You describe yourself perfectly.
Last edited:
ECT Grace: God isn't mad at sin, or just isn't doing anything about it at the moment?
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Me
aul also says 1st Corinthians 3:15 (KJV):
Why would a believer suffer loss, given that they are perfect in Christ? I agree that we are perfect in Christ, and I believe in purgatory. Scripture supports both, to my eyes.
aul also says 1st Corinthians 3:15 (KJV):Why would a believer suffer loss, given that they are perfect in Christ? I agree that we are perfect in Christ, and I believe in purgatory. Scripture supports both, to my eyes.
Is that a common view, or are you unique in this matter among Dispensationalists? I'm never surprised when I learn how deeply Dispensationalists think about the faith, so it's unsurprising that you've provided such a thorough interpretation of 1st Corinthians 3:15 (KJV) that does not include purgatory, but it does lend itself to the honest question, Could this explanation be purgatory? Maybe the loss of rewards isn't like getting passed over for promotion, but can be physical torment?
That's one reason the sacraments are a thing, and why they are important, that could've been the Catholic Church saying this about the sacraments. The sacraments are at once temporal and eternal, heaven and earth meet in a unique way in the sacraments. We can see heaven with our eyes.
I'm 100% unfamiliar directly with Darby's work. I have to take others' word for it about whatever he wrote or did not write.
No way. It's the answer manual. The teachers edition. Literally---that's what the Catechism is, it's called that, not in so many words, by Pope St. John Paul, because he said that it's addressed "primarily" to all the bishops/elders of the Church. The Catechism is what they, the official teachers of the Church, are supposed to be teaching. It's like the Church's teaching playbook, to borrow a notion from football. Whenever any Catholic bishop has taught anything that seemed to contradict the Catechism, they are confronted, and corrected if need be.
I did that at least three times, but maybe more. But three at least, definitely.
Thank you.
I do believe those passages.
musterion
Well-known member
Rewards. Just as believers (of which you are not at this time) can risk not inheriting the Kingdom of God. Paul says they've already been translated INTO that Kingdom, but INHERITING it is evidently a separate matter.
No it does not. If one is perfectly righteous in Christ and forgiven ALL trespasses, and is counted as separated by death from his flesh, and has been 100% justified in Christ, then there's nothing left to purge. God has dealt with ALL sin at the cross and there's nothing left.
Sorry, but if the contradiction isn't obvious to you, you're beyond help. Meanwhile, you're stuffing confusion into the mouth of God.
My case for purgatory, is at least on the same level, as that 1st Timothy 3:15 (KJV) means Dispensationalism is correct. :idunno:
Edit: Whoops! I proofread and noticed that I posted the verse from 1st Timothy that means Catholicism is correct (1Ti3:15KJV), instead of the verse from 1st Timothy that means Dispensationalism is correct (1Ti2:15KJV). :doh:
Edit #2: :doh: again. It's 2nd Timothy 2:15 (KJV), that's supposed to mean Dispensationalism is correct, not 1Ti3:15KJV or 1Ti2:15KJV.
Or, I make you angry for some reason.
Right Divider
Body part
Irrelevant...My case for purgatory, is at least on the same level, as that 1st Timothy 3:15 (KJV) means Dispensationalism is correct. :idunno:
Edit: Whoops! I proofread and noticed that I posted the verse from 1st Timothy that means Catholicism is correct (1Ti3:15KJV), instead of the verse from 1st Timothy that means Dispensationalism is correct (1Ti2:15KJV). :doh:
Edit #2: :doh: again. It's 2nd Timothy 2:15 (KJV), that's supposed to mean Dispensationalism is correct, not 1Ti3:15KJV or 1Ti2:15KJV.
Show us the scripture that divides sins into two categories.
You're ridiculous.
Why insert such a weak qualifying descriptor as "evidently?" It's not explicitly, or clearly a separate matter? :think: I wonder why not?
To your eyes. I said "to my eyes." We disagree, over something that isn't whether or not the Lord Jesus Christ is risen. :idunno: Paul would probably call this tiff a bad word, that'd trip TOL's censored.
The Church encourages Christians, when they find themselves suffering, to unite that suffering with the Lord's suffering on the cross.
I'm not beyond help, and if a contradiction isn't clear, maybe someone skilled and talented in communication and in reading people, can shed some surgically precise light on it, so that it can't be missed?
I'm doing no such thing, unless everybody else on TOL is doing that too. And even if you grant that, I would argue with you that Catholicism is the only Christian thing in this world, and everything that isn't Catholic right now, but is Christian, is attempting to make one giant invalid adverse possession claim against the Catholic Church, and it's invalid because the Church never abandoned anything, so an adverse possession claim is ipso facto invalid.
Show us the scripture that divides the Church of God and the Body of Christ into two categories.
Right Divider
Body part
I knew there is no such scripture. :idunno: The Church of God is the Body of Christ, they are the same.
Right Divider
Body part
Are you six years old?
You claimed that there are TWO categories of sin. Support your claim from the Bible or admit that it's an RCC fabrication.
1st John 5:16-17 (KJV)
musterion
Well-known member
If two people are believing two contradictory pieces of good news but only one of those news is true, the news the other believes is false.
RD and I believe one gospel. You believe another. These gospels are incompatible and mutually exclusive.
Yes, each of us believes what we believe so in that sense you are a believer. But only one of us believes the good news of the God who doesn't author confusion. The one who doesn't is, from His perspective, an unbeliever.
RD and I believe one gospel. You believe another. These gospels are incompatible and mutually exclusive.
Yes, each of us believes what we believe so in that sense you are a believer. But only one of us believes the good news of the God who doesn't author confusion. The one who doesn't is, from His perspective, an unbeliever.
Right Divider
Body part
If you would ever study the Bible you would know what this means, but you don't.
John was an Israelite under the law. Some sins in the OT had the death penalty, some did not.
Agreed.
Tell me what good news that I believe, and that you don't. Tell me what good news that you believe, and that I don't. Let's start there.
I am a believer in one sense, and in one sense only; I believe Easter. Romans 10:9 (KJV)
And I would say that's me, and not you and RD.
You and RD believe Easter. I believe Easter. We are both believers.
I have studied.
Disagreed.
That's Dispensationalism. I don't accept Dispensationalism. I believe the Apostle John was a member of the Body of Christ; which is the Church of God.
The idea of a mortal sin is scriptural. Grave matter are those moral offenses worthy of the death penalty.
Right Divider
Body part
No, it is not. It's a fact.
The church of God includes both believers that were under the law and the body of Christ which is NOT under the law.
If it were scriptural, you could show it.
Nihilo, you have learned to perceive the teaching of purgatory as being in certain verses in Scripture.
That neither makes that so, or not.
You have yet to prove its teaching through the passages as a collective, as one voice.
That is what any doctrine or teaching is based on - a series of passages that together paint its picture - that is, when said passages are not ripped from each their shared scope, narrative, theme, context, subject, with all the rest - if - they even share one in common.
Case in point of another example where you go south on the Scripture...
In my above post to you, I noted that "the things not seen are understood by the things that are..."
You replied:
"That's one reason the sacraments are a thing, and why they are important, that could've been the Catholic Church saying this about the sacraments. The sacraments are at once temporal and eternal, heaven and earth meet in a unique way in the sacraments. We can see heaven with our eyes."
In contrast, I had had in mind various passages of Scripture that clearly depict various images of the things of God that are not seen.
I had been referring to other passages - not to a man made "sacrament" nor to the "graven image" that is a "crucifix."
The difference between simply citing Romans 5:8, and posting a "graven image" of someone up on a cross.
In this case, the things not seen - The Cross 2,000 years ago - is understood by the things made - The Word of Truth on said Cross - or Romans 5:8.
Note the same in the following..
2 Peter 1:15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Though he had personally known the Lord; though he had personally walked and talked and eaten with Him; and had been able to rely on the things seen that had been His miracles, etc., he focuses his readers on the "more sure word of prophecy" as to how they might see the things not seen.
In contrast, the RCC made a huge deal - even of said "dead man's bones..."
We are not on the same page, Ni; not where how we each approach the attempt to properly understand these things is concerned.
Nevertheless, Romans 5:8 towards you.
Because, as the Lord had proved by His Own Life's; Death's; Resurrection's example - calling someone out on a thing does not necessarily mean one does not care about said individual's welfare.
That neither makes that so, or not.
You have yet to prove its teaching through the passages as a collective, as one voice.
That is what any doctrine or teaching is based on - a series of passages that together paint its picture - that is, when said passages are not ripped from each their shared scope, narrative, theme, context, subject, with all the rest - if - they even share one in common.
Case in point of another example where you go south on the Scripture...
In my above post to you, I noted that "the things not seen are understood by the things that are..."
You replied:
"That's one reason the sacraments are a thing, and why they are important, that could've been the Catholic Church saying this about the sacraments. The sacraments are at once temporal and eternal, heaven and earth meet in a unique way in the sacraments. We can see heaven with our eyes."
In contrast, I had had in mind various passages of Scripture that clearly depict various images of the things of God that are not seen.
I had been referring to other passages - not to a man made "sacrament" nor to the "graven image" that is a "crucifix."
The difference between simply citing Romans 5:8, and posting a "graven image" of someone up on a cross.
In this case, the things not seen - The Cross 2,000 years ago - is understood by the things made - The Word of Truth on said Cross - or Romans 5:8.
Note the same in the following..
2 Peter 1:15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Though he had personally known the Lord; though he had personally walked and talked and eaten with Him; and had been able to rely on the things seen that had been His miracles, etc., he focuses his readers on the "more sure word of prophecy" as to how they might see the things not seen.
In contrast, the RCC made a huge deal - even of said "dead man's bones..."
We are not on the same page, Ni; not where how we each approach the attempt to properly understand these things is concerned.
Nevertheless, Romans 5:8 towards you.
Because, as the Lord had proved by His Own Life's; Death's; Resurrection's example - calling someone out on a thing does not necessarily mean one does not care about said individual's welfare.