Rome vs Melchizedek

[Webers_Home]

-
Melchizedek was a high priest of the Most High God contemporary with
Abraham. (Gen 4:18-20, Heb 5:10)

Mel, along with Abraham, existed prior to the covenanted law that Yhvh's
people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy.

● Deut 5:2-4 . .Yhvh our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. Yhvh did
not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us
alive here today.

This is very important seeing as how the covenant's law wasn't set up to be
enforced ex post facto; i.e. it isn't retroactive.

● Gal 3:17. . The law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward,
does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to cancel the
promise.

Enacting the Jews' covenant after their father's time, instead of before him
or with him, was done to protect Abraham's covenant from his posterity's
curse-worthy failures to comply with their covenant. In other words; no
matter how many times, nor in how many ways, Abraham's posterity breaks
the laws of their own covenant, they cannot endanger the fulfillment of their
father's covenant; which is a really good thing because otherwise neither
Christ nor his believing followers would benefit from one of the promises God
made in Abraham's covenant.

● Gal 3:8 . . Scripture, which saw in advance that God would justify the
Gentiles by faith, foretold the good news to Abraham, saying, “Through you
shall all the nations be blessed.” (cf. Gen 12:3)

Continuing:

● Rom 4:15 . .The law produces wrath; but where there is no law, neither is
there violation.

In other words: where there is no law, there is no law to break. However;
it's not saying that things like dishonesty weren't sins back in those days
because they were.

● Rom 5:13a . . Up to the time of the law, sin was in the world,

Rom 4:15 is only saying that seeing as how God hadn't as yet enacted a law
forbidding dishonesty in Abraham's day, then whenever Abraham lied; God
didn't write him up for it.

● Rom 5:13b . . . Sin is not accounted when there is no law.

The koiné Greek word translated "accounted" is ellogeo (el-log-eh'-o) which
essentially speaks of keeping records.

So; seeing as how Christ's priesthood is patterned after Melchizedek's rather
than Aaron's (Ps 110:4, Heb 5:1-7:28), and seeing as how Mel officiated
prior to the Jews' covenant; then just as Abraham wasn't written up for
breaking the Jews' covenanted laws; then neither are Christ's constituents
written up for breaking them; which includes the Ten Commandments (Ex
20:1-17, Ex 31:28, Deut 4:13, Deut 10:4).

● 2Cor 5:19 . .God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not
counting their trespasses against them

Now, according to the rules and regulations of the Catholic catechism; when
people pass away with just one un-absolved mortal sin on the books, they
go directly to hell with no stopover in a purgatory. (CCC 1035)

There's a fatal flaw in that rule. Know what it is? Well; according to Rom
4:15, Rom 5:13, and 2Cor 5:19, God isn't keeping books on Christ's
believing followers. In point of fact, none of their sins of any kind are on the
books-- either mortal or venial.

You know what that means? It means that as far as God's criminal justice
system is concerned, Christ's believing followers are fully acquitted and
100% innocent, i.e. as far as God's criminal justice system is concerned;
Christ's believing followers never committed even one single sin in their
entire lives! So when the archives are reviewed as per Rev 20:11-15, there
will be nothing recorded in them with which to accuse Christ's believing
followers.

/

 

[bbyrd009]

oh, i'm thinkin any sin that is not admitted, and apologized for, and rebounded from, is certainly judged.

 

[tom55]

oh, i'm thinkin any sin that is not admitted, and apologized for, and rebounded from, is certainly judged.

Hell must have frozen over. I actually agree with you on this one. :wub:

 

[bbyrd009]

lol

 

[Webers_Home]

-
The Publican's Experience

● Luke 18:14 . . I tell you, this man went down to his house forgiven rather
than the other

No; Jesus didn't say "forgiven" he said justified.

The koiné Greek word is dikaioo (dik-ah-yo'-o) which essentially means to
regard as innocent.

In order for God to grant the tax man innocence, He couldn't merely forgive
him; no, God had to exonerate him; and how does one do that when there is
evidence enough to indict?

Well, according to the Bible, Christ was restored to life for our justification
(Rom 4:25). In other words; though Christ's crucifixion was sufficient to
obtain forgiveness for people's sins; his crucifixion alone wasn't sufficient to
make it possible for people to obtain an acquittal, i.e. exoneration; which
can be defined as an adjudication of innocence.

Acquittals are normally granted when there is insufficient evidence to
convict. In other words: by means of Christ's resurrection, God was able to
cook the books so that it appears the tax collector never did anything bad.
On the surface; this looks very unethical, but from God's perspective it's all
on the up and up.

This is a serious issue under the terms and conditions of the covenant that
Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy. The covenant's sacrifices obtained forgiveness for the people,
but the sacrifices did not, and could not, obtain them exoneration. No, a
record of their disobedience remained on the books, hanging over their
heads like a sword of Damocles. Out ahead, at the Great White Throne event
depicted at Rev 20:11-15, those books will be opened for review.

/

 

[mjrhealth]

Amen, I wish people would get it, than they would not walk in bondage and be set free, no more shame.

Rev_3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

 

[BreadOfLife]

-
The Publican's Experience

● Luke 18:14 . . I tell you, this man went down to his house forgiven rather
than the other

No; Jesus didn't say "forgiven" he said justified.

The koiné Greek word is dikaioo (dik-ah-yo'-o) which essentially means to
regard as innocent.

In order for God to grant the tax man innocence, He couldn't merely forgive
him; no, God had to exonerate him; and how does one do that when there is
evidence enough to indict?

Well, according to the Bible, Christ was restored to life for our justification
(Rom 4:25). In other words; though Christ's crucifixion was sufficient to
obtain forgiveness for people's sins; his crucifixion alone wasn't sufficient to
make it possible for people to obtain an acquittal, i.e. exoneration; which
can be defined as an adjudication of innocence.

Acquittals are normally granted when there is insufficient evidence to
convict. In other words: by means of Christ's resurrection, God was able to
cook the books so that it appears the tax collector never did anything bad.
On the surface; this looks very unethical, but from God's perspective it's all
on the up and up.

This is a serious issue under the terms and conditions of the covenant that
Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy. The covenant's sacrifices obtained forgiveness for the people,
but the sacrifices did not, and could not, obtain them exoneration. No, a
record of their disobedience remained on the books, hanging over their
heads like a sword of Damocles. Out ahead, at the Great White Throne event
depicted at Rev 20:11-15, those books will be opened for review.

To say that you can sin boldly without repenting is a perversion of Scripture.
Here are a few passages that completely annihilate your false teaching. Mind you - ALL of these verses are talking about "SAVED" Christians:

Romans 11:22
“See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to you, provided you REMAIN in his kindness; otherwise you to will be cut off.”
Paul is warning the faithful to REMAIN in God’s favor or they will lose their salvation. How can they lose what they never had?

Hebrews 10:26-27
“If we sin deliberately AFTER receiving KNOWLEDGE of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.”
This is a clear warning that falling away from God will result in the loss of our salvation. The Greek ford for “knowledge” used here is NOT the usual word (oida). This is talking about a full, experiential knowledge (epignosei). This verse is about CHRISTIANS who had an EPIGNOSIS of Christ and who can fall back into darkness and LOSE their salvation by their own doing.

2 Peter 2:20-22
For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the KNOWLEDGE of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first.
For it would have been better for them not to have KNOWN the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them.
Here, Peter illustrates that those who had a full, experiential knowledge (epignosei) of Christ – CHRISTIANS – who can fall back into darkness and LOSE their salvation by their own doing.

Matt. 5:13
You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

1 Cor. 9:27
"I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."
Paul is saying that he wrestles with his own fleshly desires so that he might not fall back into sin.

2 Peter 3:17
Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.
Peter is warning the faithful not to fall back into sin and lawlessness.

1 John 2:24
See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. IF it does, you also will REMAIN in the Son and in the Father.
This is an admonition to try to remain faithful.

Rev. 3:5
He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.
God cannot blot out a name that was never there in the first place. He is talking about CHRISTIANS who are already saved and how they can LOSE their salvation.

Rev. 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
How can God take away somebody’s share of heaven if they never had it to begin with? This is about CHRISTIANS who may or may NOT make it into Heaven.

 

[mjrhealth]

Guess someone missed this bit

2Ti 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Some would just love to condmen the worlds people whom God and Jesus have done so much to save.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Guess someone missed this bit

2Ti 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Some would just love to condmen the worlds people whom God and Jesus have done so much to save.

And that's a great refutation of the verses that I presented . . . NOT.
As usual, you can't refute anything I said. You simply post another verse out of context.

ALL Scriptures must harmonize or it is ALL a lie.
YOU need to figure out how the verse you posted harmonizes with all of the ones that I posted . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

Hmm well at least i dont need to use different colours and bold to make a point,

ALL Scriptures must harmonize or it is ALL a lie.
YOU need to figure out how the verse you posted harmonizes with all of the ones that I posted . . .

no it must agree with God or its a lie.

 

[bbyrd009]

...when people pass away with just one un-absolved mortal sin on the books, they
go directly to hell with no stopover in a purgatory. (CCC 1035)

There's a fatal flaw in that rule...

i suggest that there is more than one, which the necessary invention of a "purgatory" even points to--that being that a future hell as it has been presented to us is a lie.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Q: Don't Catholics obtain justification when they go to confession?

A: The Roman church's reconciliatory process is somewhat limited in its
scope. It's primarily designed for absolution; i.e. while it forgives a sinner's
debt to God's law, it does nothing to delete the sinner's history.

In other words: sinners leave the confessional with their rap sheets and their
indictments intact and unchanged. That's unfortunate because those records
are subject to review at the Great White Throne event depicted at Rev
20:11-15 where they can, and will, be used to adjudge people as
undesirable immigrants, so to speak; thus barring them from crossing the
border into heaven

Justification, on the other hand, as per the koiné Greek word dikaioo,
completely deletes the sinner's history; i.e. dikaioo wipes their records so
clean and efficiently that there is nothing left that can in any way be used to
prove that the sinner has ever been anything less than 100% innocent.

Now, the advantage of the kind of justification I'm talking about is that
sinners need obtain it only once because from thence, God stops keeping
records on them.

● 2Cor 5:19 . .God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not
counting their trespasses against them

The koiné Greek word translated "counting" is logizomai (log-id'-zom-ahee)
which means to take an inventory.

/

 

[bbyrd009]

seems to negate that when one confesses their sins is when they are forgiven. (and i don't mean to a priest, either, but never mind that for now)

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hmm well at least i dont need to use different colours and bold to make a point,

no it must agree with God or its a lie.

Ummmm, that's what "harmonize" means, in context.
You're simply arguing for argument's sake . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

-
Q: Don't Catholics obtain justification when they go to confession?

A: The Roman church's reconciliatory process is somewhat limited in its
scope. It's primarily designed for absolution; i.e. while it forgives a sinner's
debt to God's law, it does nothing to delete the sinner's history.

In other words: sinners leave the confessional with their rap sheets and their
indictments intact and unchanged. That's unfortunate because those records
are subject to review at the Great White Throne event depicted at Rev
20:11-15 where they can, and will, be used to adjudge people as
undesirable immigrants, so to speak; thus barring them from crossing the
border into heaven

Justification, on the other hand, as per the koiné Greek word dikaioo,
completely deletes the sinner's history; i.e. dikaioo wipes their records so
clean and efficiently that there is nothing left that can in any way be used to
prove that the sinner has ever been anything less than 100% innocent.

Now, the advantage of the kind of justification I'm talking about is that
sinners need obtain it only once because from thence, God stops keeping
records on them.

● 2Cor 5:19 . .God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not
counting their trespasses against them

The koiné Greek word translated "counting" is logizomai (log-id'-zom-ahee)
which means to take an inventory.

First of all - you are overstating the definition of dikaioo. It simply means:


1) to render righteous or such he ought to be
2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

1) to render righteous or such he ought to be 2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered 3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

 

[BreadOfLife]

i suggest that there is more than one, which the necessary invention of a "purgatory" even points to--that being that a future hell as it has been presented to us is a lie.

i suggest that there is more than one, which the necessary invention of a "purgatory" even points to--that being that a future hell as it has been presented to us is a lie.

The doctrine of a final Purgation is anything BUT an "invention".
Of course - you have to be able to understand Scripture.

Luther on Purgatory:
"I myself have come to the conclusion that there is a purgatory, but I cannot force anybody else to come to the same result." (Career of the Reformer, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32)

"The existence of a purgatory I have never denied. I still hold that it exists, as I have written and admitted [Unterricht auf etlich Artikel. WA 2, 70] many times."

 

[mjrhealth]

Ummmm, that's what "harmonize" means, in context.
You're simply arguing for argument's sake . . .

You got me there but statement still stands. now go back and read your posts from someone elses point of view,

 

[BreadOfLife]

You got me there but statement still stands. now go back and read your posts from someone elses point of view,

Why? They've got YOU tongue-tied . . .

 

[tabletalk]

Breadoflife: You stated: "To say that you can sin boldly without repenting is a perversion of Scripture."

Who said that? People who are born from above are convicted of sin by God. A bold, obvious sin must be repented, and will be repented by that believer. But, many sins are not even recognized by the believer and are already completely, and perfectly, forgiven by God through the Lord Jesus.

 

[Mungo]

-
Q: Don't Catholics obtain justification when they go to confession?

A: The Roman church's reconciliatory process is somewhat limited in its
scope. It's primarily designed for absolution; i.e. while it forgives a sinner's
debt to God's law, it does nothing to delete the sinner's history.

In other words: sinners leave the confessional with their rap sheets and their
indictments intact and unchanged. That's unfortunate because those records
are subject to review at the Great White Throne event depicted at Rev
20:11-15 where they can, and will, be used to adjudge people as
undesirable immigrants, so to speak; thus barring them from crossing the
border into heaven

This is typical of your straw man stuff Webers_Home. You put out a lot of garbage about what the Catholic Church teaches and then try to knock that down. Unfortunately there are people here that will swallow this junk.

Readers, please note that Webers_Home provides no evidence for these claims - no quotes from the Catechism, no quotes from major Council documents, no quotes from major Papal documents.