Why it is not possible to sell your soul - discuss

last SG · 2006-12-29T12:10:02+00:00

The term RCC was coined by the Anglicans in the 16th century. Throughout history, the Church is known as the Catholic Church. Roman Catholics also refer to...

M©+square SG

Rolling Eyes

gasband SG

Not say i dun wan to sell. That day satan come and ask me sell my soul to him. I say ok lah if you can pay me as well as God does, then he tries to bargain with me, damn niao lor! I tell him, if he go die for me, i also will sell to him but he say dun wan lah, this and that lah….DAMN LAME lah..and so poor still wanna buy my soul…siao.

NT2 SG

the souls of humakind by default are sold to satan since the fall of Man.

that is why Christ came to redeem us through His blood.

Pope Nicholas SG

I dont like buying and selling.

I prefer, after the Fall, our souls became Tainted with Satan. Christ blood washes away this Stain of Satan. If we dont get baptised in Christ, the Stain remains.

This is so Orignal Sin haha.

Icemoon SG

I reject all the buying and selling rubbish.

You mean God need to do business with Satan? Where is His sovereignity then?

laoda99 SG

My view is: Christ's sacrifice was a ransom paid to God, and not to Satan.

Satan never bought us.

Pope Nicholas SG

God had to do busniess with himself?

klydeer SG

Men need to make sacrifice to atone for sins ? So Jesus's death wasnt quite enough hur....?

Pope Nicholas SG

Erm so God doesnt want us to particpate in our salvation?

klydeer SG

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."

Pope Nicholas SG

1) God passed authority of forgiving sins to his Church.

"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.

Icemoon SG

THE COVENANT OF REDEMPTION! Very Happy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology

The 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.qna

Question
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.

Pope Nicholas SG

Too chim HAHA

Icemoon SG

what too cheam? We haven't go into the details yet. Rolling Eyes

told you liao .. the Protestant theology very powerful one. How they view the Cross and salvation is something Catholics can learn. Smile

Pope Nicholas SG

Aquinas also very cheem la....eery theologican damn cheem.

Icemoon SG

Aquinas considered easy liao. Maybe his language cheam but the ideas were simple. Which idea of his you think is cheam?

Pope Nicholas SG

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.

Icemoon SG

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.

The Protestant exegetical traditions also use Hebrew and Greek. You heard of Strong's Concordance?

vince69 SG

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.

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]

if you could kindly put the link to the whole document here, that will be helpful, thanks. cause all it says here, is that
"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.

laoda99 SG

Yes. Becoz whatever covenant God made, he must fulfill.

« Previous Page Next Page »