Why it is not possible to sell your soul - discuss
-
My view is: Christ's sacrifice was a ransom paid to God, and not to Satan.Originally posted by Icemoon:I reject all the buying and selling rubbish.
You mean God need to do business with Satan? Where is His sovereignity then?
Satan never bought us. -
God had to do busniess with himself?Originally posted by laoda99:My view is: Christ's sacrifice was a ransom paid to God, and not to Satan.
Satan never bought us. -
Men need to make sacrifice to atone for sins ? So Jesus's death wasnt quite enough hur....?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:I kinda agree. If u do penance and make sacrifices, u will atone ur sins. As a catholic, whenever u attend Mass and participate in the sacrifice, u make a perfect sacrifice with infinte merits to atone ur sins. Furthermore, u can undergo the sacrament of penance to allow the Church to exercise her apostolic powers of binding and loosing sins.
Penance, sacrifice, Mass, Confession - the key to victory. -
Erm so God doesnt want us to particpate in our salvation?Originally posted by klydeer:Men need to make sacrifice to atone for sins ? So Jesus's death wasnt quite enough hur....? -
My participation comes in the form of prayer, repentence and Loving God as God. I dont believe in making sacrifices for atonement of sins. Only God can forgive men from sins. And that forgiveness is done when Jesus said "Its Finished."
-
1) God passed authority of forgiving sins to his Church.Originally posted by klydeer:My participation comes in the form of prayer, repentence and Loving God as God. I dont believe in making sacrifices for atonement of sins. Only God can forgive men from sins. And that forgiveness is done when Jesus said "Its Finished."
"And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'" John 22:23
We also note that the apostles were not only given the authority to forgive sin, but to retain sin as well. What does this mean? This means that the apostles were given the gift of rendering judgment on the sincerity of the penitent, and binding the penitent to works of penance in order for him to be forgiven of his sin. If, in the apostles' judgment, the penitent was not sincere, or should be required to perform acts of penance in reparation for his sins, the apostles could retain the sin (withhold forgiveness) until their conditions were satisfied. While such authority is reserved to God alone, Christ shared this authority with the apostles.
If it is FINISHED, why does God even bother granting the power of retaining and loosing sins to his Church? Since it is done, why bother granting a useless gift? See Matt. 9:8 where the authority to forgive sins "was given to men." There is at least 10 bible verses in support of Man forgiving sins.
Btw Christ calls us to pray and fast....that is sacrifice. -
THE COVENANT OF REDEMPTION!Originally posted by laoda99:My view is: Christ's sacrifice was a ransom paid to God, and not to Satan.
Satan never bought us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theologyThe Covenant of Redemption is the eternal agreement within the Godhead in which the Father appointed the Son Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit to redeem the elect from the guilt and power of sin. God appointed Christ to live a life of perfect obedience to the law and to die a penal, substitutionary, sacrificial death as the covenantal representative for all who trust in him.
http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/category/th/file/99786.qnaQuestion
What is the covenant of redemption? Did it involve all three divine Persons? How did this doctrine develop historically? Isn't it a post-Reformation doctrine? Can it be supported scripturally?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer
The covenant of redemption is typically described as a covenant between the Father and the Son rather than as a covenant between all three members of the Godhead. This is because the Bible presents the Son as the Redeemer, not the Holy Spirit, and it presents the Father as the one who permits, commands and accepts the Son's sacrifice. The Holy Spirit is critically important to the salvation process, but the condition of redemption was to be fulfilled by the Son in obligation to the Father, and the Father was to reward the Son's obedience. This is the essence of the covenant of redemption: a condition laid on the Redeemer, and a reward promised to the Redeemer upon fulfillment of the condition. Biblical texts supporting this doctrine are quite extensive, but for a sampling of texts and proofs see my article Biblical Soteriology: Limited Atonement, part 12.
I'm afraid I'm not aware of when the term "covenant of redemption" first came into play. But the concept has been around much longer than the term. In fact, I can't think of any old, mainstream system of theology that would deny its basic ideas (though some newer systems do), although the specific terms of that covenant are disputed. Certainly the idea is present in Calvin (e.g. Institutes 2.12.4).
As in Calvin, I suspect that in very old systematic treatments the idea would be addressed under the heading of the purpose of the incarnation. One work that comes to mind is Anselm's "Why God Became Man" (late 11th century). Anselm certainly does not lay out the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of redemption. But he does indicate that the Son of God came to earth with the express purpose of redeeming mankind at the will of the Father and by satisfying God's Law, and he assumes that the Father assured the Son of success. -
Too chim HAHAOriginally posted by Icemoon: -
what too cheam? We haven't go into the details yet.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Too chim HAHA
told you liao .. the Protestant theology very powerful one. How they view the Cross and salvation is something Catholics can learn.
-
Aquinas also very cheem la....eery theologican damn cheem.Originally posted by Icemoon:what too cheam? We haven't go into the details yet.
told you liao .. the Protestant theology very powerful one. How they view the Cross and salvation is something Catholics can learn. -
Aquinas considered easy liao. Maybe his language cheam but the ideas were simple. Which idea of his you think is cheam?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Aquinas also very cheem la....eery theologican damn cheem. -
I read somwhere that a certain Cardinal Cajetan devastated Luther theologies and doctrines by purely appealing to Scriptures. Can u help me verify it...i dont trust Catholic Answers haha.
From Newadvent:
Cajetan sought to counteract the Biblical extravagances of the Humanists and to defeat the Lutheran movement on the ground from which it had chosen to reject the authority of the Church and of tradition. Chiefly with rabbinical assistance, it is said, being himself unversed in Hebrew, and with the aid of current Greek versions he prepared a literal translation of the Bible, including the Old Testament as far as the end of the third chapter of Isaias, and all the New Testament except the Apocalypse, which on account of its difficulties he was unwilling to undertake. It was his object, he declared in a dedicatory letter to Clement VII published in his edition of the Gospels, to ascertain the true literal sense of the Scriptures, and he did not hesitate to adopt new renderings, provided they did not conflict with the Sacred Word and with the teachings of the Church. This position, much criticized in his time, is now quite in line with the common method of Catholic exegetics.
Scripture Catholic uses Greek and Hebrew in its exegis. -
Pls lah .. Luther theologies which are shared by the Protestant fathers have never been defeated. In fact they are believed and strengthed by the puritian fathers.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:I read somwhere that a certain Cardinal Cajetan devastated Luther theologies and doctrines by purely appealing to Scriptures. Can u help me verify it...i dont trust Catholic Answers haha.
Scripture Catholic uses Greek and Hebrew in its exegis.
The Protestant exegetical traditions also use Hebrew and Greek. You heard of Strong's Concordance? -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
if you could kindly put the link to the whole document here, that will be helpful, thanks. cause all it says here, is that
I read somwhere that a certain Cardinal Cajetan devastated Luther theologies and doctrines by purely appealing to Scriptures. Can u help me verify it...i dont trust Catholic Answers haha.
From Newadvent:
Cajetan sought to counteract the Biblical extravagances of the Humanists and to defeat the Lutheran movement on the ground from which it had chosen to reject the authority of the Church and of tradition. [b]Chiefly with rabbinical assistance, it is said, being himself unversed in Hebrew, and with the aid of current Greek versions he prepared a literal translation of the Bible, including the Old Testament as far as the end of the third chapter of Isaias, and all the New Testament except the Apocalypse, which on account of its difficulties he was unwilling to undertake. It was his object, he declared in a dedicatory letter to Clement VII published in his edition of the Gospels, to ascertain the true literal sense of the Scriptures, and he did not hesitate to adopt new renderings, provided they did not conflict with the Sacred Word and with the teachings of the Church. This position, much criticized in his time, is now quite in line with the common method of Catholic exegetics.
Scripture Catholic uses Greek and Hebrew in its exegis.[/b]
"Cajetan sought to counteract the Biblical extravagances of the Humanists and to defeat the Lutheran movement on the ground from which it had chosen to reject the authority of the Church and of tradition." meaning he tried to, but did not mention whether he is sucessful or not. -
Yes. Becoz whatever covenant God made, he must fulfill.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:God had to do busniess with himself? -
Thanks Icemoon for the link.Originally posted by Icemoon:
That's what I was talking about. -
The covenant of Abraham was made between God and God (God fulfilling bith end of the bargain) while Abraham was sleeping (but reap all the benefits).Originally posted by laoda99:Yes. Becoz whatever covenant God made, he must fulfill.
Genesis 15
12 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him.
17 When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates- 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgash ites and Jebusites." -
Johann Ech also sucessful defeated Luther in debates as well...
Wikipedia:
A mutual desire for a public disputation led to a compact between Eck and Luther by which the former pledged himself to meet Karlstadt in debate at Erfurt or Leipzig, on condition that Luther abstain from all participation in the discussion. In December 1518, Eck published the twelve theses which he was prepared to uphold against Karlstadt, but since they were aimed at Luther rather than at the ostensible opponent, Luther addressed an open letter to Karlstadt, in which he declared himself ready to meet Eck in debate.
The disputation between Eck and Karlstadt began at Leipzig on 27 June 1519. In the first four sessions Eck maintained the thesis that free will is the active agent in the creation of good works, but he was compelled by his opponent to modify his position so as to concede that the grace of God and free will work in harmony toward the common end. Karlstadt then proceeded to prove that good works are to be ascribed to the agency of God alone, whereupon Eck yielded so far as to admit that free will is passive in the beginning of conversion, although he maintained that in course of time it enters into its rights; so that while the entirety of good works originates in God, their accomplishment is not entirely the work of God.
Despite the fact that Eck was thus virtually forced to abandon his position, he succeeded, through his good memory and his dialectic skill, in confusing the heavy-witted Karlstadt and carried off the nominal victory. He was far less successful against Luther, who, as Eck himself confessed, was his superior in memory, acumen, and learning. After a disputation on the absolute supremacy of the papacy, purgatory, penance, etc., lasting twenty-three days (4 July–27 July), the arbitrators declined to give a verdict, but the general impression was that victory rested with Eck. He did succeed in making Luther admit that there was some truth in the Hussite opinions and declare himself against the pope, but this success only embittered his animosity against his opponents, and from that time his whole efforts were devoted to Luther's overthrow. Eck was greeted as victor by the theologians of the University of Leipzig, who overwhelmed him with honors and sent him away with gifts.
In addition to his inquisitorial duties, every year witnessed the publication of one or more writings against iconoclasm and in defense of the doctrines of the Mass, purgatory, and auricular confession. His Enchiridion locorum communium adversus Lutherum et alios hostes ecclesiae (Landshut, 1525) went through forty-six editions before 1576. As its title indicates, it was directed primarily against Melanchthon's Loci Communes, although it also concerned itself to some extent with the teachings of Huldrych Zwingli.
At Baden-in-Aargau from May 21 until June 18, 1526 a public disputation on the doctrine of transubstantiation was held, in which Eck and Thomas Murner were pitted against Johann Oecolampadius. The affair ended decidedly in favor of Eck, who induced the authorities to enter on a course of active persecution of Zwingli and his followers (Conference of Baden).
The effect of his victory at Baden was dissipated, however, at the Disputation of Bern (January 152
, where the propositions advanced by the Reformers were debated in the absence of Eck, and Bern, Basel, and other places were definitely won for the Reformation. At the Diet of Augsburg (1530) Eck played the leading part among the Roman Catholic theologians. -
This is the reason why i hated Church history after the Apostolic Ages.
-
Why do u say that?Originally posted by M©+square:This is the reason why i hated Church history after the Apostolic Ages. -
I only know recently, most threads which you've been participating promotes Catholicism and tends to steer topics to Catholic - Protestant debate....Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Why do u say that? -
Or u rather i steer topics to ecunemism (catholic-protestant unity)?Originally posted by M©+square:I only know recently, most threads which you've been participating promotes Catholicism and tends to steer topics to Catholic - Protestant debate.... -
I'd rather you practise self control in promoting your beliefs and Church history here?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Or u rather i steer topics to ecunemism (catholic-protestant unity)?
Otherwise, there is always Roman Catholics forum for you. -
After so many topics and replies in EH, I have not seen you "promoting" Christ. The only mention of Christ is related to your agenda - that Christ gave Peter the keys, asked him to feed his sheeps, Christ inside your body make you feel super powerful etc.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Or u rather i steer topics to ecunemism (catholic-protestant unity)? -
One of the most shocking thing from you was that you consider yourself Catholic first then Christian.
Regardless of how the early followers were indeed called Christians in Acts.
I wonder to whom do you swore your allegiance? God (Christ) or the Church?