Antihistamines for works.

[MoreCoffee]

The meaning of a passage in the holy scriptures is not a matter of a single person's opinion. The whole Church contributes to the discussion and the meaning is arrived at by a combination of consensus and tactful leadership. The end result is teaching (doctrine) presented by the Church to the world and to the faithful. Peter warned against approaching the holy scriptures to discover a private personal meaning rather than to discover the meaning that the Spirit leads the Church to embrace and teach. "At the same time, we must recognise that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual. For no prophecy ever came from human initiative. When people spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them." 2 Peter 1:20-21

 

[Cassia]

I'm not following what you mean by 'suffering of loss of rewards' and 'the reward system that God has in place'. Can you clarify, first; what you mean, and second; how these relate to the passages in Hebrews?

Loss of rewards refers to having wood, hay and rubble burnt. But the person is saved yet thru fire. The reward system is in the millenium (the part of not facing the second death is given only to the overcomers.) The churches in Revelations 2-3 explain who those are or are not who receive the reward of being priests or kings or part of the nations in the kingdom. Matthew 25 tells the perfect story of all of them but only if you don't perceive it as hell or pergatory.

How that relates to Hebrews is the difference between those who are burnt (lose rewards but are saved as thru fire into the kingdom) and those who are for consumption at the great white throne (the second death) before eternity.

And just in case anyone should ask .. no that is not my own interpretation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Loss of rewards refers to having wood, hay and rubble burnt. But the person is saved yet thru fire. The reward system is in the millenium (the part of not facing the second death is given only to the overcomers.) The churches in Revelations 2-3 explain who those are or are not who receive the reward of being priests or kings or part of the nations in the kingdom. Matthew 25 tells the perfect story of all of them but only if you don't perceive it as hell or pergatory.

How that relates to Hebrews is the difference between those who are burnt (lose rewards but are saved as thru fire into the kingdom) and those who are for consumption at the great white throne (the second death) before eternity.

And just in case anyone should ask .. no that is not my own interpretation.

Looks very complicated. Who created it?

 

[Cassia]

Looks very complicated. Who created it?

That's what everyone thinks isn't it? Everyone but RCC, Calvinist, Arminians or litargicals or anyone who has never learnt to think for themselves.

I find it very annoying to talk to people at times.

Well it's late g'night

 

[MoreCoffee]

That's what everyone thinks isn't it? Everyone but RCC, Calvinist, Arminians or litargicals or anyone who has never learnt to think for themselves.

I find it very annoying to talk to people at times.

Well it's late g'night

But you said it was not your own personal interpretation. So whose was it? What person, persons, or group thought it through and taught it to you?

 

[Cassia]

But you said it was not your own personal interpretation. So whose was it? What person, persons, or group thought it through and taught it to you?

Everywhere. Pentacostal, brethern , old school you name it, Nazarene it's all parts of there teaching. IT's what is when pergatory is not.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Everywhere. Pentacostal, brethern , old school you name it, Nazarene it's all parts of there teaching. IT's what is when pergatory is not.

I am not a Pentecostal nor do I wish to become one so you will understand that I am not inclined to follow this kind of teaching unless it can be demonstrated to be true not only from the holy scriptures - rightly interpreted - but also from Church history as the teaching received by the apostles and those that they taught. It has to be, in brief, the teaching of Christ.

 

[Cassia]

I am not a Pentecostal nor do I wish to become one so you will understand that I am not inclined to follow this kind of teaching unless it can be demonstrated to be true not only from the holy scriptures - rightly interpreted - but also from Church history as the teaching received by the apostles and those that they taught. It has to be, in brief, the teaching of Christ.

That's why Matthew 25 is all red print. Your not gonna find anti-pergatory in your golden absolutions.

 

[MoreCoffee]

That's why Matthew 25 is all red print. Your not gonna find anti-pergatory in your golden absolutions.

I've never heard of a "golden absolution" is that a flight of poetic fancy on your part?

 

[Rens]

I am not a Pentecostal nor do I wish to become one so you will understand that I am not inclined to follow this kind of teaching unless it can be demonstrated to be true not only from the holy scriptures - rightly interpreted - but also from Church history as the teaching received by the apostles and those that they taught. It has to be, in brief, the teaching of Christ.

Really?
I heard that preach too. Paul says it. Only example in the Bible is that man living with his dads wife but he got saved here.
I dont know how to interprete it. Some say you can live in sin and through fire you get saved anyway, but that goes against other things in the Bible, so I don't believe that.

 

[Cassia]

Really?
I heard that preach too. Paul says it. Only example in the Bible is that man living with his dads wife but he got saved here.
I dont know how to interprete it. Some say you can live in sin and through fire you get saved anyway, but that goes against other things in the Bible, so I don't believe that.

It goes against a lot of scripture either way.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Really?
I heard that preach too. Paul says it. Only example in the Bible is that man living with his dads wife but he got saved here.
I dont know how to interprete it. Some say you can live in sin and through fire you get saved anyway, but that goes against other things in the Bible, so I don't believe that.

The passage from first Corinthians chapter three is about what one does to build the Church. If your work is in straw, hay, stubble then the flames of judgement will burn it away and you - the one who built it - will be saved but as one who has come through fire. If your work is in gold and precious stones then the fires of judgement will leave your work standing and you will be saved.

 

[MoreCoffee]

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. Each builder must choose with care how to build on it. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire. 1Co 3:10-15

 

[Rens]

The passage from first Corinthians chapter three is about what one does to build the Church. If your work is in straw, hay, stubble then the flames of judgement will burn it away and you - the one who built it - will be saved but as one who has come through fire. If your work is in gold and precious stones then the fires of judgement will leave your work standing and you will be saved.

Yes but I have no idea what is meant with that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes but I have no idea what is meant with that.

Do you mean you do not understand 1Co 3:10-15 ?

 

[user1234]

Not sure what bible version gets used by some, but I can see how the wording might lead to obeisance of a church denomination, rather than Jesus and His Word.

Here's another reading :
Knowing this first, that cno prophecy of the scripture is of any private dinterpretation. 21 For theeprophecy came not ||in old time by the will of man: but fholy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

(sorry, if the font size changed)

Peter is saying that the Scriptures (the OT) that they had at the time, were not of man's origin, they are God-breathed, so these prophecies from then were not up for small-minded chit-chat as if they were just a mans musings, like Isaiahs or Ezekials or Daniels or any of the others, .... That they were God's men and this was the Word of God.

And so those prophecies regarding Jesus and the times that were unfolding before them, and the things to come, are God's Word and the Truth.

What he was NOT saying, (but what is so often claimed), is that the Bible can't be read and understood by private individuals.

It most certainly can, and God WANTS His children to read His Word to know it and Him, and He promised the Holy Spirit to believers in Jesus to help them, guide them and teach them.

We don't need an ecclesiastical hierarchy to lord it over us and tell us what our Father says to us. We have His Word given to us as a gift.

Pastors/teachers are part of the body to help us grow in learning once we're saved, but not to tell us what to think, or to give their own interpretation as if their interpretation is God's law.
In fact, we're supposed to check other peoples teaching, pastor priest or pewman, with the Word of God to see if it holds up, just like the Bereans were commended for so doing.

 

[Josiah]

Of course, there is no more radical form of individual interpretation than that of the RC Denomination. It insists there is ONE individual, all-authoritarian, unaccountable, infallible interpreter: it itself. Exclusively, individually. See what the RCC itself alone insists for it itself exclusively in the latest edition of the Catechism it itself wrote for it itself alone: CCC #85.

 

[Josiah]

Of course, there is no more radical form of individual interpretation than that of the RC Denomination. It insists there is ONE individual, all-authoritarian, unaccountable, infallible interpreter: it itself. Exclusively, individually. See what the RCC itself alone insists for it itself exclusively in the latest edition of the Catechism it itself wrote for it itself alone: CCC #85.

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the [Roman Catholic] Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."


.

So insists the individual RCC for it itself exclusively. The most radical form of individual interpretation found in all of Christiandom. When a Catholic rebukes others for doing something similar to what the RCC does (far more radically), I naturally think of Jesus' "log/speck" point and the proverb about a pot calling a kettle black.



Of course, the whole premise of this silly thread is absurd. NO ONE ON THE PLANET EARTH is allergic to good works, NO ONE says that good words are bad, NO ONE says that good works are irrelevant or unnecessary. It's just that Protestants don't confuse the works of Christ with the works of Christians, they don't confuse justification with sanctification, self with God. CHRIST'S works matter in justification (because He is the Savior, not self) and OUR works matter in sanctification/CHRISTIAN discipleship - empowered by God - as Christians grow to be more like the One who saved them.



Pax CHRISTI



Josiah

 

[Rens]

Do you mean you do not understand 1Co 3:10-15 ?

Yes, what is meant with hay? It's not living in sin, so what is neutral yet bad but not bad enough? I have no idea.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, what is meant with hay? It's not living in sin, so what is neutral yet bad but not bad enough? I have no idea.

The wood, straw, and hay are what one uses to build the body of Christ (the church). wood, hay, and straw burn when there's a fire. They are lost and the structures in the church (body of Christ) that is made with them is lost.