Justification - Part 2

[MoreCoffee]

I do believe that they went to Purgatory [first ?] (please correct me)

Purgatory ~ the half-way house, the place for last-minute reflection and maybe repentance ?


Mary was a Roman Catholic.... as were her parents, and her husband and perhaps MOST, of their children

We were not unequally yoked.... Mary attended St Thomas' and I attended St. James
(not, because it wasn't so-far to walk, as St. Thomas' )


We have visited each other's HOUSE OF GOD for specific services that we shared
:amen:

dave

Purgatory is not really about Justification so it is kind of a side issue for this thread but since you ask here is what it is about.

• Purgatory is about purging the effects of sin on a person's character and way of thinking and acting. (you can think of rehabilitation after addiction)
• Purgatory is for the "saved" only. No one who is not forgiven and justified (at least to a degree) is purged of the effects of sin. (think of forgiveness and repentance as attributes belonging to saved people and then purgatory is the transition from imperfection to perfection that comes to the saved after their earthly life is ended)
• Purgatory is a transitional state by which a Christian who dies and is still inclined towards sin becomes a Christian who is no longer inclined to sin.

The fundamental idea is that the less inclined to sin one is in this world the less one will need to change in purgatory - think of purgatory as completing the change of mind and deeds that repentance in earthly life begins.

I am fairly sure that Protestants also believe that at the time of death a Christian is not yet perfected and is still inclined to sin and that a Christian who dies is changed (perhaps instantaneously) so that they are no longer inclined to sin. But maybe that is not something discussed much in Protestant theology.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

The Greek grammar in Ephesians 2:8 shows conclusively that the “that not of yourselves” cannot possibly relate to the word “faith”, but to the word “saved”.

Unlike English, in many languages nouns have assigned gender (male, female, as well as neuter in some). French, German, Latin and Greek are examples. Adjectives and pronouns are constrained to have the same gender as the nouns to which they refer. In this case, the “faith” is feminine and the “that” is neuter. The neuter indicates that the “that” refers to the preceding verb (“saved”).

Case made from the Greek that "that not of yourselves" refers us back to "saved". Understood.

All Readers are now aware of the true meaning of Ephesians 2:8. Being saved is God’s gift to Mankind. We can do nothing to merit it.

Understood.

But...

Where did that come from??

(T)he God-defined mechanism for receiving that gift, is a personal response of faith – a personal, self-motivated response.

How can it be, based on what you've just shown us. "That not of yourselves" refers back to "saved", yet you've introduced yourself into it.

However, a certain cherished belief relies on the much-promoted, invalid interpretation of Verse 8.

It seems you've introduced another.

So can we expect to see from here on in, a cessation of its misuse?

No, unless you can correct your contradiction.

 

[MennoSota]

An old mentor of mine had a saying - "There's only One who's right, and you're not Him"

But in this case, Him agrees with me.

 

[MennoSota]

You are right here - Ritualized sprinkling and washing are pretty sissie usages of water compared to total immersion in the living water of the Jordan River... John was not simply acting according to Moses' Levitical observances...

The washing of the Levites unto purification of them for the Priesthood is magnified in the cleansing of Christians unto the Royal Priesthood of the Body of Christ...

Arsenios

The Jordan River is no more living water than the Ganges or the Mississippi. In fact, it's little more than a creek. You are attempting to ascribe some mystical thing that doesn't exist.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Case made from the Greek that "that not of yourselves" refers us back to "saved". Understood.

Understood.

Where did that come from??

How can it be, based on what you've just shown us. "That not of yourselves" refers back to "saved", yet you've introduced yourself into it.

It seems you've introduced another.

No, unless you can correct your contradiction.

Perhaps he is thinking that God's provision of salvation is given as a grace to everybody and that those who see God's provision and accept it, repent and believe the gospel? It appears to be that way in human experience. One hears the preaching of Christ's word, hears the call to repent and believe and (for whatever reasons) accepts it. The message is given by God, the preaching of it is provided by God, and the opportunity to receive it is given by God so one is left with asking "does a man (or a woman) upon hearing the gospel make a conscious choice to repent and believe or not?" If yes then that is where the "but" in his post came from and if not then the "but" is unjustified. Do you think that repentance and belief are not conscious choices?

 

[Arsenios]

But in this case, Him agrees with me.

Good thing for God, yes??

That should make Him right then, right??

Gotta love your humility!

"God agrees with ME!!!"

One of a kind, I say!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

The Jordan River is no more living water than the Ganges or the Mississippi. In fact, it's little more than a creek. You are attempting to ascribe some mystical thing that doesn't exist.

The Jordan had to be crossed in order to enter the Promised Land...

That is why Christ was baptized in Jordan's waters...

Because baptism into Christ enters one into the Kingdom of Heaven...

Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Good thing for God, yes??

That should make Him right then, right??

Gotta love your humility!

"God agrees with ME!!!"

One of a kind, I say!

Arsenios

This has nothing to do with humility. This has everything to do with God's word verses your church dogma. I'm just sticking with what the Bible says.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This has nothing to do with humility. This has everything to do with God's word verses your church dogma. I'm just sticking with what the Bible says.

I see, so it is "Away with this talk of humility! I am right and God knows it!" :disgonbegood:

 

[MennoSota]

The Jordan had to be crossed in order to enter the Promised Land...

That is why Christ was baptized in Jordan's waters...

Because baptism into Christ enters one into the Kingdom of Heaven...

Arsenios

No it doesn't. I can get there via Egypt, Lebanon, Syria or the Mediterranean Sea without ever going to the Jordan.
You are just attempting to spiritualize something. The Bible never tells us that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan because of it being the entrance to the promised land. Second, water baptism just gets you wet. There is zero mystical event happening in water baptism. The baptism that saves is the Spirit’s baptism (immersion) of us into Christ at the very moment God chooses us. Once again, you add a mystical element that isn't being taught in the Bible.

 

[MennoSota]

I see, so it is "Away with this talk of humility! I am right and God knows it!" :disgonbegood:

No, it's God's word is correct and you are abusing God's word.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No, it's God's word is correct and you are abusing God's word.

Well, the trouble with the posts that you write is that they always look exactly like your opinions and not even slightly like the "word of God".

 

[MennoSota]

Well, the trouble with the posts that you write is that they always look exactly like your opinions and not even slightly like the "word of God".

Are you referring to the one where I share James 2, Hebrew 11, Romans 5 and Romans 6 as a means of showing you why James is not teaching what you claim he's teaching?
MC, you are free to hold on to your church dogma. I prefer to let the Bible direct what a person believes rather than a denomination like the RC or EO that have missed the mark by lifting up tradition over scripture.

 

[Andrew]

I actually agree with this video
https://youtu.be/BX1XaTfND04

 

[MoreCoffee]

Are you referring to the one where I share James 2, Hebrew 11, Romans 5 and Romans 6 as a means of showing you why James is not teaching what you claim he's teaching?
MC, you are free to hold on to your church dogma. I prefer to let the Bible direct what a person believes rather than a denomination like the RC or EO that have missed the mark by lifting up tradition over scripture.

Yes, to those posts too - that is, to the posts where you quote bible passages as replies to other people's posts. Selective verse or passage quoting is still expressive of your opinions. You make the selections that are in the posts because they seem to you to support your opinions. Rarely is there any attempt at serious exegesis of the passages, rarely any serious attempt at contextualisation. And as for saint James' letter, it is no good quoting Romans as a commentary on James because saint Paul didn't write Romans to comment on James. It may be the case that saint James wrote his letter in part to answer some of the confusion arising from misinterpreted passages in saint Paul's letters. The truth is that saint Peter mentions the confusion that misinterpreting some of saint Paul's letters created in the case of ignorant and unstable people and maybe saint James was answering cases where misinterpretation was at work. For example, Gnostics had a kind of sin-as-you-please-and-still-have-remission view of the Christian life because they devalued the body and material creation so in their thinking bodily sins were unimportant because matter was fundamentally wicked and unreal and unimportant. But even if saint James was not thinking about saint Paul's letters his letter says what it says and says it at length. No one can walk away from his letter thinking that faith without works is great and that good works are somehow despicable abominations (filthy rags) of which Christians ought to be ashamed. So like I said before your posts always (almost always) look like your opinions and not even slightly like "the word of God".

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Perhaps he is thinking that God's provision of salvation is given as a grace to everybody and that those who see God's provision and accept it, repent and believe the gospel? It appears to be that way in human experience. One hears the preaching of Christ's word, hears the call to repent and believe and (for whatever reasons) accepts it. The message is given by God, the preaching of it is provided by God, and the opportunity to receive it is given by God so one is left with asking "does a man (or a woman) upon hearing the gospel make a conscious choice to repent and believe or not?" If yes then that is where the "but" in his post came from and if not then the "but" is unjustified. Do you think that repentance and belief are not conscious choices?

Conscious choices, yes; but (aw, did I just do that...?) the disagreement appears to be cause/effect. Is the grace of God the 'cause' of our belief and repentance, or is our repentance and belief what motivates God to respond? I think that's what Josiah was getting at in terms of saying that this suggests God remains "inert" until we act - an idea that would make no sense as God is always active in the affairs of men. I would say this "activity" is what makes us able to consciously repent and believe.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes, to those posts too - that is, to the posts where you quote bible passages as replies to other people's posts. Selective verse or passage quoting is still expressive of your opinions. You make the selections that are in the posts because they seem to you to support your opinions. Rarely is there any attempt at serious exegesis of the passages, rarely any serious attempt at contextualisation. And as for saint James' letter, it is no good quoting Romans as a commentary on James because saint Paul didn't write Romans to comment on James. It may be the case that saint James wrote his letter in part to answer some of the confusion arising from misinterpreted passages in saint Paul's letters. The truth is that saint Peter mentions the confusion that misinterpreting some of saint Paul's letters created in the case of ignorant and unstable people and maybe saint James was answering cases where misinterpretation was at work. For example, Gnostics had a kind of sin-as-you-please-and-still-have-remission view of the Christian life because they devalued the body and material creation so in their thinking bodily sins were unimportant because matter was fundamentally wicked and unreal and unimportant. But even if saint James was not thinking about saint Paul's letters his letter says what it says and says it at length. No one can walk away from his letter thinking that faith without works is great and that good works are somehow despicable abominations (filthy rags) of which Christians ought to be ashamed. So like I said before your posts always (almost always) look like your opinions and not even slightly like "the word of God".

Seems like you're just itching for the relativism Josiah brings up in another thread.
I shared what God said, not what your church says. Your church is wrong. It's certainly not the last time that will be said about the RC.
As for what I have said about faith and works, you completely botched it. What you claim is not at all what I said. After all these posts, you just simply miss it.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

No, it's God's word is correct...

Getting closer!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Conscious choices, yes; but (aw, did I just do that...?) the disagreement appears to be cause/effect. Is the grace of God the 'cause' of our belief and repentance, or is our repentance and belief what motivates God to respond? I think that's what Josiah was getting at in terms of saying that this suggests God remains "inert" until we act - an idea that would make no sense as God is always active in the affairs of men. I would say this "activity" is what makes us able to consciously repent and believe.

I see, yet God is the ultimate cause of creation and hence of all that happens in creation even of those things that are counted as wicked. So I am guessing that you are thinking of proximate causes rather than the ultimate cause since the ultimate cause appears to be God no matter what is under discussion and the proximate causes of this or that are the only things that people attribute to human or other sources. So what is the proximate cause of deciding to accept the gospel message and seek to repent and believe the gospel? Is the proximate cause a free choice or not?

 

[MennoSota]

Right on the money. God's word is what I quote, not some church catechism...

Getting closer!