Have I gone MAD???

Idolater

Well-known member
Could you please quote any Catechism of the Catholic Church where it is stated that believers enjoy eternal security?

Thanks!
1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/270/index.html
Also note the following (emphasis mine):
1472 . . . sin has a double consequence. . . . 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. . . . A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm#1472
Put together these ideas, and if this life is for you Purgatory, then you can enjoy eternal security.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

That says nothing about anyone enjoying eternal security from the moment a person believes.

Put together these ideas, and if this life is for you Purgatory, then you can enjoy eternal security.

How can there be a place called Purgatory since when a saved person dies he goes immediately to be with Christ?:In the following verse Paul makes it plain that being "away from the body" is to be "at home with the Lord":

"We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8).​

Paul says practically the same thing in the following passage:

"If it is to be life in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better" (Phil. 1:22-23).​

Here Paul is speaking of two different things, one being to remain on the earth and continue his service (fruitful labor) for the Lord and the other is to depart (die), which will result in being with Christ.

Paul makes it abundantly clear that when a saved person dies he goes immediately to be with the Lord Jesus in heaven then it is impossible that when a saved person dies he goes to a so-called place called Purgatory.
 

Lon

Well-known member
But there isn't any biblical example of the office of bishop falling. Right, because Paul opposed Peter to his face. The check? Scriptures. The Holy Spirit, and in Paul's case, one-on-one with the Lord Jesus Christ as well. It is a clear portrayal, so much so, that Paul gives Timothy qualifications, qualifications that priests often fail. Almost all of them have no wives, let alone the husband of but one, etc. While I know the RCC has pat-answers, they don't cut it for me. I'm fairly familiar with my Bible.



When the New Testament ends the institution is in full swing. When the Apostles were all dead, beginning with the era immediately following the Apostolic era, the bishops and their office, instituted by the Apostles, was the authorized pastorate of the One Church /Body of Christ. For it to fall as a whole would i m o constitute the gates of hell prevailing against the Lord's own Church that He built.
This isn't what Peter started. What was started was an evangelical (good news) movement of "Christ in you, the hope of Glory." Whatever point Mid Acts comes in, salvation through faith in Christ was essential, and was/is the assailing of the gates of hell, everytime one isn't lost there.



The key idea is the type of consequences, punishments, penalties, or "harvests" (where "we reap [a harvest] what we sow"). There are eternal and temporal. The temporal penalties are self-evident, you touch a hot stove you burn your finger. You reap what you sow. You defraud a man, then he gets angry with you. You bear false witness against a man, and his family tries to burn your house down. You lust, your heart becomes corrupt.

Believing in Christ abolishes the eternal punishments of all our sins, past future and present, it is agreed, we agree, Catholicism agrees.

But temporal penalties and punishments are self-evidently, not always remitted or forgiven. In fact in 1st Corinthians chapter 11, Paul warns the Church that receiving Communion unworthily can be hazardous for your health, and that is another temporal consequence of our sins.

You are a convert, as am I. Both two opposite ways so there is a need to realize where we believe blinders exist. "Father forgive me, for I have sinned" includes sins against people, and sins against God. You may not grasp this, but you are equivocating. There is a stark contrast or I'd still be Catholic. Have you said your Hail Mary 's?


That's your idea, and Catholicism disagrees with you, and only one of these Christian ideologies /theologies asserts plainly without any further explanation that murder, rape, adultery, bearing false witness under oath, are more serious /weighty /grave, than sins like petty theft, white lies, and getting buzzed on wine, and it's Catholicism and not yours and not MAD's ideas. Both of you need to elaborate to justify your idea because prima facie it strikes everyone but a nihilist as extreme and wrong.
:nono: Sins are specifically, and only against God. You cannot 'hurt' Him worse by doing a 'more heinous' crime. Crime and harm do indeed come in varying degrees, but offense to God, is offense to God alone. David, having killed Uriah, still penned "Against you, and you ALONE, have I sinned (emphasis mine for important contrast). Catholics DO confuse these two and often do not rightly know the difference.



Perhaps, but Catholicism definitely does not confuse the gravity of mass murder with that of taking a child's milk money.
I know, which is why there are so many quarter thieves in the RC. They don't get it because 'perhaps' I'm right (a huge reason I didn't join the RC).


And all I was saying is that if we pray the Our Father /"Lord's Prayer", we pray, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us," which is forgiving others the temporal penalties, punishments, or consequences that their sins have deservedly earned them from us. MAD teaches against praying this prayer, wrongly. Do you agree with them, that you, that the Body of Christ ought not pray the Our Father? I don't think you do, but I don't think you understand how important it is to MAD that the Church Not pray the Our Father, because it's not for us, it was only for the lost sheep of Israel to pray, that's who the Lord was speaking to /teaching. Not the Church. (Again according to MAD.)
I'm re-evaluating the Lord's prayer in the sense that we are indeed asking the Father to 'forgive us.' That has been done, eternally at the cross, like coming to Him and asking Him to do something for us, He's already done, all over again. I'm not to the Mid Acts degree that I'd ever see it as an infraction of Hebrews 6:4, but I do see where they are coming from: Believing we are saved completely, through Grace, and not of ourselves: see their point that they'd be showing 'doubt' over what they believe the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished for them (thus, you can see with me, they see the Lord's prayer as given for disciples, at that time, prior to His death burial, and resurrection. You'd want to examine with me, whether there is a command 'for all time.' I don't believe there was, but there is rather a pattern "Pray in this manner..."


It's as I said, it protects the purity of the Eucharist, the center of the Mass, and it protects parishioners, from partaking of the bread and the cup unworthily. Breaking communion is objective (when you objectively commit an objectively grave sin) and so your reconciliation to the Body is also objective (it's a sacrament).

You admit 'perhaps' to the confusion just above and that is no small concession. Little issues have a way of ballooning as they effect more doctrines of theology. We all need to be more aware of where that happens within our respective positions. :e4e:
 

musterion

Well-known member
re: Bullinger

A recently departed mid Acts teacher said he was convinced EWB did not write much if any of the Acts 28 flavored stuff attributed to him, but that it was really done by editor and 28er Charles Welch after EWB died...this would include the margin notes in the Companion (though maybe not the Appendices, not sure).

He further said that if you look at Bullinger's verified writings, he was obviously dispensational but, while not exactly MAD, he definitely wasn't 28 either.

FWIW.
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
re: Bullinger

A recently departed mid Acts teacher said he was convinced EWB did not write much if any of the Acts 28 flavored stuff attributed to him, but that it was really done by editor and 28er Charles Welch after EWB died...this would include the margin notes in the Companion (though maybe not the Appendices, not sure).

He further said that if you look at Bullinger's verified writings, he was obviously dispensational but, while not exactly MAD, he definitely wasn't 28 either.

FWIW.
Thank you for this information as well. We don't have to agree with everything a particular theologian says, to appreciate them either. Men of God who have rendered us all a service still get 'well done.' As I've read a bit of his commentaries, I'm not on page with everything he believes (or at least that carries his name). This is a good encouragement from you to keep reading more from him. Lon
 

musterion

Well-known member
I think you'd enjoy Robert Anderson. If I may suggest his book THE SILENCE OF GOD, you'd find it very interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
Regarding Bullinger, I'd highly recommend his commentary on the Book of Revelation.
I did have a couple of larger disagreements with that commentary. I do think he wrote well. There are a good many points in that commentary that just don't quite add-up for me. I think I have a bit of my response to it somewhere. I'll try and find it (lost another computer a couple of weeks ago).
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Am I Mid Acts?

I've been told a couple of times now, that my stance on books being written to Jews distinguishing carefully 'not to me' makes me MAD. I've been told that appreciating anything a Mid Acts Dispensationalist has to say makes me a MAD sympathizer and likely MAD as well, and I've been told that my view on Grace and no works plants me well within MAD walls. I've been told that If I recognize and agree that Paul's 'Mystery' really was secret before Paul, that I'm with out a doubt of Mid Acts persuasion.

In a sense, I've always been Grace plus nothing. I'm told that Grace Theology IS Mid Acts theology.

Two weeks ago, one TOL member, while arguing over Sabbath keeping called me Mid Acts, whether I wanted to admit it or not....


What is the mark of Mid Acts theology? How best would I know if I am Mid Acts?

I've always enjoyed MidActs discussion (as did AMR btw. I've long since come to realize that Mid Acts is nowise heresy or hetrodox as far as 10 years ago. It would surprise me if I fall within the acceptance of Mid Acts fellowship but I'm not opposed to the idea, just wondering what I really do have in common. Thanks for your ear. -Lon
How would you answer the question, "Why Paul?"

If Jesus already spent three years training apostles and then, after the resurrection, sent them out with the so called "Great Commission" then where was the need for a thirteenth apostle?
 
Top