Salvation by Works?

[doorknocker]

ThIs is a strange understanding............. If we say that we can't or don't want to love others,  then it begs the question. ..Do we really know God?

We cannot perfectly do so in word and deed! Impossible, or else Christ died in vain. Even after being born of God, we cannot, not even in our very best attempt to do so! We delight in trying, but fall far so short of perfection~even sometimes, not even close, because even the best, at times labor against hating people! Of course,       

I know you do not~and reason why you do not, is that you are not truly calling sin, sin!

Rb,

Would you be so kind as to let me know what sin I do not call sin, since you made this assertion?

Thank you.


If we say it is impossible,  are we then saying that His death, burial , resurrection and ascension were not enough to

present His church without spot or wrinkle.

This life is not about trying, that is man's effort.

This life is about faith and faith will bring forth what it believes.


For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.


What is impossible for Rb, is possible with God, do you believe this?

[winsome]

 

  AVZ,
 
1. I'm still waiting for a reply to my question: Did Christ pay the legal penalty for our sins? Yes or No?
 
2. I'm also still waiting for you to show me where the Catholic Church teaches that venial sins lose some grace.
 
3. And another one. You claimed that purgatory having a timeline is a Catholic doctrine. Please show me where that "doctrine" is defined.
 
As I'm going away tomorrow perhaps I should help you out on 2 & 3
 
Regarding 2, the Church does NOT teach that venial sins lose some grace.
Here is a quote from the Catechism that proves that:
  However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness." (CCC 1863)
The quote in there that I have emboldened is from Pope John Paull II's Encyclical Redemptoris Missio. 
 
Regarding 3, the Catechism makes no mention of time in its section on Purgatory. It does say:
The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent........ (CCC 1031)
If time was part of the doctrine we could therefore expect to find some reference to it in the texts of the Councils of Florence ands Trent. However there are no such references.
 
Your claim:

  The Catholic system uses merits, mortal sins which lose all grace, venial sins which lose some grace, it has purgatory with a time line...all are quantitative expressions.
  Now if the system was not quantitative...it would not have these doctrines.
 

is demonstrably false.

OK, I will make some time for these questions.

1. Did Christ pay the legal penalty for our sins? Yes or No?

And the answer is....yes! (wonder where you are going with this)

You were the one who called Catholicism legalism.

As the above show it's Protestantism that is legalism.

2. I'm also still waiting for you to show me where the Catholic Church teaches that venial sins lose some grace.

First have a look at how the RCCC defines mortal sin (do note that grace is translated with "charity"):
1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Now lets have a look at venial sins:
1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

Read also the comment to 1863:
While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them,tremble when you count them.A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.

This brings us to confession...penance:
1468 "The whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God's grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship."


The above clearly shows that venial sin reduces Gods grace. It may not necessarily reduce the amount...but it most definitely reduces the effect.
Many venial sins make a great mass and reduce grace more than a few venial sins.
If there was no reduction of grace, then it would not be needed to be restored.

You go wrong at first base. Charity is not translated as grace but as love.

If you go back a few verses in the Catechism – to the theological virtues you will find the definition of charity.

Charity1822 Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbour as ourselves for the love of God.1823 Jesus makes charity the new commandment. By loving his own "to the end," he makes manifest the Father's love which he receives. By loving one another, the disciples imitate the love of Jesus which they themselves receive. Whence Jesus says: "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love." and again: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."
Therefore 1855 & 1863 read

1855 Mortal sin destroys love in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Now lets have a look at venial sins:
1863 Venial sin weakens love; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

This brings us to confession...penance:
1468 "The whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God's grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship."

If you pick an odd verse out of the Catechism you risk distorting the meaning.

The Sacrament of Penance, or Reconciliation, is primarily concerned with mortal and and the reconciliation to God after the rupture of such sin.

Earlier in this section the Catechism states:

1446 Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. the Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as "the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace."

In 1458 the Catechism states that the confession of venial sins are not strictly necessary.

And as I quoted the Catechism clearly states that "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

3. The Catechism makes no mention of time in its section on Purgatory.

Nonsense statement.
First of all lets look at the logical argument: Is purgatory eternal?
The RCC teaches that purgatory is NOT eternal. Purgatory itself ceases to exist when Jesus returns.
Now, simple logic demands that everything that comes to an end, comes to an end at some point in TIME.
Conclusion: Purgatory itself is subject to TIME.

Now look at what the RCC teaches in the catechism:
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin.

An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin. The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead

But maybe you are not convinced yet? Lets see:

Catholic Encyclopedia
Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.


Conclusion: Clearly the RCC teaches that punishment in Purgatory is temporal. And what else is temporal than an indicator of TIME?

Time is a dimension of this world. Time as we understand it does not exist in heaven and it does not exist in Purgatory. Strictly Purgatory is not even a place but a process, though we use the term place sometimes. There is no doctrine of "time" in Purgatory.

Temporal punishment refers to punishments due to us here on earth, as opposed to the eternal punishment of eternal separation from God. It's not a time set in purgatory like a prisoners tariff.

[mclees8]

  AVZ,
 
1. I'm still waiting for a reply to my question: Did Christ pay the legal penalty for our sins? Yes or No?
 
2. I'm also still waiting for you to show me where the Catholic Church teaches that venial sins lose some grace.
 
3. And another one. You claimed that purgatory having a timeline is a Catholic doctrine. Please show me where that "doctrine" is defined.
 
As I'm going away tomorrow perhaps I should help you out on 2 & 3
 
Regarding 2, the Church does NOT teach that venial sins lose some grace.
Here is a quote from the Catechism that proves that:
  However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness." (CCC 1863)
The quote in there that I have emboldened is from Pope John Paull II's Encyclical Redemptoris Missio. 
 
Regarding 3, the Catechism makes no mention of time in its section on Purgatory. It does say:
The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent........ (CCC 1031)
If time was part of the doctrine we could therefore expect to find some reference to it in the texts of the Councils of Florence ands Trent. However there are no such references.
 
Your claim:

  The Catholic system uses merits, mortal sins which lose all grace, venial sins which lose some grace, it has purgatory with a time line...all are quantitative expressions.
  Now if the system was not quantitative...it would not have these doctrines.
 

is demonstrably false.

OK, I will make some time for these questions.

1. Did Christ pay the legal penalty for our sins? Yes or No?

And the answer is....yes! (wonder where you are going with this)

You were the one who called Catholicism legalism.

As the above show it's Protestantism that is legalism.

2. I'm also still waiting for you to show me where the Catholic Church teaches that venial sins lose some grace.

First have a look at how the RCCC defines mortal sin (do note that grace is translated with "charity"):
1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Now lets have a look at venial sins:
1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

Read also the comment to 1863:
While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them,tremble when you count them.A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.

This brings us to confession...penance:
1468 "The whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God's grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship."


The above clearly shows that venial sin reduces Gods grace. It may not necessarily reduce the amount...but it most definitely reduces the effect.
Many venial sins make a great mass and reduce grace more than a few venial sins.
If there was no reduction of grace, then it would not be needed to be restored.

You go wrong at first base. Charity is not translated as grace but as love.

If you go back a few verses in the Catechism – to the theological virtues you will find the definition of charity.

Charity1822 Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbour as ourselves for the love of God.1823 Jesus makes charity the new commandment. By loving his own "to the end," he makes manifest the Father's love which he receives. By loving one another, the disciples imitate the love of Jesus which they themselves receive. Whence Jesus says: "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love." and again: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."
Therefore 1855 & 1863 read

1855 Mortal sin destroys love in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Now lets have a look at venial sins:
1863 Venial sin weakens love; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

This brings us to confession...penance:
1468 "The whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God's grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship."

If you pick an odd verse out of the Catechism you risk distorting the meaning.

The Sacrament of Penance, or Reconciliation, is primarily concerned with mortal and and the reconciliation to God after the rupture of such sin.

Earlier in this section the Catechism states:

1446 Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. the Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as "the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace."

In 1458 the Catechism states that the confession of venial sins are not strictly necessary.

And as I quoted the Catechism clearly states that "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

3. The Catechism makes no mention of time in its section on Purgatory.

Nonsense statement.
First of all lets look at the logical argument: Is purgatory eternal?
The RCC teaches that purgatory is NOT eternal. Purgatory itself ceases to exist when Jesus returns.
Now, simple logic demands that everything that comes to an end, comes to an end at some point in TIME.
Conclusion: Purgatory itself is subject to TIME.

Now look at what the RCC teaches in the catechism:
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin.

An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin. The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead

But maybe you are not convinced yet? Lets see:

Catholic Encyclopedia
Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.


Conclusion: Clearly the RCC teaches that punishment in Purgatory is temporal. And what else is temporal than an indicator of TIME?

Time is a dimension of this world. Time as we understand it does not exist in heaven and it does not exist in Purgatory. Strictly Purgatory is not even a place but a process, though we use the term place sometimes. There is no doctrine of "time" in Purgatory.

Temporal punishment refers to punishments due to us here on earth, as opposed to the eternal punishment of eternal separation from God. It's not a time set in purgatory like a prisoners tariff.

Just when and who made up these rules. Who decided them. Was any scripture used to back them What apostle? 

[mclees8]

This is what it says in Encyclopedia Britannica 

From the early church onward, bishops could reduce or dispense with the rigours of penances, but indulgences emerged in only the 11th and 12th centuries when the idea of purgatory took widespread hold and when the popes became the activist leaders of the reforming church. In their zeal, they promoted the militant reclamation of once-Christian lands—first of Iberia in the Reconquista, then of the Holy Land in the Crusades—offering "full remission of sins," the first indulgences, as inducements to participation.

When it comes to the early church no date is given for that so how early is early. Apparently these rules were no really exploited 11th and 12th century.  Any one know why ? 

[Jsta Babbler]

Man ::::
What a bunch of Theological Doublespeak, Lawyer - eese
always looking for a way to say something they didn't say

[MeMyself]

Babbler, if that is t the pot calling the kettle black!

[Ladonia]

  AVZ,
 
1. I'm still waiting for a reply to my question: Did Christ pay the legal penalty for our sins? Yes or No?
 
2. I'm also still waiting for you to show me where the Catholic Church teaches that venial sins lose some grace.
 
3. And another one. You claimed that purgatory having a timeline is a Catholic doctrine. Please show me where that "doctrine" is defined.
 
As I'm going away tomorrow perhaps I should help you out on 2 & 3
 
Regarding 2, the Church does NOT teach that venial sins lose some grace.
Here is a quote from the Catechism that proves that:
  However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness." (CCC 1863)
The quote in there that I have emboldened is from Pope John Paull II's Encyclical Redemptoris Missio. 
 
Regarding 3, the Catechism makes no mention of time in its section on Purgatory. It does say:
The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent........ (CCC 1031)
If time was part of the doctrine we could therefore expect to find some reference to it in the texts of the Councils of Florence ands Trent. However there are no such references.
 
Your claim:

  The Catholic system uses merits, mortal sins which lose all grace, venial sins which lose some grace, it has purgatory with a time line...all are quantitative expressions.
  Now if the system was not quantitative...it would not have these doctrines.
 

is demonstrably false.

OK, I will make some time for these questions.

1. Did Christ pay the legal penalty for our sins? Yes or No?

And the answer is....yes! (wonder where you are going with this)

You were the one who called Catholicism legalism.

As the above show it's Protestantism that is legalism.

2. I'm also still waiting for you to show me where the Catholic Church teaches that venial sins lose some grace.

First have a look at how the RCCC defines mortal sin (do note that grace is translated with "charity"):
1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Now lets have a look at venial sins:
1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

Read also the comment to 1863:
While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them,tremble when you count them.A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.

This brings us to confession...penance:
1468 "The whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God's grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship."


The above clearly shows that venial sin reduces Gods grace. It may not necessarily reduce the amount...but it most definitely reduces the effect.
Many venial sins make a great mass and reduce grace more than a few venial sins.
If there was no reduction of grace, then it would not be needed to be restored.

You go wrong at first base. Charity is not translated as grace but as love.

If you go back a few verses in the Catechism – to the theological virtues you will find the definition of charity.

Charity1822 Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbour as ourselves for the love of God.1823 Jesus makes charity the new commandment. By loving his own "to the end," he makes manifest the Father's love which he receives. By loving one another, the disciples imitate the love of Jesus which they themselves receive. Whence Jesus says: "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love." and again: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."
Therefore 1855 & 1863 read

1855 Mortal sin destroys love in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Now lets have a look at venial sins:
1863 Venial sin weakens love; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

This brings us to confession...penance:
1468 "The whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God's grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship."

If you pick an odd verse out of the Catechism you risk distorting the meaning.

The Sacrament of Penance, or Reconciliation, is primarily concerned with mortal and and the reconciliation to God after the rupture of such sin.

Earlier in this section the Catechism states:

1446 Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. the Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as "the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace."

In 1458 the Catechism states that the confession of venial sins are not strictly necessary.

And as I quoted the Catechism clearly states that "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

3. The Catechism makes no mention of time in its section on Purgatory.

Nonsense statement.
First of all lets look at the logical argument: Is purgatory eternal?
The RCC teaches that purgatory is NOT eternal. Purgatory itself ceases to exist when Jesus returns.
Now, simple logic demands that everything that comes to an end, comes to an end at some point in TIME.
Conclusion: Purgatory itself is subject to TIME.

Now look at what the RCC teaches in the catechism:
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin.

An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin. The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead

But maybe you are not convinced yet? Lets see:

Catholic Encyclopedia
Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.


Conclusion: Clearly the RCC teaches that punishment in Purgatory is temporal. And what else is temporal than an indicator of TIME?

Time is a dimension of this world. Time as we understand it does not exist in heaven and it does not exist in Purgatory. Strictly Purgatory is not even a place but a process, though we use the term place sometimes. There is no doctrine of "time" in Purgatory.

Temporal punishment refers to punishments due to us here on earth, as opposed to the eternal punishment of eternal separation from God. It's not a time set in purgatory like a prisoners tariff.

Just when and who made up these rules. Who decided them. Was any scripture used to back them What apostle?

Come on, you know who made up the rules - it was the Church who did it, with the power given to it by Jesus Christ Himself.

[Jsta Babbler]

Man ::::
What a bunch of Theological Doublespeak, Lawyer - eese
always looking for a way to say something they didn't say

Lk.11:52
Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge:
ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.



Examples of Political Jargon

Roots of double speak can be traced back to George Orwell's'1984, where the government changed the form and meaning of a word to suit there own purpose...which is exactly what is happening now. It comes in the forms of euphemisms, double speak, insider jargon and more.

sounds just like The RCC

[AVZ]

OK, I will make some time for these questions.

1. Did Christ pay the legal penalty for our sins? Yes or No?

And the answer is....yes! (wonder where you are going with this)

You were the one who called Catholicism legalism.

As the above show it's Protestantism that is legalism.

You have so little understanding, or do you just pretend?
Jesus paid the legal punishment for us, so we do not have to!
If God would judge us by legal means...none of us would go to heaven.

You go wrong at first base. Charity is not translated as grace but as love.

1855 Mortal sin destroys love in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

So now you are saying that mortal sins do NOT destroy grace? They destroy love, but not grace?

Time is a dimension of this world. Time as we understand it does not exist in heaven and it does not exist in Purgatory. Strictly Purgatory is not even a place but a process, though we use the term place sometimes. There is no doctrine of "time" in Purgatory.

Temporal punishment refers to punishments due to us here on earth, as opposed to the eternal punishment of eternal separation from God. It's not a time set in purgatory like a prisoners tariff.

Yes, the RCC teaches that time in Purgatory may not work the same way as it does on earth. They do make the assumption that a very short time on earth may feel like a very long time in Purgatory or vice-versa. The RCC however does NOT teach that there is no time in Purgatory! The best thing they come up with is that there is time, but it is different from time on earth.

The doctrine of Purgatory most certainly involves the concept of time, and it has to.
If there is no time in purgatory...then it would be eternal.
If there is no time in purgatory...then the moment you enter is exactly the same as the moment you leave, which is ridiculous because you can't leave if your cleansing hasn't finished.

Many great minds in the RCC have tried and are still trying to explain the duration in Purgatory without making a reference to time, all fail!
People have grabbed to terms like "existential awareness", "experiental time", "entropical time"...but they all contain a concept of time. None of these explorations however make the statement that there is NO time in Purgatory.

[winsome]

OK, I will make some time for these questions.

1. Did Christ pay the legal penalty for our sins? Yes or No?

And the answer is....yes! (wonder where you are going with this)

You were the one who called Catholicism legalism.

As the above show it's Protestantism that is legalism.

You have so little understanding, or do you just pretend?
Jesus paid the legal punishment for us, so we do not have to!
If God would judge us by legal means...none of us would go to heaven.

No he didn't. It's Protestant legalism that thinks he did.

You go wrong at first base. Charity is not translated as grace but as love.

1855 Mortal sin destroys love in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

So now you are saying that mortal sins do NOT destroy grace? They destroy love, but not grace?

No I didn't say that. Please stop claiming I said something I didn't

Time is a dimension of this world. Time as we understand it does not exist in heaven and it does not exist in Purgatory. Strictly Purgatory is not even a place but a process, though we use the term place sometimes. There is no doctrine of "time" in Purgatory.

Temporal punishment refers to punishments due to us here on earth, as opposed to the eternal punishment of eternal separation from God. It's not a time set in purgatory like a prisoners tariff.

Yes, the RCC teaches that time in Purgatory may not work the same way as it does on earth. They do make the assumption that a very short time on earth may feel like a very long time in Purgatory or vice-versa. The RCC however does NOT teach that there is no time in Purgatory! The best thing they come up with is that there is time, but it is different from time on earth.

The doctrine of Purgatory most certainly involves the concept of time, and it has to.
If there is no time in purgatory...then it would be eternal.
If there is no time in purgatory...then the moment you enter is exactly the same as the moment you leave, which is ridiculous because you can't leave if your cleansing hasn't finished.

Many great minds in the RCC have tried and are still trying to explain the duration in Purgatory without making a reference to time, all fail!
People have grabbed to terms like "existential awareness", "experiental time", "entropical time"...but they all contain a concept of time. None of these explorations however make the statement that there is NO time in Purgatory.

Stop twisting what I actually said.

I said that time as we understand it does not exist in Purgatory.

I also said that there is no doctrine of "time" in Purgatory.

To quote you "I don't even now why you are arguing this."

I've shown you clearly that you do not understand Catholic doctrine.

Sanctifying grace does not come in amounts. You either have it or you do not. What you are confusing it with are all the other kinds of grace.
However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness." (CCC 1863)

I have asked you show me where there is a doctrine of time in Purgatory. You have not because you cannot.

[winsome]

This is what it says in Encyclopedia Britannica 

From the early church onward, bishops could reduce or dispense with the rigours of penances, but indulgences emerged in only the 11th and 12th centuries when the idea of purgatory took widespread hold and when the popes became the activist leaders of the reforming church. In their zeal, they promoted the militant reclamation of once-Christian lands—first of Iberia in the Reconquista, then of the Holy Land in the Crusades—offering "full remission of sins," the first indulgences, as inducements to participation.

When it comes to the early church no date is given for that so how early is early. Apparently these rules were no really exploited 11th and 12th century.  Any one know why ?

Getting way off topic here mclees.

Can we stick to the topic?

[kensington]

OK, I will make some time for these questions.

1. Did Christ pay the legal penalty for our sins? Yes or No?

And the answer is....yes! (wonder where you are going with this)

You were the one who called Catholicism legalism.

As the above show it's Protestantism that is legalism.

You have so little understanding, or do you just pretend?
Jesus paid the legal punishment for us, so we do not have to!
If God would judge us by legal means...none of us would go to heaven.

No he didn't. It's Protestant legalism that thinks he did.

You can't be serious.  Saying that Jesus did not pay the price of Blood shed to redeem us?

(1 John 2:2)and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

(Romans 4:25) He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification

You might want to read this "Catholic"  lesson.  http://www.bible.ca/interactive/salvation-6-christ-paid-penalty.htm

[winsome]

OK, I will make some time for these questions.

1. Did Christ pay the legal penalty for our sins? Yes or No?

And the answer is....yes! (wonder where you are going with this)

You were the one who called Catholicism legalism.

As the above show it's Protestantism that is legalism.

You have so little understanding, or do you just pretend?
Jesus paid the legal punishment for us, so we do not have to!
If God would judge us by legal means...none of us would go to heaven.

No he didn't. It's Protestant legalism that thinks he did.

You can't be serious.  Saying that Jesus did not pay the price of Blood shed to redeem us?

The argument is about what that means

(1 John 2:2)and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Yes, I believe that

(Romans 4:25) He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification

Yes, I believe that, or rather I believe the version in my Bible - who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification

You might want to read this "Catholic"  lesson.  http://www.bible.ca/interactive/salvation-6-christ-paid-penalty.htm

Why would I want to do that when you are here to explain it to me?

[mclees8]

  AVZ,
 
1. I'm still waiting for a reply to my question: Did Christ pay the legal penalty for our sins? Yes or No?
 
2. I'm also still waiting for you to show me where the Catholic Church teaches that venial sins lose some grace.
 
3. And another one. You claimed that purgatory having a timeline is a Catholic doctrine. Please show me where that "doctrine" is defined.
 
As I'm going away tomorrow perhaps I should help you out on 2 & 3
 
Regarding 2, the Church does NOT teach that venial sins lose some grace.
Here is a quote from the Catechism that proves that:
  However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness." (CCC 1863)
The quote in there that I have emboldened is from Pope John Paull II's Encyclical Redemptoris Missio. 
 
Regarding 3, the Catechism makes no mention of time in its section on Purgatory. It does say:
The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent........ (CCC 1031)
If time was part of the doctrine we could therefore expect to find some reference to it in the texts of the Councils of Florence ands Trent. However there are no such references.
 
Your claim:

  The Catholic system uses merits, mortal sins which lose all grace, venial sins which lose some grace, it has purgatory with a time line...all are quantitative expressions.
  Now if the system was not quantitative...it would not have these doctrines.
 

is demonstrably false.

OK, I will make some time for these questions.

1. Did Christ pay the legal penalty for our sins? Yes or No?

And the answer is....yes! (wonder where you are going with this)

You were the one who called Catholicism legalism.

As the above show it's Protestantism that is legalism.

2. I'm also still waiting for you to show me where the Catholic Church teaches that venial sins lose some grace.

First have a look at how the RCCC defines mortal sin (do note that grace is translated with "charity"):
1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Now lets have a look at venial sins:
1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

Read also the comment to 1863:
While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them,tremble when you count them.A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.

This brings us to confession...penance:
1468 "The whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God's grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship."


The above clearly shows that venial sin reduces Gods grace. It may not necessarily reduce the amount...but it most definitely reduces the effect.
Many venial sins make a great mass and reduce grace more than a few venial sins.
If there was no reduction of grace, then it would not be needed to be restored.

You go wrong at first base. Charity is not translated as grace but as love.

If you go back a few verses in the Catechism – to the theological virtues you will find the definition of charity.

Charity1822 Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbour as ourselves for the love of God.1823 Jesus makes charity the new commandment. By loving his own "to the end," he makes manifest the Father's love which he receives. By loving one another, the disciples imitate the love of Jesus which they themselves receive. Whence Jesus says: "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love." and again: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."
Therefore 1855 & 1863 read

1855 Mortal sin destroys love in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Now lets have a look at venial sins:
1863 Venial sin weakens love; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

This brings us to confession...penance:
1468 "The whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God's grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship."

If you pick an odd verse out of the Catechism you risk distorting the meaning.

The Sacrament of Penance, or Reconciliation, is primarily concerned with mortal and and the reconciliation to God after the rupture of such sin.

Earlier in this section the Catechism states:

1446 Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. the Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as "the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace."

In 1458 the Catechism states that the confession of venial sins are not strictly necessary.

And as I quoted the Catechism clearly states that "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

3. The Catechism makes no mention of time in its section on Purgatory.

Nonsense statement.
First of all lets look at the logical argument: Is purgatory eternal?
The RCC teaches that purgatory is NOT eternal. Purgatory itself ceases to exist when Jesus returns.
Now, simple logic demands that everything that comes to an end, comes to an end at some point in TIME.
Conclusion: Purgatory itself is subject to TIME.

Now look at what the RCC teaches in the catechism:
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin.

An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin. The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead

But maybe you are not convinced yet? Lets see:

Catholic Encyclopedia
Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.


Conclusion: Clearly the RCC teaches that punishment in Purgatory is temporal. And what else is temporal than an indicator of TIME?

Time is a dimension of this world. Time as we understand it does not exist in heaven and it does not exist in Purgatory. Strictly Purgatory is not even a place but a process, though we use the term place sometimes. There is no doctrine of "time" in Purgatory.

Temporal punishment refers to punishments due to us here on earth, as opposed to the eternal punishment of eternal separation from God. It's not a time set in purgatory like a prisoners tariff.

Just when and who made up these rules. Who decided them. Was any scripture used to back them What apostle?

Come on, you know who made up the rules - it was the Church who did it, with the power given to it by Jesus Christ Himself.

That is not what I asked.  I ask when and who. To say the church is not what I am asking. What pope or council decided and what date was it decided?  What scripture was used to substantiate temporal punishment and purgatory?

You are the one defending this so you should know all these answers. You expect us to believe these things just because you say so. 

[kensington]

(1 John 2:2)and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Yes, I believe that

(Romans 4:25) He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification

Yes, I believe that, or rather I believe the version in my Bible - who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification

You might want to read this "Catholic"  lesson.  http://www.bible.ca/interactive/salvation-6-christ-paid-penalty.htm

Why would I want to do that when you are here to explain it to me?
[/quote]

It's a Catholic Link....  I didn't expect you to believe my version of it, but I thought you'd rather read it for yourself.

It plainly says that Jesus paid for our sins.  Which you already denied. Do you not believe the same as your church teaches? 

[Jsta Babbler]

Yes, I believe that, or rather I believe the version in my Bible - who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification

and what version would that be

Who was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification.
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

There is a difference between / A B I G Difference between
who was put to death
-------   vs.    ------
Who was delivered up .

[winsome]

 

(1 John 2:2)and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Yes, I believe that

(Romans 4:25) He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification

Yes, I believe that, or rather I believe the version in my Bible - who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification

You might want to read this "Catholic"  lesson.  http://www.bible.ca/interactive/salvation-6-christ-paid-penalty.htm

Why would I want to do that when you are here to explain it to me?

It's a Catholic Link....  I didn't expect you to believe my version of it, but I thought you'd rather read it for yourself.

It's not a Catholic site. Why do you think it expresses Catholic teaching?

It plainly says that Jesus paid for our sins.  Which you already denied. Do you not believe the same as your church teaches?

Neither of the scripture quotes you gave say that Jesus paid for our sins.


Penal substitution is not a Catholic teaching.

[winsome]

Yes, I believe that, or rather I believe the version in my Bible - who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification

and what version would that be

Who was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification.
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

There is a difference between / A B I G Difference between
who was put to death
-------   vs.    ------
Who was delivered up .

I mainly use the RSC-CE which is the RSV with the books that the Protestants left out, plus some amendments to the NT translation.
Rom 4:25 is identical.

However that wasn't this issue I had with kensington's version. It was the second part

There is a BIG difference between 'raised because of our justification' and 'raised for our justification'. The former makes no sense to me.
It seems to be peculiar to the NJKV

[AVZ]

I have asked you show me where there is a doctrine of time in Purgatory. You have not because you cannot.

Because Catholic doctrine declares Purgatory and the stay in Purgatory as "temporary".
Temporary is an expression of time, whether you like it or not.

Now you can argue about the length or experience of "temporary"...but it still is an expression of time.

[winsome]

I have asked you show me where there is a doctrine of time in Purgatory. You have not because you cannot.

Because Catholic doctrine declares Purgatory and the stay in Purgatory as "temporary".
Temporary is an expression of time, whether you like it or not.

Now you can argue about the length or experience of "temporary"...but it still is an expression of time.

Now you really are clutching at straws.

You've come a long way from:

"The Catholic system uses merits, mortal sins which lose all grace, venial sins which lose some grace, it has purgatory with a time line...all are quantitative expressions.
  Now if the system was not quantitative...it would not have these doctrines."

[AVZ]

I have asked you show me where there is a doctrine of time in Purgatory. You have not because you cannot.

Because Catholic doctrine declares Purgatory and the stay in Purgatory as "temporary".
Temporary is an expression of time, whether you like it or not.

Now you can argue about the length or experience of "temporary"...but it still is an expression of time.

Now you really are clutching at straws.

You've come a long way from:

"The Catholic system uses merits, mortal sins which lose all grace, venial sins which lose some grace, it has purgatory with a time line...all are quantitative expressions.
  Now if the system was not quantitative...it would not have these doctrines."

Still stand behind everything I said.

[winsome]

I have asked you show me where there is a doctrine of time in Purgatory. You have not because you cannot.

Because Catholic doctrine declares Purgatory and the stay in Purgatory as "temporary".
Temporary is an expression of time, whether you like it or not.

Now you can argue about the length or experience of "temporary"...but it still is an expression of time.

Now you really are clutching at straws.

You've come a long way from:

"The Catholic system uses merits, mortal sins which lose all grace, venial sins which lose some grace, it has purgatory with a time line...all are quantitative expressions.
  Now if the system was not quantitative...it would not have these doctrines."

Still stand behind everything I said.

Even after you been shown to be wrong!

Why am I not surprised!

[kensington]

I have asked you show me where there is a doctrine of time in Purgatory. You have not because you cannot.

Because Catholic doctrine declares Purgatory and the stay in Purgatory as "temporary".
Temporary is an expression of time, whether you like it or not.

Now you can argue about the length or experience of "temporary"...but it still is an expression of time.

Now you really are clutching at straws.

You've come a long way from:

"The Catholic system uses merits, mortal sins which lose all grace, venial sins which lose some grace, it has purgatory with a time line...all are quantitative expressions.
  Now if the system was not quantitative...it would not have these doctrines."

Still stand behind everything I said.

Even after you been shown to be wrong!

Why am I not surprised!

Except, no one has proved him wrong.   But, your cartoonish rantings don't match what your own church actually says. 

You seem to be saying that no one gets to Heaven due to the blood Jesus shed to pay for our sins, but only through the purgatory, a made up place by man.  It's so silly. 

You haven't even produced a believable argument, much less any biblical proof. 

You deny the blood of Jesus as enough for our sins.  Sadly.  It just doesn't make any sense.  I believe you are confused about what even the Catholic Church teaches.  If Jesus was not paying for our sins at Calvary, what was He doing on that cross? 

[skeeter]

I have asked you show me where there is a doctrine of time in Purgatory. You have not because you cannot.

no one can do that because purgatory only exists in the minds of catholics.

[kensington]

Even Catholics do not know.  I've done many searches and checked sources.  They all say the same thing.  Everything from ... "I don't know" to "as long as it takes"... or "It ends at judgment" or "Only God knows". 

The reality is that Purgatory is a made up place by man.  God needs  no place or state to purify our souls.  That is what He paid for at Calvary. 

IF... God was going to make a place to purify our souls, we would not need the cross.  Jesus would not have had to die. 

And the answers to the "time" question are as silly as the idea of Purgatory.  IF God had needed to create such a thing because Jesus dying on the cross was not enough.  He would have said so.  He didn't.  God addresses time with man.  "It is given once to man and then, the judgment." (your life is time)..  He created Hell.. it is for eternity. (time) And Heaven, for eternity (time) What God said, is that He loved us so much He sent His Son to die for our sins, to pay for us and that Jesus is enough. He has no need to keep us guessing about where we will be for how long.

"Do you not know For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body." I Cor. 6:20

"You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men." I Cor. 7:23

"Jesus himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live for righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" (1Peter 2:24-25).

"Be shepherds of the church of God which he bought with his own blood" (Acts 20:28)
Ephesians 1:13-14New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 In [a]Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is [d]given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.

We are bought, paid for and redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb. 

[winsome]

I have asked you show me where there is a doctrine of time in Purgatory. You have not because you cannot.

Because Catholic doctrine declares Purgatory and the stay in Purgatory as "temporary".
Temporary is an expression of time, whether you like it or not.

Now you can argue about the length or experience of "temporary"...but it still is an expression of time.

Now you really are clutching at straws.

You've come a long way from:

"The Catholic system uses merits, mortal sins which lose all grace, venial sins which lose some grace, it has purgatory with a time line...all are quantitative expressions.
  Now if the system was not quantitative...it would not have these doctrines."

Still stand behind everything I said.

Even after you been shown to be wrong!

Why am I not surprised!

Except, no one has proved him wrong.   But, your cartoonish rantings don't match what your own church actually says. 

You seem to be saying that no one gets to Heaven due to the blood Jesus shed to pay for our sins, but only through the purgatory, a made up place by man.  It's so silly. 

You haven't even produced a believable argument, much less any biblical proof. 

You deny the blood of Jesus as enough for our sins.  Sadly.  It just doesn't make any sense.  I believe you are confused about what even the Catholic Church teaches.  If Jesus was not paying for our sins at Calvary, what was He doing on that cross?

kensington,

There are two different arguments here. The first with AVZ, the second with you

1. What the Catholic Church actually teaches about salvation in terms of sanctifying grace . That does not require reference to the Bible but to authoritative Catholic documents (such as the Catechism). I have shown AVZ to be wrong.

2. Whether the Protestant doctrine of 'penal substitution' is correct. So far you have not provided any scripture to prove it.

It might be the best you can do but I don't think accusing me of 'cartoonish rantings' adds much to your arguments. Add to that claiming I said things that I clearly didn't, says to me that you have no intention of constructing a sensible argument but have descended to personal attacks.

[AVZ]

I have asked you show me where there is a doctrine of time in Purgatory. You have not because you cannot.

Because Catholic doctrine declares Purgatory and the stay in Purgatory as "temporary".
Temporary is an expression of time, whether you like it or not.

Now you can argue about the length or experience of "temporary"...but it still is an expression of time.

Now you really are clutching at straws.

You've come a long way from:

"The Catholic system uses merits, mortal sins which lose all grace, venial sins which lose some grace, it has purgatory with a time line...all are quantitative expressions.
  Now if the system was not quantitative...it would not have these doctrines."

Still stand behind everything I said.

Even after you been shown to be wrong!

Why am I not surprised!

Except, no one has proved him wrong.   But, your cartoonish rantings don't match what your own church actually says. 

You seem to be saying that no one gets to Heaven due to the blood Jesus shed to pay for our sins, but only through the purgatory, a made up place by man.  It's so silly. 

You haven't even produced a believable argument, much less any biblical proof. 

You deny the blood of Jesus as enough for our sins.  Sadly.  It just doesn't make any sense.  I believe you are confused about what even the Catholic Church teaches.  If Jesus was not paying for our sins at Calvary, what was He doing on that cross?

kensington,

There are two different arguments here. The first with AVZ, the second with you

1. What the Catholic Church actually teaches about salvation in terms of sanctifying grace . That does not require reference to the Bible but to authoritative Catholic documents (such as the Catechism). I have shown AVZ to be wrong.

2. Whether the Protestant doctrine of 'penal substitution' is correct. So far you have not provided any scripture to prove it.

It might be the best you can do but I don't think accusing me of 'cartoonish rantings' adds much to your arguments. Add to that claiming I said things that I clearly didn't, says to me that you have no intention of constructing a sensible argument but have descended to personal attacks.

I envy you.
You are so convinced you actually have proven anything. Reality is the only person who you convinced of that is yourself.
That way you can enter any discussion and leave happily thinking you made a substantial contribution.

[winsome]

I have asked you show me where there is a doctrine of time in Purgatory. You have not because you cannot.

Because Catholic doctrine declares Purgatory and the stay in Purgatory as "temporary".
Temporary is an expression of time, whether you like it or not.

Now you can argue about the length or experience of "temporary"...but it still is an expression of time.

Now you really are clutching at straws.

You've come a long way from:

"The Catholic system uses merits, mortal sins which lose all grace, venial sins which lose some grace, it has purgatory with a time line...all are quantitative expressions.
  Now if the system was not quantitative...it would not have these doctrines."

Still stand behind everything I said.

Even after you been shown to be wrong!

Why am I not surprised!

Except, no one has proved him wrong.   But, your cartoonish rantings don't match what your own church actually says. 

You seem to be saying that no one gets to Heaven due to the blood Jesus shed to pay for our sins, but only through the purgatory, a made up place by man.  It's so silly. 

You haven't even produced a believable argument, much less any biblical proof. 

You deny the blood of Jesus as enough for our sins.  Sadly.  It just doesn't make any sense.  I believe you are confused about what even the Catholic Church teaches.  If Jesus was not paying for our sins at Calvary, what was He doing on that cross?

kensington,

There are two different arguments here. The first with AVZ, the second with you

1. What the Catholic Church actually teaches about salvation in terms of sanctifying grace . That does not require reference to the Bible but to authoritative Catholic documents (such as the Catechism). I have shown AVZ to be wrong.

2. Whether the Protestant doctrine of 'penal substitution' is correct. So far you have not provided any scripture to prove it.

It might be the best you can do but I don't think accusing me of 'cartoonish rantings' adds much to your arguments. Add to that claiming I said things that I clearly didn't, says to me that you have no intention of constructing a sensible argument but have descended to personal attacks.

I envy you.
You are so convinced you actually have proven anything. Reality is the only person who you convinced of that is yourself.
That way you can enter any discussion and leave happily thinking you made a substantial contribution.

So you have descended into personal abuse as well.

There is nothing more to say to either of you.

[kensington]

I have asked you show me where there is a doctrine of time in Purgatory. You have not because you cannot.

Because Catholic doctrine declares Purgatory and the stay in Purgatory as "temporary".
Temporary is an expression of time, whether you like it or not.

Now you can argue about the length or experience of "temporary"...but it still is an expression of time.

Now you really are clutching at straws.

You've come a long way from:

"The Catholic system uses merits, mortal sins which lose all grace, venial sins which lose some grace, it has purgatory with a time line...all are quantitative expressions.
  Now if the system was not quantitative...it would not have these doctrines."

Still stand behind everything I said.

Even after you been shown to be wrong!

Why am I not surprised!

Except, no one has proved him wrong.   But, your cartoonish rantings don't match what your own church actually says. 

You seem to be saying that no one gets to Heaven due to the blood Jesus shed to pay for our sins, but only through the purgatory, a made up place by man.  It's so silly. 

You haven't even produced a believable argument, much less any biblical proof. 

You deny the blood of Jesus as enough for our sins.  Sadly.  It just doesn't make any sense.  I believe you are confused about what even the Catholic Church teaches.  If Jesus was not paying for our sins at Calvary, what was He doing on that cross?

kensington,

There are two different arguments here. The first with AVZ, the second with you

1. What the Catholic Church actually teaches about salvation in terms of sanctifying grace . That does not require reference to the Bible but to authoritative Catholic documents (such as the Catechism). I have shown AVZ to be wrong.

2. Whether the Protestant doctrine of 'penal substitution' is correct. So far you have not provided any scripture to prove it.

It might be the best you can do but I don't think accusing me of 'cartoonish rantings' adds much to your arguments. Add to that claiming I said things that I clearly didn't, says to me that you have no intention of constructing a sensible argument but have descended to personal attacks.

I envy you.
You are so convinced you actually have proven anything. Reality is the only person who you convinced of that is yourself.
That way you can enter any discussion and leave happily thinking you made a substantial contribution.

So you have descended into personal abuse as well.

There is nothing more to say to either of you.

I don't care if you speak to me or not.  That's the way my children act when they can't win an argument, or their arguments have no basis in fact...  they deceive themselves.

You denied that Jesus death and blood shed on the Cross at Calvary paid for us, purchased us from sin into Him.  I have given scriptures to prove that.  The blood of Jesus is the ONLY way we could be redeemed from sin and the wages of sin.

The Wages of sin is death...  sinners who are not redeemed by His blood on Calvary die and go to Hell.  But, He PAID the price for those who would believe and repent.  If you deny that...  why bother to have a crucifix to remind you of His death.  If He did not die for that... what was He doing on that cross?

You never answered that.  WHAT WAS JESUS DOING ON THE CROSS?  If he was not there to purchase our salvation with the high price of His blood?  Why did He have to die, if not to redeem us from the punishment of Hell for our sins? 

He was not up there posing for the sculptures of His crucifixion you all have in your churches and homes.  So what was He doing there? 

[winsome]

kensington,

When you lie about what I say there is no point in continuing.

You can accuse me of whatever you like but this discussion is at an end as far as I am concerned.

[kensington]

OK, I will make some time for these questions.

1. Did Christ pay the legal penalty for our sins? Yes or No?

And the answer is....yes! (wonder where you are going with this)

You were the one who called Catholicism legalism.

As the above show it's Protestantism that is legalism.

You have so little understanding, or do you just pretend?
Jesus paid the legal punishment for us, so we do not have to!
If God would judge us by legal means...none of us would go to heaven.

No he didn't. It's Protestant legalism that thinks he did.

DID YOU NOT SAY THIS??  On page 6 of this discussion when asked out right... if Jesus paid the price for us?

WHAT DID I LIE ABOUT??  When asked if Jesus paid for us.. you said no.  You said it was "Protestant Legalism that thinks he did"

How else does this read?  I provided scriptures that Jesus did indeed pay the price with His death on the cross to buy us. 

[kensington]

Winsome.... Please explain to us what Jesus did on the cross...  in your own words.  Thanks.

[skeeter]

kensington,

When you lie about what I say there is no point in continuing.

You can accuse me of whatever you like but this discussion is at an end as far as I am concerned.

I thought I read something like that up a post or so, yet here you are again.

[skeeter]

I have asked you show me where there is a doctrine of time in Purgatory. You have not because you cannot.

Because Catholic doctrine declares Purgatory and the stay in Purgatory as "temporary".
Temporary is an expression of time, whether you like it or not.

Now you can argue about the length or experience of "temporary"...but it still is an expression of time.

Now you really are clutching at straws.

You've come a long way from:

"The Catholic system uses merits, mortal sins which lose all grace, venial sins which lose some grace, it has purgatory with a time line...all are quantitative expressions.
  Now if the system was not quantitative...it would not have these doctrines."

Still stand behind everything I said.

Even after you been shown to be wrong!

Why am I not surprised!

Except, no one has proved him wrong.   But, your cartoonish rantings don't match what your own church actually says. 

You seem to be saying that no one gets to Heaven due to the blood Jesus shed to pay for our sins, but only through the purgatory, a made up place by man.  It's so silly. 

You haven't even produced a believable argument, much less any biblical proof. 

You deny the blood of Jesus as enough for our sins.  Sadly.  It just doesn't make any sense.  I believe you are confused about what even the Catholic Church teaches.  If Jesus was not paying for our sins at Calvary, what was He doing on that cross?

kensington,

There are two different arguments here. The first with AVZ, the second with you

1. What the Catholic Church actually teaches about salvation in terms of sanctifying grace . That does not require reference to the Bible but to authoritative Catholic documents (such as the Catechism). I have shown AVZ to be wrong.

2. Whether the Protestant doctrine of 'penal substitution' is correct. So far you have not provided any scripture to prove it.

It might be the best you can do but I don't think accusing me of 'cartoonish rantings' adds much to your arguments. Add to that claiming I said things that I clearly didn't, says to me that you have no intention of constructing a sensible argument but have descended to personal attacks.

thx for confirming that Catholics don't use/believe in God's word.
if you proved AVZ wrong, it's only according to catholic belief, not according to God's word.

btw, why do you expect others to prove anything thru scripture when you don't?

[winsome]

I have asked you show me where there is a doctrine of time in Purgatory. You have not because you cannot.

Because Catholic doctrine declares Purgatory and the stay in Purgatory as "temporary".
Temporary is an expression of time, whether you like it or not.

Now you can argue about the length or experience of "temporary"...but it still is an expression of time.

Now you really are clutching at straws.

You've come a long way from:

"The Catholic system uses merits, mortal sins which lose all grace, venial sins which lose some grace, it has purgatory with a time line...all are quantitative expressions.
  Now if the system was not quantitative...it would not have these doctrines."

Still stand behind everything I said.

Even after you been shown to be wrong!

Why am I not surprised!

Except, no one has proved him wrong.   But, your cartoonish rantings don't match what your own church actually says. 

You seem to be saying that no one gets to Heaven due to the blood Jesus shed to pay for our sins, but only through the purgatory, a made up place by man.  It's so silly. 

You haven't even produced a believable argument, much less any biblical proof. 

You deny the blood of Jesus as enough for our sins.  Sadly.  It just doesn't make any sense.  I believe you are confused about what even the Catholic Church teaches.  If Jesus was not paying for our sins at Calvary, what was He doing on that cross?

kensington,

There are two different arguments here. The first with AVZ, the second with you

1. What the Catholic Church actually teaches about salvation in terms of sanctifying grace . That does not require reference to the Bible but to authoritative Catholic documents (such as the Catechism). I have shown AVZ to be wrong.

2. Whether the Protestant doctrine of 'penal substitution' is correct. So far you have not provided any scripture to prove it.

It might be the best you can do but I don't think accusing me of 'cartoonish rantings' adds much to your arguments. Add to that claiming I said things that I clearly didn't, says to me that you have no intention of constructing a sensible argument but have descended to personal attacks.

thx for confirming that Catholics don't use/believe in God's word.
if you proved AVZ wrong, it's only according to catholic belief, not according to God's word.

btw, why do you expect others to prove anything thru scripture when you don't?

skeeter,

There are two steps in discussing Catholic doctrine.

Step 1. Proving what it actually IS, rather than what some people erroneously think it is. That requires evidence from authoritative Catholic documents (such as the Catechism)

Step 2. Whether that doctrine (properly understood) is correct. That requires evidence from scripture.

My argument with AVZ was still at step 1 because AVZ was claiming the Catholic Church taught something that it does not teach.There is no point in proceededing to stage 2 on that basis.