Trying to understand

Carson illustrates Catholic error perfectly and shows why the Hebrews 10 statements are the death knell of the RCC error on this subject.

Notice that INSTEAD of a "perpetual sacrifice" that is "needed" by the RC docrine above - the clear statement of Hebrews 10 is "ONCE FOR ALL" and worse than that - it says "ONCE for ALL TIME".

In fact Hebrews 10 states that Christ put and END to sacrifices and offerings with His ONCE for all sacrifice.

And "having BEEN OFFERED ONCE - He SAT DOWN" Heb 9:28.

Instead of arguing for the PEREPETUAL ongoing sacrifice - the Bible declares that it HAS BEEN offerred - and having been completely offerred - He SAT DOWN. Declaring an END not only of the Sacrifice BUT ALSO to the OFFERING.

So Heb 10 can say we are santified through the "offering of the body of Christ ONCE for ALL".

One sacrifice - offerred "ONCE" for "ALL TIME".

If we could only get our orthodox Jewish bretheren to read Isaiah 53 without turning a blind eye to its text.

If we could only get our Catholic bretheren to read Hebrews 10 without turning a blind eye to its text.

IF only...


In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi Eyes,

You wrote, "therefore no sacrifices are done in heaven, but he intercedes on our behalf"

I'm not proposing that more sacrifices are done in heaven. Jesus Christ completed the one sacrifice that brings the forgiveness of sins and the reconciliation between God and man on Calvary, and this sacrifice is himself. Jesus Christ is both High Priest and Victim. He offers himself. Jesus' sacrifice is his very own body.

In heaven, this is what Jesus offers to the Father. The epistle to the Hebrews tells us that Jesus is a High Priest in the sanctuary of heaven and that a High Priest must have something to offer. Since Jesus' offering is his glorified humanity, this is what he presents in heaven. His sacrifice, which was once in time is offered "for all" perpetually in heaven. If Christ isn't offering his body in heaven, then he is no longer a High Priest according to the Epistle to the Hebrews. In that case, Jesus was only High Priest on Earth and his ministry is over with.

 

Carson you just plainly contradicted the Scriptures:

Christ did not go to heaven to offer himself again as what you believe.

Hebrews
9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

He rather sat down

Hebrews
10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

The bible clearly says:

Hebrews
10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

 

Hi Trust,

Not to derail your thread, but your question raised a possibility in my mind. I haven't really thought it through, so I'd be interested in any thoughts from folks around here.

Obviously, Jesus died for all human sins. But would it be correct to say that he did not die for the sins of Satan and the disobedient angels/demons?

Again, this is just a passing thought, but I'd be interested in what anybody thinks. (And feel free to continue arguing with Carson, too).

God bless,

Mark

 

Interesting question. Another way of asking it is: Why would the sin of man carry so much more precedent (in requiring that God become man to atone for our sin)over the sin of angels.

Perhaps the answer lies within the differences between man and angels. Where we are made up of flesh and spirit, angels are spirit only. Where we long for the beatific vision of God, they enjoy(ed) it. Whereas one man's sin seperated all mankind from God, the sin of multiple angels did not seperate the whole of God's angels for Himself. It is very interesting. I also wonder what the answers would mean in the scope of our own relationship with God on both an individual basis, as he obviously Loves us so much as to send His only begotten Son for us individually and collectively on a humankind basis.

 

The answer to your question is:

Any sin that is unconfessed.

At least, that is my thought on it.

Brother Ed

 

Romans 6 - the wages of sin is "death".

Not just "the wages of SOME sin".

If you pay for even ONE of your own sins - you go to hell to do it.

The idea of "Hell-lite" is RC folklore.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The idea of "Hell-lite" is RC folklore.

Like Sunday worship?

 

"Tradition."

Can't live with it... can't live with it. Mark 7:1-11.


In Christ,

Bob

 

Mark 7 -
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''


In Christ,

Bob

 

Carson Weber,

You said, 'This work wasn't enough for our justification. Christ still had yet to rise in the resurrection for our justification. See Romans 4:25.'

The work of the Cross has forever been completed. What you said above is hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, if Jesus never comes back to take His saints to Heaven, this whole redemption scheme will fail. But, as you and I both believe Jesus will return for His own people and His redemption is available to all who will believe and trust in Him.

 

Rom.5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--The action is already done. The only requirement on the part of the believer was faith.

Romans 5:1 Having been declared righteous, then, by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ, (Young's Literal Translation)

Romans 5:1 Therefore having been justified on the principle of faith, we have peace towards God through our Lord Jesus Christ; (Darby's translation)

 

DHK,

You could also have quoted St. Thomas Aquinas, who agrees with both you and Scripture.

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE, PRIMA SECUNDÆ PARTIS, Q. 113, A. 7

Whether the justification of the ungodly takes place in an instant or successively?

Objection 1. It would seem that the justification of the ungodly does not take place in an instant, but successively, since, as already stated (3), for the justification of the ungodly, there is required a movement of free-will. Now the act of the free-will is choice, which requires the deliberation of counsel, as stated above (13, 1). Hence, since deliberation implies a certain reasoning process, and this implies succession, the justification of the ungodly would seem to be successive.

Objection 2. Further, the free-will's movement is not without actual consideration. But it is impossible to understand many things actually and at once, as stated above (I, 85, 4). Hence, since for the justification of the ungodly there is required a movement of the free-will towards several things, viz. towards God and towards sin, it would seem impossible for the justification of the ungodly to be in an instant.

Objection 3. Further, a form that may be greater or less, e.g. blackness or whiteness, is received successively by its subject. Now grace may be greater or less, as stated above (112, 4). Hence it is not received suddenly by its subject. Therefore, seeing that the infusion of grace is required for the justification of the ungodly, it would seem that the justification of the ungodly cannot be in an instant.

Objection 4. Further, the free-will's movement, which cooperates in justification, is meritorious; and hence it must proceed from grace, without which there is no merit, as we shall state further on (114, 2). Now a thing receives its form before operating by this form. Hence grace is first infused, and then the free-will is moved towards God and to detest sin. Hence justification is not all at once.

Objection 5. Further, if grace is infused into the soul, there must be an instant when it first dwells in the soul; so, too, if sin is forgiven there must be a last instant that man is in sin. But it cannot be the same instant, otherwise opposites would be in the same simultaneously. Hence they must be two successive instants; between which there must be time, as the Philosopher says (Phys. vi, 1). Therefore the justification of the ungodly takes place not all at once, but successively.

On the contrary, The justification of the ungodly is caused by the justifying grace of the Holy Spirit. Now the Holy Spirit comes to men's minds suddenly, according to Acts 2:2: "And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a mighty wind coming," upon which the gloss says that "the grace of the Holy Ghost knows no tardy efforts." Hence the justification of the ungodly is not successive, but instantaneous.

I answer that, The entire justification of the ungodly consists as to its origin in the infusion of grace. For it is by grace that free-will is moved and sin is remitted. Now the infusion of grace takes place in an instant and without succession. And the reason of this is that if a form be not suddenly impressed upon its subject, it is either because that subject is not disposed, or because the agent needs time to dispose the subject. Hence we see that immediately the matter is disposed by a preceding alteration, the substantial form accrues to the matter; thus because the atmosphere of itself is disposed to receive light, it is suddenly illuminated by a body actually luminous. Now it was stated (112, 2) that God, in order to infuse grace into the soul, needs no disposition, save what He Himself has made. And sometimes this sufficient disposition for the reception of grace He makes suddenly, sometimes gradually and successively, as stated above (112, 2, ad 2). For the reason why a natural agent cannot suddenly dispose matter is that in the matter there is a resistant which has some disproportion with the power of the agent; and hence we see that the stronger the agent, the more speedily is the matter disposed. Therefore, since the Divine power is infinite, it can suddenly dispose any matter whatsoever to its form; and much more man's free-will, whose movement is by nature instantaneous. Therefore the justification of the ungodly by God takes place in an instant.

Reply to Objection 1. The movement of the free-will, which concurs in the justification of the ungodly, is a consent to detest sin, and to draw near to God; and this consent takes place suddenly. Sometimes, indeed, it happens that deliberation precedes, yet this is not of the substance of justification, but a way of justification; as local movement is a way of illumination, and alteration to generation.

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (I, 85, 5), there is nothing to prevent two things being understood at once, in so far as they are somehow one; thus we understand the subject and predicate together, inasmuch as they are united in the order of one affirmation. And in the same manner can the free-will be moved to two things at once in so far as one is ordained to the other. Now the free-will's movement towards sin is ordained to the free-will's movement towards God, since a man detests sin, as contrary to God, to Whom he wishes to cling. Hence in the justification of the ungodly the free-will simultaneously detests sin and turns to God, even as a body approaches one point and withdraws from another simultaneously.

Reply to Objection 3. The reason why a form is not received instantaneously in the matter is not the fact that it can inhere more or less; for thus the light would not be suddenly received in the air, which can be illumined more or less. But the reason is to be sought on the part of the disposition of the matter or subject, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 4. The same instant the form is acquired, the thing begins to operate with the form; as fire, the instant it is generated moves upwards, and if its movement was instantaneous, it would be terminated in the same instant. Now to will and not to will--the movements of the free-will--are not successive, but instantaneous. Hence the justification of the ungodly must not be successive.

Reply to Objection 5. The succession of opposites in the same subject must be looked at differently in the things that are subject to time and in those that are above time. For in those that are in time, there is no last instant in which the previous form inheres in the subject; but there is the last time, and the first instant that the subsequent form inheres in the matter or subject; and this for the reason, that in time we are not to consider one instant, since neither do instants succeed each other immediately in time, nor points in a line, as is proved in Physic. vi, 1. But time is terminated by an instant. Hence in the whole of the previous time wherein anything is moving towards its form, it is under the opposite form; but in the last instant of this time, which is the first instant of the subsequent time, it has the form which is the term of the movement.

But in those that are above time, it is otherwise. For if there be any succession of affections or intellectual conceptions in them (as in the angels), such succession is not measured by continuous time, but by discrete time, even as the things measured are not continuous, as stated above (I, 53, 2,3). In these, therefore, there is a last instant in which the preceding is, and a first instant in which the subsequent is. Nor must there be time in between, since there is no continuity of time, which this would necessitate.

Now the human mind, which is justified, is, in itself, above time, but is subject to time accidentally, inasmuch as it understands with continuity and time, with respect to the phantasms in which it considers the intelligible species, as stated above (I, 85, A1,2). We must, therefore, decide from this about its change as regards the condition of temporal movements, i.e. we must say that there is no last instant that sin inheres, but a last time; whereas there is a first instant that grace inheres; and in all the time previous sin inhered.

 

Which is why infant baptism - and its violation of the teaching on free will - is untennable.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Which is why infant baptism - and its violation of the teaching on free will - is untennable.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly. Infant baptism does violate the teaching of free will. Infants are incapable of making a decision for Christ. One would have to believe in justification by faith alone to believe in infant baptism.

SDAs and Catholics have much in common: Arminianism came from the Church of Rome, and leads back again to the pit whence it was digged. Augustus Toplady

[ October 20, 2003, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

Hi John,

You wrote, "Arminianism came from the Church of Rome"

Have you ever heard of the text Predestination by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.?

 

Actually, Augustus Toplady wrote it but I would agree with him. The Council of Trent ratified the victory of free will over bondage of the will in RCC dogma:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

Yes, I've heard of the book. Is it available over the internet?

BTW, Here's link to Luther's Bondage of the Will, http://www.covenanter.org/Luther/Bondage/bow_toc.htm

[ October 20, 2003, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]