it stands to reason those are not the elect of God.

No one is more deceived than the father of lies, Satan himself. Those who practice deception are no different.

 

[shnarkle]

Paul is talking about the initial Grace of justification which comes by Grace through Faith alone.

Agree, and yet he doesn't stop there, but continues on to contrast that with "works".

what happens as a Christian lives that life of Grace through Faith?

A more accurate way would be to ask what happens as the new creation lives that life of grace through faith. I make this point to spotlight that God's chosen are not known by these titles to begin with, but by the fruit they produce.

The Christian produces works in Grace--and because those works are products of Grace, they are saving.

The new creation does not produce works. The new creation produces "fruit", but the fruit is not saving, nor does it save anyone. It is more accurately referred to as fruit because it is through this systemic process that fruit is produced towards righteousness, and only those who have been saved can produce righteousness.

Even so, they are not the origin or the means by which this righteousness is produced. The new creation is the door to the automobile manufacturing plant from which the car emerges. They are the budbreak from which the fruit emerges.

 

[Bonnie]

Are you a goat or something?

Noooooo!

There is no plus, Bonnie. Why do you Protestants insist on turning this into an arithmetical issue? Works no more "add" anything than the Son "adds" to the Father's divinity.

Yes, they do, since Paul specifically states "and NOT by works." Neither works of the Law or works done in righteousness save us--it is God alone Who saves us by grace through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Why do I have to show anything from the Bible in the first place? The Church testifies to this.

The church is wrong. But for something to be taught as doctrine, it needs to be in the Bible, either explicitly or implicitly. The concept needs to be there. So, where did any of the Apostles teach about indulgences? The 4 Marian Dogmas? Did Jesus? What did Jesus tell the woman in Luke 7:50 saved her?

I want to know why I should discount the testimony of the Church--as though the testimony of the Church is not trustworthy or otherwise reliable and authoritative.

Because these teachings are wrong and false teachings should be rejected. Nowhere are these things found in the Bible. Yet, people managed to be saved to eternal life without having to believe in the 4 Marian dogmas, in the centuries before they were made dogmas in your church--didn't they? However did they manage that? Which means those dogmas are not necessary or essential for salvation--because they are not true. Neither are plenary indulgences. In fact, the latter are totally stupid.

You are presuming you are saved in the first place. You might very well be too--that is not my call. That is between you and God. The point is that you are presuming you are saved without believing in any of that.

I am saved because I believe what Jesus said--that faith in Him saves me. I believe what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write in Romans 10:8-10 says. I believe Jesus' promises. And nowhere did He proclaim that I must believe the 4 Marian dogmas in order to be saved. Nowhere did He or the apostles teach about indulgences, plenary or otherwise.

How should I know if you are saved? That is between you and God. God isn't in the habit of talking to me about His inscrutable will for people.

Nice dodge of my question, Romish. Doesn't your church teach that believing in the 4 Marian Dogmas is necessary for salvation? I reject them totally! So, am I saved--or not? People in the early church were saved without knowing anything about them. They were not taught back then, but people managed to be saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Heck--I have a hard enough time trying to discern God's will in my own life!

I can understand why, when you buy into your church's many false doctrines.

 

[Bonnie]

Paul is talking about the initial Grace of justification which comes by Grace through Faith alone.

No, he isn't. He is talking about how to be saved to eternal life. Period. And it is NOT by works, so no one may boast.

The question is--once given the gift of Faith by Grace, what happens as a Christian lives that life of Grace through Faith? The Christian produces works in Grace--and because those works are products of Grace, they are saving.

We have stated many times on here that a true faith leads to doing good works of love. That is what Eph. 2:10 is about. But we do them IN salvation, not FOR salvation. We do them BECAUSE we are saved, not to GET saved. That would be doing them for selfish reasons, and there is no love in selfishness. But these works do not help to save us; they are the RESULT of being saved. Catholics just don't seem to be able to tell the difference.

Salvation is taken completely out of our hands. We are totally dependent upon God in Christ Jesus to save us. That means we must swallow our pride, and admit we are helpless to save ourselves and throw ourselves at Jesus' feet, pleading "Lord Jesus, save me!" And He does! NOT on account of works which we have done in righteousness, but on account of His mercy!

 

[bluedog1us]

No, he isn't. He is talking about how to be saved to eternal life. Period. And it is NOT by works, so no one may boast.

We have stated many times on here that a true faith leads to doing good works of love. That is what Eph. 2:10 is about. But we do them IN salvation, not FOR salvation. We do them BECAUSE we are saved, not to GET saved. That would be doing them for selfish reasons, and there is no love in selfishness. But these works do not help to save us; they are the RESULT of being saved. Catholics just don't seem to be able to tell the difference.

Salvation is taken completely out of our hands. We are totally dependent upon God in Christ Jesus to save us. That means we must swallow our pride, and admit we are helpless to save ourselves and throw ourselves at Jesus' feet, pleading "Lord Jesus, save me!" And He does! NOT on account of works which we have done in righteousness, but on account of His mercy!

Eggzackly!

Luke 17:
10 "So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.’ ”

All we do adds NOTHING to God. It profits nothing to God. Neither does it add one iota to what Christ did on the cross for us. We can either believe what the bible teaches, or face the consequences. That simple !

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Noooooo!

Then why did you bleat at me? You bleated the following: "Baaaaaaad?" That is what goats say. Or sheep. Are you a sheep? They bleat too.

Elephants trumpet, and cows Moooo.

Yes, they do, since Paul specifically states "and NOT by works." Neither works of the Law or works done in righteousness save us--it is God alone Who saves us by grace through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Yes, I know how you spin Paul. Of course, James says "We are NOT saved by Faith alone" which you spin to mean the exact opposite of what it actually says---in good lawyerly fashion. Only lawyers can take a plain phrase and attempt to argue that the phase does not mean what it says.

The church is wrong. But for something to be taught as doctrine, it needs to be in the Bible, either explicitly or implicitly.

Said the Bible nowhere.

 

[balshan]

Then why did you bleat at me? You bleated the following: "Baaaaaaad?" That is what goats say. Or sheep. Are you a sheep? They bleat too.

Elephants trumpet, and cows Moooo.

Yes, I know how you spin Paul. Of course, James says "We are NOT saved by Faith alone" which you spin to mean the exact opposite of what it actually says---in good lawyerly fashion. Only lawyers can take a plain phrase and attempt to argue that the phase does not mean what it says.

Said the Bible nowhere.

It was only a bleat in your mind. This is just an example of the teachings of the RCC, that everyone is against you because you belong to the one true church. Of course it is wrong.

The poster was stressing the word, not bleating.

James and Paul agree on salvation they are not at odds. It is clear that James is saying first grace through faith, then faith is revealed by the change in you and your actions. Most RCs misunderstand James as meaning it is faith and works but it isn't. RCs must be very good lawyers then because they are the experts in taking a plain phrase and attempt to argue that the phase does not mean what it says an example is Eph 2:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Of course this change is not seen in the RC leaders. Their actions give a different message.

Oh so you are now doing an argument from silence. The bible says a lot and if something is not scriptural then it needs to align with scripture otherwise it is another gospel. In fact most RCC doctrines, teachings and practices do not come within a cooee of scripture.

 

[Bonnie]

Then why did you bleat at me? You bleated the following: "Baaaaaaad?" That is what goats say. Or sheep. Are you a sheep? They bleat too.

I am one of Jesus' sheep. I know my Shepherd's voice and follow HIM.

Elephants trumpet, and cows Moooo.

Do tell.

Yes, I know how you spin Paul.

I have not spun Paul at all. I understand perfectly fine what Paul teaches about salvation and grace. Catholics do not.

Of course, James says "We are NOT saved by Faith alone" which you spin to mean the exact opposite of what it actually says---in good lawyerly fashion.

I do not isolate one verse and spin a whole doctrine around it. I do not spin James but Catholics and other work righteous sects do.
I know what James is truly talking about, because I am able to read him IN CONTEXT. Catholics apparently do not. And James does not contradict Paul and vice-versa.

Only lawyers can take a plain phrase and attempt to argue that the phase does not mean what it says.

That describes what the RCC is doing to what Paul says in his epistles.

Said the Bible nowhere.

Says Jesus, when He lambasted the Pharisees for putting human precepts over the actual word of God. He quoted Isaiah: "In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the precepts of men."

Says the Bible, when Paul tells us not to go beyond what is written. Your church does that all the time. Thus, the 4 Marian Dogmas and Indulgences are but "the precepts of men" and Catholics worship God in vain when they teach these things as doctrines. For shame.

 

[Bonnie]

No an indulgence doesn't absolve due restitution for a crime or sin. It relates to the injury to the relationship between a person and God that is the effect of sin. You know that hurt felt at having let God down and let yourself down. It impacts on all relationships around you. That's the temporal punishment meant.

Wouldn't confessing the sin to Jesus and asking Him for forgiveness do the same? No Indulgences needed?

 

[Bonnie]

It was only a bleat in your mind. This is just an example of the teachings of the RCC, that everyone is against you because you belong to the one true church. Of course it is wrong.

The poster was stressing the word, not bleating.

James and Paul agree on salvation they are not at odds. It is clear that James is saying first grace through faith, then faith is revealed by the change in you and your actions. Most RCs misunderstand James as meaning it is faith and works but it isn't. RCs must be very good lawyers then because they are the experts in taking a plain phrase and attempt to argue that the phase does not mean what it says an example is Eph 2:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Of course this change is not seen in the RC leaders. Their actions give a different message.

Oh so you are now doing an argument from silence. The bible says a lot and if something is not scriptural then it needs to align with scripture otherwise it is another gospel. In fact most RCC doctrines, teachings and practices do not come within a cooee of scripture.

"Cooee of Scripture"?

 

[balshan]

"Cooee of Scripture"?

Sorry being an ocker.

If lost in the bush you shout cooee to be found. If it cannot be heard you are more than a cooee from the person. So their beliefs are no where near scripture.

Scripture is calling them to understand its importance, as it is God's word, they are too far away to hear.

 

[Bonnie]

Sorry being an ocker.

If lost in the bush you shout cooee to be found. If it cannot be heard you are more than a cooee from the person. So their beliefs are no where near scripture.

Scripture is calling them to understand its importance, as it is God's word, they are too far away to hear.

"Ocker"?

I did wonder if "cooee" was an Aussie word. We Yanks would probably use "yoo-hoo!"

But I got your point.

 

[balshan]

"Ocker"?

I did wonder if "cooee" was an Aussie word. We Yanks would probably use "yoo-hoo!"

But I got your point.

Aussie speaking in an uncultivated manner eg Crocodile Dundee. I sometimes forget and use our colloquialisms. Sorry.

 

[shnarkle]

James says "We are NOT saved by Faith alone" which you spin to mean the exact opposite of what it actually says---in good lawyerly fashion. Only lawyers can take a plain phrase and attempt to argue that the phase does not mean what it says.

Anyone can spin a verse out of context to mean something entirely different. James isn't presenting the same argument Paul is presenting. Paul clearly presents the fact that faith alone saves while James points out that saving faith naturally produces works. James is addressing those who claim that one can be saved and then produce no works of righteousness. That's not the same issue Paul was dealing with. He was dealing with those who claimed that one's works save them.

Paul wouldn't deny that the elect produce fruit which is right in line with James' argument as well. The fact is that the fruit one produces doesn't save them. Only those who are saved can produce fruit. Everyone else is working for their salvation.

 

[RiJoRi]

Aussie speaking in an uncultivated manner eg Crocodile Dundee. I sometimes forget and use our colloquialisms. Sorry.

Always good to learn a foreign language!
😊😅😂🤣😂🤣

--Rich

 

[Bonnie]

I am one of Jesus' sheep. I know my Shepherd's voice and follow HIM.


Do tell.


I have not spun Paul at all. I understand perfectly fine what Paul teaches about salvation and grace. Catholics do not.


I do not isolate one verse and spin a whole doctrine around it. I do not spin James but Catholics and other work righteous sects do.
I know what James is truly talking about, because I am able to read him IN CONTEXT. Catholics apparently do not. And James does not contradict Paul and vice-versa.

That describes what the RCC is doing to what Paul says in his epistles.

Says Jesus, when He lambasted the Pharisees for putting human precepts over the actual word of God. He quoted Isaiah: "In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the precepts of men."

Says the Bible, when Paul tells us not to go beyond what is written. Your church does that all the time. Thus, the 4 Marian Dogmas and Indulgences are but "the precepts of men" and Catholics worship God in vain when they teach these things as doctrines. For shame.

My friend, Theo1689, did a great exegesis of James 2:24 on another board; I cannot improve on it:

James 2:24 - for the 50 millionth time

edit He also wants to bring up the same topic/proof-text that has been refuted 50 million times in the past. What do you find as "games" about the testimony of the Biblical witness? James 2:24---King James Version 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only...

forums.carm.org

Also, James 2 isn't about faith vs. works, but dead faith vs. a living faith. Keeping that in mind helps to understand better what James is saying. Also, in some contexts, "justified" can mean "vindicated" or "Proven." Jesus used it in such a way when He said that "wisdom is justified of her children." I think James is using this word here to mean "vindicated."

 

[Stella1000]

My friend, Theo1689, did a great exegesis of James 2:24 on another board; I cannot improve on it:

James 2:24 - for the 50 millionth time

edit He also wants to bring up the same topic/proof-text that has been refuted 50 million times in the past. What do you find as "games" about the testimony of the Biblical witness? James 2:24---King James Version 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only...

forums.carm.org

Also, James 2 isn't about faith vs. works, but dead faith vs. a living faith. Keeping that in mind helps to understand better what James is saying. Also, in some contexts, "justified" can mean "vindicated" or "Proven." Jesus used it in such a way when He said that "wisdom is justified of her children." I think James is using this word here to mean "vindicated."

It's worded to mean nothing. It's benign and doesn't serve as any sort of positive inspiration. It doesn't explain what the point of criticising others faith serves? If faith and works are completely the work of God, wouldn't criticising others faith in fact be a slap in the face of our God because He didn't do His job?

 

[RiJoRi]

It's worded to mean nothing. It's benign and doesn't serve as any sort of positive inspiration. It doesn't explain what the point of criticising others faith serves? If faith and works are completely the work of God, wouldn't criticising others faith in fact be a slap in the face of our God because He didn't do His job?

Then why, pray tell, are you criticizing the faith of every non-Roman Catholic on this board? Aren't you slapping your god in the face because it didn't do its job? 🙄

(Third person singular and lower case intentional.)

 

[Bonnie]

It's worded to mean nothing. It's benign and doesn't serve as any sort of positive inspiration. It doesn't explain what the point of criticising others faith serves? If faith and works are completely the work of God, wouldn't criticising others faith in fact be a slap in the face of our God because He didn't do His job?

My, my, did I strike a nerve, or what? What Theo wrote is nothing? Is that what you mean?

What job God may not have done are you referring to?

So, why is it okay for RCCers to criticize our faith, but we cannot criticize yours? Aren't you criticizing our faith right now? Double standard much? But we criticize the many false, man-made teachings your church has made doctrines, thus worshiping God in vain. Not our fault there are so many.

 

[balshan]

It's worded to mean nothing. It's benign and doesn't serve as any sort of positive inspiration. It doesn't explain what the point of criticising others faith serves? If faith and works are completely the work of God, wouldn't criticising others faith in fact be a slap in the face of our God because He didn't do His job?

Yet you do it.