Hooper Debate 8 - Questions About Forgiveness

THE ABSOLUTION OF PRIESTS

2 Corinthians 5:20: So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

HOOPER: You should read it in context. This is not authority solely given over to Roman Catholic priests. The letter is addressed to the church at Corinth (see chapter 1). He is addressing it to all believers. "17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

I have no problem with the longer citation, however, it does NOT stipulate that all have the same role in the ministry of reconciliation. Certainly, we are all commissioned to proclaim the Good News of Christ and direct others to seek his mercy. But, the text I cited makes a distinction between the "we" (Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God and Timothy our brother) and the "you" (the church of God that is in Corinth). See the introduction of the letter for this clarification. Paul is talking about his apostolic ministry and it would be erroneous to collapse the distinction as you do. A contextual approach to Scripture is more than just taking a few verses together, it is interpreting a passage in the context of the writing as a whole. Here is a case in point where your private interpretation fails you. Certainly we are all called to become ambassadors for Christ, although not in the same way as the Church's ministers. However, the ministry of reconciliation has grown and developed in the Church in such a way that the priests of today (successors like the bishops to the apostles) are vital to the spiritual needs of God's people.

HOOPER: Verse 19 shows God gives the peoples of this world the chance to be saved. Salvation is a free gift. A Christian has a part in that we have been "given the ministry of reconciliation" (vs 18), and "the word of reconciliation" (vs 19) has been "committed unto us." The "us" has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic religion.

The keys are given to the Church and particularly to the apostles to loosen or bind from sin. Verse 19 speaks about the redemptive work of Jesus, but the fact that the "message of salvation" is entrusted to me is evidence of the Church's participation in saving souls. Everyone is the passage was Catholic. St. Paul and the Corinthians were Catholic, even if that term was not used, because there was no other Christian community established by our Lord.

HOOPER: At Calvary Christ made it all possible to reconcile sinful man to God. He returned to Heaven and left all of us the task of telling the world how to be reconciled to God. That is why we are called "ambassadors for Christ."

Actually, it is more complicated than that. Jesus did reconcile all things by the power of his cross. This is correct. This kerygma of salvation or proclamation is immediately entrusted to the apostles who spread it to others. Faith and baptism in Christ brings full remission of sins. Anyone can baptize, including a lay person. However, second penance and later auricular confession required a minister of the Church, a priest or bishop. The "word of reconciliation" was more than just a news item shared among acquaintances. It was evocative. This was so much so that the apostles and their successors would be able to echo the words of Jesus, "Go in peace, your sins are forgiven."

HOOPER: Reconciliation is made between man and God when man believes the gospel of Christ. Once a man places his trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins because of what Christ did on the cross for him, he has the righteousness of God "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Cor. 5:21) What that verse actually means is that when Jesus Christ died on the cross, our sins were credited to Him. He took our sins, and in exchange He gives us His righteousness.

Repentance opens the way for faith. Faith in Christ, exerted by the mind and will in response to God's revelation and call, and manifested in the sacramental life and the life of charity brings many avenues for mercy and grace. The Catholic Church does not deny that the real acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior opens the door to reconciliation with God. The work of redemption has been accomplished by Christ's cross, just as the verse here acknowledges. Where we take exception is over the matter of how God's mercy can be fully accessed and upon the impact of sinfulness in the life of believers. Note that the sacrament of penance is not given to the newly baptized nor generally to those outside the Catholic-Christian faith. It is a means to renew and if need be to restore the saving grace that comes with true faith and baptism. No doubt you would argue, "Once saved, always saved." Certain Protestant theologians would consequently argue that if one were to be found guilty later of serious sin, then the initial faith was a lie or deceit. Others would even contend that personal sinfulness would no longer matter, since even the "saved" remain sinners who are only imputed as righteous. The Catholic response is that a saving faith can sour. The fact that baptism can only be offered once shows that Catholics concur in the singular nature of an initial profession of faith in Christ Jesus. Whatever happens, we are members of the Church and are regarded as Christians. However, a Christian of any stripe can play Judas and betray Christ. Serious sin would have a person forfeit sanctifying grace. It is a repudiation of the gift of salvation that comes from Christ.

HOOPER: Righteousness refers to the perfections of God, and He gives that to us, and He gives that to us as a FREE GIFT. What it actually boils down to is that Jesus got what He did not deserve, our sins, and we get what we don't deserve, His righteousness. The Bible says, "But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification" (Romans 4:24,25).

The terms "righteousness" and "justification" are often translated from the same word. God does indeed begin to share something of his life with us. Yes, this is a free gift that no one can earn or deserve. This is also Catholic teaching. Christ bore our sins, he made himself into a sin-offering on our behalf. It is in Jesus that we find favor with God. It should be noted here that the word "imputed" was not used by Paul in the same way it was understood by Martin Luther and subsequent Protestants.

A better translation of Romans 4:(23) 24-25 would be this: "But it was not for him alone that it was written that 'it was credited to him'; it was also for us, to whom it will be credited, who believe in the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was handed over for our transgressions and was raised for our justification."

Note that both translations, even with Paul including himself, states that the final imputation or credit is in the future. Notice what he says in the next verse: "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access [by faith] to this grace in which we stand, and we boast in hope of the glory of God" (Romans 5:1). Justification is defined as access to God. Final salvation or its fullness belongs to the future, what is understood here as Christian "hope".

HOOPER: So justification doesn't simply mean, "Just as if I never sinned," it means more than that. It means just as if I lived a complete life of obedience and holiness. This is only because Jesus Christ is my substitute, and He meets all the requirements of God's requirements for me.

What Hooper says here runs entirely against the biblical text just explained. She equates justification and the peace it brings with final salvation. She utterly collapses the meaning of hope that Paul talks about. She makes the human person utterly passive, like a puppet on a string. If she would be consistent, then there is no cooperation with Christ, no real transformation, and no need for hope. Everything is viewed as a done deal. Her view of faith is made so absolute, that not even baptism is required, despite the biblical mandate. She dismisses it and all the sacraments, including Confession, because personal sin does not matter in her reckoning. Her position would also take the punch out of the moral code, since the quality of discipleship means nothing after professing faith in Jesus. I would say, no, no, and no.

Jesus dies on my behalf, and for yours, but he still wants us to cooperate with him in the saving work. He respects both human freedom and capricious human weakness. Jesus, himself, has instituted a Church and empowered its ministers, to help believers to remain in good standing and to preserve Christian hope.

HOOPER: When you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, a transaction takes place. God is crediting (imputing) to you what you don't deserve, and therefore it is a "free gift." Remember, Jesus got what He didn't deserve, our sins, and we get what we don't deserve, His righteousness. Now, I, as an ambassador for Christ, have just demonstrated the verse in 2 Cor. 5. When I got saved, I became a new creature in Christ. As a Christian I have been given the ministry of reconciliation and the word of reconciliation. My duty is to show you that you can be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ.

Again, I have no problem with the free gift element. But we are creatures who live in time. We must accept that gift, not just at any one moment, but consistently throughout our lives-- particularly at the last moment of mortal life. Here Hooper is talking about 2 Corinthians 5: 21: "For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him." Here is what the notes in the revised New American (Catholic) Bible has to say about it: "This is a statement of God's purpose, expressed paradoxically in terms of sharing and exchange of attributes. As Christ became our righteousness (1 Cor 1:30), we become God's righteousness (cf verses 14-15). There is nothing here about her being given the ministry of reconciliation.

John 20:21-23: Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." 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."

HOOPER: This is where the Roman Catholic Church uses this passage as authority for its erroneous teaching that only Roman Catholic priests have the power to forgive sins.

This Scripture texts refers to something of Pentecost. The eleven, not all the disciples, are given the power to forgive sins. Thomas who is absent would be included when Jesus appeared on another ocassion. It is very explicit "If YOU forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven: if YOU retain the sins of any, they are retained." This minsitry of the apostles was passed down to the bishops and priests. There is no ministry even remotely similar in the Baptist churches and despite her attestation here, no absolution that Hooper could or would give to others.

HOOPER: I will compare Scripture with Scripture to show how absurd this private interpretation really is. Scripture with Scripture yield the following cross references:

Notice that since she cannot repudiate the given text, she immediately races to include pieces of others to complicate matters and to evade. See Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 for further support of the Catholic claim.

HOOPER: "......and without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb. 9:22)

Drawing a parallel between the old and new covenants, this verse is actually in reference to the Jewish law: "According to the law almost everything is purified by blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." The authority that Christ gives the apostles and the efficacy of all the sacraments, including Confession, is the saving blood of Jesus, the blood of the new covenant. Note that Jesus makes reference to it at the Last Supper when he institutes the Eucharist and Priesthood.

HOOPER: "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins" (Heb. 10:18, 11)

This citation is turned around a little bit:

Hebrews 10:11 - "Every priest (Jewish) stands daily at his ministry, offering frequently those same sacrifices that can never take away sins. But this one (Christ) offered one sacrifice for sins, and took his seat forever at the right hand of God; . . . ."

Hebrews 10:18 - "Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer offering for sin."

I have mentioned before how all priests in the Catholic Church participate in the one priesthood of the High Priest Jesus. All the sacraments flow from his paschal mystery. The Mass is considered to be an unbloody re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ. Everything comes back to Jesus and his self-oblation on our behalf.

The oblations of the Jewish priests were constantly repeated but could not do what they attempted to do, make satisfaction for sin. The sacrifice of Jesus accomplishes this and is re-presented as a renewal just as he commanded at the Last Supper. Jesus died once-and-for-all but that saving event is extended in time and space in the liturgy so that we can be there-- so that we can offer ourselves with Christ to the Father as an acceptable sacrifice.

Notice what Paul says regarding the sin of apostacy: "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" (Hebrews 10:26-27).

Note here that judgment (damnation) can come to someone who has received the truth and been a member of the Church professing faith in Jesus. The early Church was much more reserved with the ministry of reconciliation after faith and baptism than it is today.

HOOPER: "....through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:38-39)

Again, a parallel is made between the old and the new dispensations. Verse 36 speaks about how David the king served the will of God but then died and knew corruption. However, verses 37 to 39 refer to the Messiah and son of David, Jesus who conquers the grave and thus has the power to forgive sins and to bring justification. This is also Catholic belief, but is an entirely different subject from the question of a mechanism or an authority through which the mercy of Christ can be experienced. Further, justification which flows from the work of redemption and our faith is not identical to our hope of salvation and final perseverance.

HOOPER: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." (Col. 1:14)

As with the other citations here, this is in reference to the general work of Christ, about which Catholics and Protestants mostly agree. "He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:13-14). There is nothing here that invalidates the ministry of reconciliation as practiced in the Catholic Church.

HOOPER: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt. 26:28).

These are the words of Jesus at the Last Supper. This ritual is given to the Church by Jesus for the constant renewal of the covenant. Our Lord is not talking about metaphorical blood or even just about the blood of the cross. He is speaking about the sacrifice of the Mass and the transformation of bread and wine into his body and blood. Just as this sacrament can bring the forgiveness of sins, all the sacraments continue to have this affect. "Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins' (Matthew 26:27-28). Here is a classic case where the lack of context can change the meaning of a verse and shows how disingenuous such anti-Catholic debaters actually are.

HOOPER: "Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38)

Of course, Hooper insists that baptism is insignificant, even though here we are told that it brings the remission of sins. It is the Catholic Church that says that both original sin and personal sins are forgiven in baptism. Neither Hooper nor her church claims such a truth, although she will try to use the Scripture against the sacrament of penance. Baptism is a one-time sacrament. The Church's ministry of reconciliation is to assist believers who sin afterwards.

HOOPER: ".....Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past..." (Rom. 3:24-25).

Hooper gives us only the tail end of verse 24. It reads in full: "They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed, . . .

(verse 26) through the forebearance of God--to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus."

Yes, we are saved not simply by faith alone but by grace alone. Jesus is our sin-offering and just as we saw in the reference to repentance and baptism, his saving blood forgives sins.

The priests of the Catholic Church administer the sacrament of Christ's body and blood to believers. When they offer absolution, they are literally invoking the power of Christ's blood to wash the penitent and make him or her clean. Again, there is no contrdition here. It is still a free gift that no one deserves.

HOOPER: Just by comparing Scripture with Scripture, the following conclusions are:

HOOPER: Remission of sins is by shed blood of Jesus Christ. No priest was ever able to remit anyones sins. Remission of sins lies in the atonement of Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:1-12 also states that this atonement is a ONCE-and-for-all act, which means it never has to be repeated.)

We have looked at the Scriptures and Mrs. Hooper has failed to make her case. Indeed, she has at times helped to make the Catholic case. She knows neither the bible as she should nor what the Catholic Church clearly teaches.

It is a hallmark of Catholic theology that we are redeemed by the cross of Jesus and that he is the immaculate Lamb of God who, as we say at every Mass, takes away the sins of the world. The blood of Christ brings forgiveness and a share in eternal life.

Jesus is the one high priest of the Catholic Church. Because he has the power to forgive sins, and because he has extended his authority to the Church, those ordained men who participate in his priesthood also have the authority to forgive sins. Yes, Jesus dies once-and-for-all and that he will never die again. His saving work is not so much repeated as it is extended or re-presented in the Eucharist. The Lord gave us his Supper, first as an anticipatory sacrifice and now as a means to reach back into human history and to make full access of Calvary.

There was precedent for Confession in the Old Testament. The Jews celebrated ceremonial ablutions, not unlike the washings performed by John the Baptist. Jewish exiles confessed their sins while in Baylonian exile (Baruch 1:13). See also Leviticus 19:20-22. However, the Catholi priest speaks on God's behalf the words of absolution.

Many of the New Testament supports have already been mentioned, like Matthew 16:19; 18:18 and John 20:23. It seems that sins were confessed to the whole congregation in the early days. When anointing the sick, they would confess their sins, receiving from the priests healing and forgiveness (James 5:13-16).

HOOPER: The blood is shed because God forgave sin, not in order to get it forgiven. "note: "sins that are past," exactly as in Hebrews 9:15. God forgave throughout the Old Testament (Exodus 34:7), but could not clear the guilty until Matthew 26:28. Compare Hebrews 10:4). Also note that the John 20:21-23 is not given to the Apostles only. The Bible says there were "disciples" in that room along with the eleven Apostles (John 20:19-20) when that command was given. Proof? See Luke 24:33, "And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,"

The reasoning here is a bit convoluted and it is unclear what Hooper is trying to say. The mercy that God showed in the Old Testament was real but could not reconcile mankind with its creator. Their sacrifices were repeated because they could not bring about the reconciliation which they tried to signify. It is clear that the ministry of reconciliation is given to the apostles and later their successors, although all have an obligation as noted here to be missionaries for Christ-- letting others know that in the Church there is the forgiveness of sins. John 20:21-23 makes mention of disciples but it is unclear as to whether there are others with the apostles. It is possible that women disciples were caring for their needs. Verse 24 alerts us to Thomas being absent and the Lord approaches him on a subsequent visit. The emphasis here is definitely upon the eleven remaining apostles. The reference to Luke is about the men on the road to Emmaus who encounter Jesus in the breaking of the bread and then go back to tell the apostles and disciples. It is faulty hermeneutics to connect that reference to the appearance of the risen Christ to his apostles in John. We know nothing about the immediate time-table and who may have remained or left the upper room. Further, while the apostles are given their specific ministerial powers by Christ, the Pentecost experience embraced the entire apostolic Church.

HOOPER: In the very beginning of your letter to me you complained about others saying, "The misuse of the Scriptures, twisting verses into contrived apologetical schemes for purposes of refutation or to shore up dubious opinions is increasingly common." You do the same of what you accuse others of doing! In spite of the evidence I just presented to you, I hope you don't continue to reject God's word.

I have never rejected God's Word, but neither have I ever betrayed his Church as you have done. It was not enough that you should leave the Church, but you have made yourself an enemy to it. You say you love Christ, and yet the Church is his living mystical Body. In our debate you throw out Scriptures, no doubt with the help of authorities also hostile to the Church, without really understanding them. You do not even understand Catholicism, and again parrot the false strawman arguments of your bigoted masters, as if you never learned anything for yourself while a member of the Church. Over and over again you get the Catholic position wrong, but seek to refute it all the same. I wonder if you are really that good a Protestant, either?

HOOPER: Now to continue with the same passage. As far as "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained," Paul, who was not present in the room, has the same authority. Note his statements to this effect, "To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;" In Acts 13:38,39, this authority is illustrated where every Christian has the right to tell any man that he is forgiven or not forgiven, on the bases of what he does with Jesus Christ. "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."

The authority is given to the apostles, even those who are made so later on. Judas will be replaced, and the number of apostles will eventually surpass 12. It is not chronicled in Scripture, but no doubt Paul was instructed in the faith and enetered teh rank of apostle following his conversion experience on the road where he was blinded and encountered Christ. Certainly the believers of Antioch instructed him before he became himself an apostle to the nations. Paul is indeed an apostle, and later the apostles will extend their authority to other men, the episcopoi (bishops) and the presbyters (priests). Christ showers the Holy Spirit upon the infant Church and makes it possible for the keys of the kingdom to be properly used.

The reference here to Acts does not challenge ministerial forgiveness. Jesus is always the source of divine mercy. The Catholic Church does not challenge the saving name or blood of Jesus. It is preached and experienced in the life of the Church.

There is another kind of forgiveness, not ministerial, that was practiced among the brethren. We find something of this in the Lord's Prayer when we say, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." If our conversion is real then by forgiving others, we dispose ourselves to divine mercy. We cannot bargain with God. Everything is a gift. If we are a forgiving people then when the Father looks upon us he will see the likeness of his Son and give us a share in his Son's reward.

HOOPER: In the Bible all born again believers are said to be "priests," and called to offer spiritual sacrifices (Heb. 3:1; 13:15; 1 Peter 2:1-5). There is no other priesthood except a priesthood of born again believers (1 Peter 2), so the entire system of the Roman Catholic priests is purely non-Scriptural.

Yes, all baptized believers are part of a royal priesthood, indeed they are a nation of priests. This is Catholic teaching, but it is not the same as ordained or ministerial priesthood. We are all called forth to offer spiritual sacrifices and to make Jesus our one treasure beyond measure. You are wrong tod eny the ministerial priesthood and the apostlic witness and the legacy of the early Church proves you wrong. You continue to misread the bible and err greviously by dismissing the witness of the early Church and 2,000 years of history. The bible talks about presbyters (priests) and episcopoi (bishops). The terminology changes over time but the functions and roles are the same.

Matthew 18:18: "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

2 Corinthians 5:18-20: All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

The power to forgive sins is reserved to priests. As long as there is a need for the forgiveness of sins, the priests of the Catholic Church will continue to possess this power from Christ. Christ would not abandon his Church. As long as his Church exists, so will his mercy. The tragedy today is that may opt to remain in their sins. One of the greatestspiritual powers of every priest is neglected. The graces of this sacrament cannot be exaggerated.

Leviticus 19:20-22 / Baruch 1:13 / Numbers 5:6-7 / Psalm 32:5 / Proverbs 28:13 / Isaiah 43:25 / Matthew 16:19; 18:18 / Matthew 3:5-6 / Mark 1:5 / John 20:21-23 / Luke 15:18-19 / James 5:13-16 / Acts 19:18 / 2 Corinthians 2:10; 5:18-20 / 1 John 1:8-9

Hooper Debate 7 - Questions About Ministry

BISHOPS & PRIESTS GIVEN CHARGE OVER SACRAMENTS

2 Corinthians 5:18-20: All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

HOOPER: Where do you see this gives Roman Catholic Bishops and Priests charge over "sacraments?" You are giving private interpretation again. Paul is addressing CHRISTIANS. All Christians are ambassadors for Christ.

Paul addresses his words to the Corinthian church. A few verses earlier, he said, "We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you an opportunity to boast of us, so that you may have something to say to those who boast of external appearance rather than the heart. For if we are out of our minds, it is for God; if we are rational, it is for you." Notice that he makes a distinction between the ministry that he and others have and the believers to whom he is speaking.

The principal way that God's mercy was given in the early Church was through repentance, acceptance of the faith and baptism. Afterwards a person was expected to be earnest in his or her discipleship. As Christ delayed his second coming, the Church by necessity instituted second penance and later regular confession.

HOOPER: 1 Corinthians 4:1: This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God."

Actually, the very beginning of the letter shows us that there is a structure of leadership already present in the early Church: "Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God . . . ." 1 Corinthians 4:1 comes after a chapter three has spoken about the role of God's ministers. We read in 1 Corinthians 3: "What is Apollos, after all, and what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord assigned each one. . . . For we are God's co-workers; you are God's field, God's building." This is picked up in chapter 4: "Thus should one regard us, as ervants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Now it is of course required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. It does not concern me in the least that I BE JUDGED BY YOU or any human tribunal . . . ."

Again, it is clear, placed in context, that Paul is making a distinction between callings or gifts. Not everyone has the same role to play in the Church.

HOOPER: There are seven mysteries mentioned in the Bible (1 Tim. 3:16; Col. 1:27; Eph. 5:32; Rom. 11:5, 1 Cor. 15:51; 2 Thess. 2:7-8; Rev. 17:5) all of which the Roman Catholic Church doesn't understand, much less be stewards of them.

I guess you used a concordance to list these verses, a Greek lexicon would be better. These verses speak about many of the mysteries of God like the resurrection of Christ and our participation in his life. Distinct from your list, the early Church spoke of many mysteries which would later be called sacraments and narrowed down to seven.

John 20:21: Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so send I you."

Bishops and priests are the ministers of Christ in our world. They represent him and, in the sacraments, make him actively present. This is a most serious calling. A poor priest does not, in itself, repudiate this high calling. As living signs of contradiction, in the footsteps of the Master, they are mocked and slandered by a world that still does not understand Jesus or the Gospel.

HOOPER: No where in the Bible does God say only Roman Catholic bishops and priests are the ministers of Christ in our world. This is private interpretation all the way! I also don't need a Roman Catholic Priest to make Christ actively present in my life. His presence is never away from me. "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is CHRIST IN YOU, the hope of glory:" -Col. 1:27 "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but CHRIST LIVETH IN ME: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." -Gal. 2:20

There are many forms of ministry and even the laity are called to various apostulates and forms of service in the Church. However, the bishops are the successors to the apostles. What was said of the apostles would in turn be said about the bishops and those to whom they gave something of their ministerial authority-- deacons and priests.

You are correct that the work of evangelization and discipleship does not belong only to the clergy. The Catholic Church, despite your negation, would say the same. The only private interpretation, or rather misinterpretation here, is from you. The ministers of the Church, priests and bishops, make Christ present in the blessed sacrament. But, you have forsaken the Eucharist. However, in your ignorance, if not poisoned by your hatred of all things Catholic, you might indeed have something of Christ present in your life. Only you can know this. Catholics speak of the presence of Jesus inside of them as the indwelling of divine grace. This and the citation you make are elements of the Church's incarnational belief and the need for transformation in Christ.

Notice what Paul says to the Colossians: "It is he whom we proclaim, admonishing everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. For this I LABOR AND STRUGGLE, in accord with the exercise of his power working within me" (Colossains 1:28-29).

As a priest I also labor and struggle toward those same ends.

Hooper Debate 6 - Questions About Purgatory

PURGATORY

Matthew 12:32: And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age [world] or in the age [world] to come. (Some sins can therefore be forgiven after death.)

HOOPER: Again, private interpretation. Go back one more verse. (31) "Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." How do you get that there will be "some sins can be forgiven after death?" You just called Jesus a liar, for Jesus said ALL MANNER OF SIN AND BLASPHEMY SHALL BE FORGIVEN.." There's only ONE exception.....except those who blaspheme against that Holy Ghost. No where in the Bible does it state that there are some sins that can be forgiven after death.

The implication here is clear and the fact that Jews during the time of Christ prayed for the dead makes it even more evident. There is nothing of private interpretation here. I am merely using verses to show how the Catholic Church's position is reasonable. Sin is only unforgivable if it is mortal and we die. The mystery of Purgatory is not about a second chance given to egregious sinners. It is about the saints who are perfected as they approach the throne of God. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is to deny or to ridicule as demonic some action of God. If God has indeed showered his Holy Spirit upon the Church, then you yourself "might" be guilty of blaspheming divine intervention by attacking the Church and the work of the Spirit.

HOOPER: Produce the Scriptures, please. The Bible says, "....it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:' not a special time for forgiveness. (Heb. 9:27)

The Church also teaches that at death there is a particular judgment and at the consummation of all things, the final judgment. The Catholic teaching of purgation for some does not deny or threaten this truth. At the moment of death, some souls are directed to heaven and others to hell. All souls that undergo purgation are directed to heaven. Those in hell cannot be helped.

HOOPER: Matthew states, "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." It's clear there is only ONE sin that will not be forgiven in "THIS WORLD" and in the "WORLD TO COME."

The intimation is even clearer in the Greek. While you are certainly free to believe whatever you want, yours is the private interpretation while mine rests on the accepted doctrines of a Church safeguarded by the Holy Spirit for two thousand years.

HOOPER: Again, comparing Scripture with Scripture (without private interpretation), the "world" is described throughout the Old and New Testament as the coming Millennial reign of Christ, ON EARTH (Matt. 13:39; 13:49; 24:13; Mark 10:30), which will have literal rulers (Matt. 19) and literal transformations in nature (Isa. 11, Rom. 8).

So you are one of these fundamentalist millennialists I have heard about who believe in a thousand year reign of Christ. It is no wonder you disagree about the meaning of Christ's kingdom.

HOOPER: So the "this world" is at the time when Jesus was on the face of this earth, and the world to come is the next time He is on the face of this earth RULING for one thousand years. (See Rev. 20) But this isn't the end! This sin of blasphemy (often called the "unpardonable sin") is defined as SPEAKING. In Mark 3:30, the Holy Spirit defines what the unpardonable sin is. "Because they SAID, He hath an unclean spirit." (see vs. 30 and 31 together). So at the time Jesus is saying this, He says that sin will not be forgiven in THIS WORLD (at the time he was on the face of this earth), and in the WORLD to COME (the future Millennial Reign when He will be back on this earth.). So if somebody is to commit this sin, they would have to do it by SPEAKING, just as they did when He was here at the first Advent.

What you say here is so convoluted that I cannot make heads or tails of what you are saying. The sin is not speaking as such but speaking in a disparaging way about the work of the Spirit. If the hand of God is indeed operating in the Catholic Church-- in her proclamation, teachings, rituals and discipleship, then those who speak against her separate themselves from the saving grace which Christ bestows through the instrumentality of the Church. It is one thing to say, "I disagree," you go to the exterme of positing the demonic. You condemn the Church in language reminescent of the Pharisees and scribes who condemned the miraculous work of Jesus as the work of Be-elzebul.

1 Corinthians 3:13-15: . . . each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

HOOPER: This has nothing to do with the fanciful invention of purgatory. At the Judgment Seat of Christ, sins are not are judged, it's WORKS that are judged. Did you ever hear "good job" and "bad job?" Let's compare Scripture with Scripture.

Huh? But you said that we are saved by faith and not by works? You cannot have it both ways. Yes, our works are judged and we will receive our just reward. The message of purgation seems clear, ". . . though he himself will be save, but only as through fire."

"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." - 1 Cor. 3:13-15

"....For we shall al stand before the judgment seat of Christ" (Rom. 14:10)

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor. 5:10)

"Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water" (Num. 31:23).

HOOPER: This has nothing to do with "burning in a fictitious placed called purgatory. The person's salvation is not even in question (If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved)!

Actually, this is what purgatory is about. The person's salvation is not in question. Every person who endures purgation is already a saint. The poor souls are all destined for heaven. Did you think that they could go to hell? Are you thinking of purgatory as a kind of hell? This would be incorrect.

HOOPER: The fire never even touches him! Sir Jenkins, do you remember Lot? He was "saved by fire" i.e. the fire never touched him. In the context of Baptism, remember Noah and his family? Noah and his family were dry and stayed alive; it was the wet ones who died outside the protection of the ark. Note that what is being tested by fire are "works," not people! No person has to be purged by fire to be cleansed from sins. The purging of sins is done by blood not fire. (Heb. 1:3; 9:14)

The fire of God's love must touch us all. It does not burn the saints of heaven. It burns away within us that which does not belong to God. You confuse analogies with blood and fire and thus reckon together incorrectly purgation with salvation. I notice that you work hard to dismiss these verses, but really say nothing substantial about them.

2 Maccabees 12:45-46: (This is one of the Old Testament books omitted from the Protestant Bible). But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

HOOPER: The support for purgatory comes from the Apocrypha. It is not considered Scripture by both Bible Believing Christians and the Jewish people. It is also a fact that no serious Jew or born again Christian gave two cents worth of consideration about the Apocryphal books, only the Roman Catholic Church did, who added the books to the Bible by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

Actually, the Orthodox also include the Catholic books and they broke away in schism in the 12th century. No, the Catholic collection of books constituted the legitimate Scriptures of the Christian world until the Protestant Reformation. The Old Testament canon had been accepted by the Church with no debate, from the earliest days.

HOOPER: The word "apocrypha" itself means, "not genuine; spurious; counterfeit," the definition of the word declares the nature of the books. For that matter, even Jesus doesn't recognize the Apocrypha. He never quoted it, never read it, never defended it, and never called it Scriptures.

Actually, the Septuagint, which included the Old Testament books accepted by Jesus is the version of the Scriptures quoted by Jesus and others in the New Testament writings. These books were in the Greek version of the Scriptures and the Gentile Church quickly embraced it as Holy Scripture. A first century Jewish rabbi edited the Old Testament books limiting the historical range, the Palestinian location, and insisting upon texts available in Hebrew. Given that the early Christians had embraced the larger Greek canon, the Jews who were persecuting them preferred distinct Scriptures from what they saw as a new sect, the Christian Church.

HOOPER: I can prove to you he only recognized the Hebrew Old Testament, written in Hebrew.

You prove nothing except your ignorance of both God's living Word and of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

HOOPER: The Hebrew Old Testament contains three sections. They are: the "Torah," the "Nabhim," and the "Kethubim."Each of these sections are called the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Psalms). The books contained in these three sections are: (The Torah) Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. (The Nabhim) Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Johan, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Haggai, Habbakuk, Zechariah, and Malachi. (The Kethubim) Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chronicles. This is the Canon of Scripture the Holy Spirit has fixed concerning the Old Testament.

Actually, there was some disagreement among the Jews about the Hebrew canon. A rabbi redactor would eliminate a number of books that belonged to the oldest copies of these Scriptures. The elimination of certain books from the Christian bible was not the work of the Holy Spirit but of the Protestant reformer, Martin Luther. He rejected First and Second Maccabees (historical books like 1 Kings and Chronicles), the latter because it supported the Catholic practice of praying for the dead. Wisdom and Sirach would be listed with Proverbs. Tobit is not unlike Job. Judith is another heroic woman like Esther. Baruch is prophecy like Jeremiah.

The Holy Spirit did indeed fix the canon, but with the Catholic books, and by the Catholic Church at the council of Hippo in 393 AD and again by Trent in 1546 AD.

HOOPER: Whenever Jesus referred to anything written, he was referring to those Scriptures.

Actually, whenever Jesus cites the Old Testament the text comes from the Greek Scriptures which included the Catholic books. The Bible for the apostolic community, particularly in the Gentile world where Paul preached, included the books that make up the Catholic Old Testament!

HOOPER: Now, over in Luke 24:44, Jesus makes His canonical statement when referring to those Scriptures, ".....all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the LAW of Moses, and in the PROPHETS, and in the PSALMS, concerning me." It is obvious Jesus had no use for the Roman Catholic Apocrypha.

There is no logic here at all and nothing obvious about such a rejection. There are many books that Jesus does not directly cite; however, we would not eliminate them from our bibles. You are playing games here and only the most gullible would buy it. How can you speak this way? Do you not fear God?

HOOPER: The inspiration of Scripture had ceased from the ending of Malachi until Matthew.

The inspiration of Scripture did not cease until the death of the last apostle, John. In any case, this would not be sufficient to eliminate all seven books. The elimination of Maccabbees was for somewhat arbitrary reasons and this decision was not decisive for everyone. It would be a part of the Christian bible until the Protestant reformation. Are you saying that there was no true bible for the first two-thirds of the Church's history? I do not think so.

HOOPER: During that time there were no prophets from God to declare His word. In fact, the book of Maccabees itself declares there were no prophets, and therefore the inspiration of Scripture had ceased.

It is not a prophetic book as such but is considered an historical one. There are other such books in the Old Testament as well. Distinctions need to be made.

HOOPER: It states, "There had not been such great distress in Israel since the time prophets ceased to appear among the people" (1 Maccabees 9:27). But then again, I can find this truth in the Scriptures. The prophets ceased with Zechariah. Jesus speaks of his death in Matthew 23:35 as closing the prophetic era (from righteous Abel to Zacharias), thus the four hundred silent years begin.

You are confusing prophecy with inspiration and revelation. They are not the same thing.

HOOPER: The canon of the Old Testament Scripture ends with the martyrdom of Zechariah. However, the teaching of purgatory is supposedly supported by 2 Maccabees 12:46, as you stated above. "It is holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they might be loosed from their sins."

It is only one of many Scriptures cited. However, even if one should consider it as apocryphal and historical, as the Anglicans do, it would still show the mentality of the Jews close to our Lord's day regarding the dead and our prayers on their behalf.

HOOPER: This is interesting considering that the passage is in reference to those who were guilty of idolatry! "But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear (2 Macc. 12:40).

Yes, they seemed to be guilty of superstition. But the manner of sin does not change the fact that prayers were offered for them.

HOOPER: The men for whom prayer was offered had died because they were idolaters, and according to Roman Catholicism, idolatry is a mortal sin which would send them to Hell, not purgatory, but yet the verse is used to prove we are to pray for the dead to shorten their time and degrees of suffering in purgatory by using those guilty of idolatry!

Excuse me, where in Roman Catholicism do we say that all superstition is mortal sin? False worship or idolatry is indeed serious matter and the person who commits it could indeed be in mortal sin. However, as with so many superstitions, it is hard to know how thoroughly a person may have given himself to it. God judges. We pray for the dead. If they are in hell, then they cannot be helped. If they are not, then certainly superstition is a stain that must be purged from the soul. We pray but God is the one who perfects his children or punishes them.

HOOPER: The Apocrypha not only contradicts our God-given Scriptures, it contradicts itself. For example, in the two books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes dies three different deaths, and not in the same places!

And why are there two versions of creation in Genesis, one where Adam is made first and the second that speaks of the couple? The bible is not meant to be understood like a videotape on the news. You can find many apparent contradictions in the bible, although they do not diminish the truth value of God's Word.

HOOPER: The Bible mentions nothing about purgatory. Romans 6:23 says, "the wages of sin is death," not a limited time spent in purgatory.

The Scriptures listed here on its behalf is evidence that the bible is not silent about the mystery of purgatory.

HOOPER: In the Bible, the soul is cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ, when he is alive, not dead. Once death comes, then judgment, not an undefined limited time getting cleansed from sin or forgiveness of sins. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Heb. 9:27) Nowhere does Scripture say a person is cleansed by "purifying fire." Fire has to do with Hell.

"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire" (1 Cor. 3:13-15).

You repeat yourself. The Catholic Church teaches that judgment comes with death. If we are in mortal sin and have broken our friendship with God, then the condition of alienation is made permanent. Hell is real.

HOOPER: Rather, a person is cleansed by His BLOOD. "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). Furthermore, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission" (Heb. 9:22). Thus, cleansing doesn't come by "purifying fire," but only by the "blood of Jesus Christ."

We are washed clean in the saving blood of Jesus. This is Catholic teaching, too. No one can be saved by prayers for the dead. The souls in purgatory are already saved. Purgatory simply recognizes that even among the friends of Christ, there may be some elements of resistence-- venial sin, bad habits, etc.

HOOPER: No sinner who accepts Jesus Christ as their Saviour will have to undergo any further purging.

Where is this in the bible?

HOOPER: Jesus said "It is FINISHED."

This refers to Christ's redemptive work. It is still left to us to accept or reject what he has done for us.

HOOPER: It is finished because Jesus already did the PURGING, "when he had by himself PURGED our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb. 1:3).

No, you are confusing two different things. Jesus dies for the elect. He redeems us from the devil. We had been made subject to sin and death. Now we can accept Christ and his saving work in faith. This faith is realized in obedience and charity to Christ, not just in a verbal profession. The breech between heaven and hell is healed. Purgation is a question seen apart from salvation and damnation. There is no purging of the damned. Some of the saints, but not all, experience a purification or a perfection under the fire of God's love-- the completion of their transformation-- so that they may truly be perfect as Christ and his heavenly Father are perfect.

HOOPER: If you are a born again believer, your sins have been purged. If you are a born again believer and die, you will be in the presence of the Lord," To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8), not undergoing a man made purgatory fire!

Nothing is said here about the manner of justification, but I suspect that you mean by imputation and not by transformation. It is the height of egoism for people like yourself, so filled with enmity, to feel that you need no further cleansing prior to entering heaven. You would populate heaven with sinners only born again in a juridical way, but not really. Your very presence would reduce heaven to the resemblance of hell.

Revelation 21:27: Nothing defiled can enter Heaven.

HOOPER: Read, read, read. Why don't you quote the whole verse? "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Rev. 21:27)

I have no problem with the longer citation. The process of purification or perfection that begins in this life no doubt continues in the life to come. For some reason you seem to think that you are perfect already.

HOOPER: I don't know about you, but my name is written in the "book of life" (Phil. 4:3).

You have already said that I an unregenerated and thus damned and not in the book of life. You are presumptuous about many things.

HOOPER: The Bible reference you quote is to those who come out of the Tribulation and Millennium.

When Christ comes it will be for the consummation of all things. I do not subscribe to your picture of the end-times.

HOOPER: And the reason for that is because those who come in, come in to get what will give them eternal life (Rev. 22:14). They must eat from the "tree of life" to get eternal life. They finally obtain what was forbidden to Adam in Genesis 3:22-24. The Christians are already there, the church, the "Lamb's wife" (Rev. 21:9) and they already have eternal life, they don't need to eat from the "tree of life" (1 John 5:12). Thus, the passage refers to people on the earth in eternity who go into New Jerusalem to finally partake of the "tree of life." It's all right there in black and white if you'll take the time to read it and believe what you read.

Even my Protestant friends are shaking their heads about this. You must belong to the most fundamentalist branch of the Baptist church. Is it even Baptist? I do not know even what to say about all this. Purgation is not in reference to the tree of life or eternal life, but of perfection for those who would come into God's presence. At the consummation of all things, there will only be two realities: heaven and hell.

While many Protestant critics reject Purgatory because the word does not appear in the bible, the actual reason is that such a teaching would make their view of justification by faith alone untenable.

HOOPER: No, the reason why the Roman Catholic Church made up and introduced a place called Purgatory in the year 593 A.D. and declared it an official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 A.D. is because they could not accept the fact that the Bible teaches that for anybody alive can have eternal salvation as as a free gift! "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" (Eph. 2:8,9). "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 6:23).

Defining a truth of faith is not the same as inventing. First and Second Lyons, the Council of Florence, and later Trent all talk about it. Like the Jews, the early Christians prayed for the dead. This is an ancient practice. In addition to Second Maccabees, Jewish rabbis also interpreted Zechariah 13:9 in terms of purification in the afterlife (Shammai School): "I will bring the one third through fire, and I will refine them as silver is refined, and I will test them as gold is tested." I have already made reference to Matthew 12:32 and one might also cite Paul's prayer for Onesiphorus in 2 Timothy 1:18: "may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day". The ancient fathers of the Church are also clear about it: Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Ephram, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Caesarius of Arles and Gregory the Great.

This Catholic teaching sustains our understanding of intercessory prayer for the dead, meritorious works done in Christ in reparation for sin, the temporal punishment due to sin, and transformation over imputation in Christ. Our justification is not a mere juridical rendering from God, but the elect are made into a new creation. They are changed. Purgatory allows this transformation to come to completion. The Scriptures uphold such a teaching, despite the protestations of so-called bible-Christians.

HOOPER: I notice you cannot give scriptural proof text for your above statement. What you say is just what it is, "Catholic teaching," not "Bible teaching."

I have already given plenty of Scriptures. Although, Catholic hermeneutics allows for living Sacred Tradition as a source for doctrine. You may not accept this, but that is your losss. That is why any discussion or debate between a Catholic and the likes of you must always begin and end with the subject of the Church. Because we do not accept the other's starting points, and I would contend that yours is intellectually untenuable, we will always talk somewhat at cross-purposes.

HOOPER: Justification IS a judicial act of God whereby He declares the sinner to be righteous (Rom. 3:26). Even in the Book of Galatians Paul says, "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was ACCOUNTED TO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

Actually, Protestants like yourself do not hold that justification is a "judicial act" but rather what they call a "juridical" one. It is wrong still, but you should at least know what to call it. You have to be more careful what you copy from your anti-Catholic friends, in whatever books and leaflets you put on par with God's Word.

HOOPER: In this same Book it says, "And the scriptures, foreseeing that God would JUSTIFY the heathen THROUGH FAITH..." (Gal. 3:8) In this same Book it says, "But that NO MAN is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH" (Gal. 3:11; cf. Rom. 4:2, Gal. 2:16). Christ paid the full penalty for our sins, and those who are born again are completely justified. (Rom. 5:9, 5:18; Eph. 2:8,9; Rom. 3:24; Hebrews 9:26; Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:20; Rom. 3:28; Rom. 5:1; Gal. 3:24, etc. etc.) Just because you are not sure about your eternal life and standing before God does not mean you must make everybody else unsure.

You offer circular arguments that repeat your assertions and misinterpret Scripture. Catholics believe in the bible, but to our ears, the meaning of Scripture is very different from yours. The postulating of a lot of verses gives the impression of erudition and understanding where you make no argument at all. It is like a child who thinks he can win an argument by yelling louder than his friends. These verses are not topical to a discussion about purgatory and prayer for the dead. Rather, we should be restricting ourselves to these matters of dispute:

Are the saints of heaven really made into new creations or is the justification merely imputed in a juridical (legal) manner?

Is it sufficient to dismiss the guilt of sinners in heaven without some remission of temporal punishment and the eradication of sinful inclinations?

If the prayers of the living have an effect in the purification of the righteous (not the damned) how is it so?

Do not the saints of heaven, on a metaphysical level (not just juridical), have to be made perfect and Christ and his heavenly Father are perfect?

You really make no attempt to answer these questions. You seem to be saying that the saints of heaven remain in their sins but are no longer held liable. If the least sin is offensive to God and cannot have any place in heaven, then it would seem that most people (in your scenerio) should go to hell. Purgatory, for Catholics is more a sign of God's mercy than of his justice. That which would otherwise be damned, is made perfect and given a place in the eternal kingdom.

HOOPER: "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13) .

Yes, that is the rationale given by John and seems to imply that he was aware of his divinely inspired role.

The bible teaches that some sins are forgiven in the world to come, on the other side of death.

HOOPER: This has already been addressed.

Addressed, but not challenged.

We are not talking here about mortal sin that damns the soul. The Scriptures also indicate that some, although not all, are saved in the next world by fire. Literally the fire of God's love purifies his own and makes them ready for heaven.

HOOPER: Again, you have no Scriptures to confirm YOUR belief. Again, see comment above. At the Judgment Seat of Christ, sins are NOT addressed, it's his WORKS that are judged.

The Scriptures were given earlier in this discussion. Again, having said this I fault you for dismissing sacred tradition. You argue in a crippled fashion by cutting off an essential font of revelation to the Church. Once again, I think it is funny that you do mental gymnastics here to say that works are judged when you argue that only faith matters. You cannot have it both ways. Works, by the way, can be good, neutral or evil. In that sense, evil works can be counted as sins. Good works are counted as meritorious.

In addition, the value of intercessory prayer for the dead is advocated by the bible.

HOOPER: Where? I thought so. Only in the Apocrypha, but not in the Scriptures.

It is not the Apocrypha but the Deuterocanonical Book, 2 Maccabbees. It was only removed from the Christian bible after the fact, not prior to the argument about prayer for the dead and purgatory. Literally what happened was, your Protestant forebears of a few centuries ago censored the bible to substantiate their arguments.

Like a bride who wants to look her best before meeting her bridegroom, Purgatory allows us to undergo a cleansing or purgation of any residual stain-- venial sin, the temporal punishment due to sin, and the tendency (habit) to sin.

HOOPER: Scriptures say nothing about having to undergo a cleansing or purgation of any sin after death. It's already been done. Praise God!

How has it been done? You mean you never commit sin? You are not prone to rash judgment or anger? Do you not know bigotry against those who think differently than you? Are you free of all sins of the flesh?

HOOPER: "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you ALL trespasses;" -Col. 2:13

A Catholic can know forgiveness as well, however, that does not mean that he has achieved spiritual perfection. We can fall back into serious sin, God forbid. We may also be plagued by lesser offenses, which are still offensive in God's sight.

HOOPER: "For by ONE offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." -Heb. 10:14

Yes, the redemptive work of Christ has been accomplished. Final sanctification requires that we run the race and receive the crown that awaits us on the other side of the grave. We are called to cooperate with Christ's work and his grace.

HOOPER: "But this man, after he had offered ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR EVER, sat down on the right hand of God;" Hebrews 10:12

Yes, Jesus ascended to the Father and now sits at the right hand of God to judge the living and the dead. This is also Catholic doctrine. Jesus is the one high priest and he offers himself as a victim in the one sacrifice that heals the rift between God and man.

HOOPER: "In whom we HAVE REDEMPTION THROUGH HIS BLOOD, the FORGIVENESS OF SINS, according to the riches of his grace;" -Eph. 1:7
Praise God!

Yes, we are redeemed through his blood, the immaculate Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. Catholics say or sing this at every Mass. We know full well the meaning of his paschal sacrifice. It is Jesus that makes the forgiveness of sins possible. However, that is on the periphery of the given debate here.

HOOPER: When the jailer asked Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" they did not answer by saying, "Well, I hate to tell you this, but because Christ did not forgive all punishment for sin on the cross, chances are very high that you will end up in purgatory where there needs to be further purging of your sins by fire. You see, once you are saved by being sprinkled with Jericho water, you must pray so you won't spend a long time in the purgatory fire. You must pray to Mary, that's Jesus' mother, and pray for the dead so they can get out too. We are not yet sure how many prayers it will take, so be faithful to pray the rosary every day, and you must ask Mary to intercede for you. Also remember that you should abstain from eating meats on Fridays, go to a Catholic priest for confession on Saturdays, attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, and make sure you fast one hour before Mass before you eat Jesus' body and blood. If you make the sign of the cross, you are granted an indulgence of three years. If you make the same holy sign with blessed water, you may gain an indulgence of seven years.[2] Oh! Indulgences are also granted for visits of the faithful to various Catholic shrines. Don't forget to pray for the pope while you are at it. If you are faithful in all I say and the many things I tell you in the future, under proper conditions, indulgences will also be applied to the dead in purgatory for the reduction of the degree of suffering and the length of time it must be endured. Don't forget that you can also BUY ($$$) indulgences to get some poor soul out of purgatory." Etc. Etc. Etc.
What did Paul and Silas answer? They simply said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:30-31 It is that simple!

This response is almost funny, if it were not for the meanness and deep-seated anger. It is certainly true that there is no enemy of the Church as terrible as one who was once a Catholic.

The story actually confirms the Catholic stance, not in purgatory, but in the necessity for faith to be accompanied by baptism. Notice what Paul answers, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved." Note here something of the Church's communitarian stance. His faith would suffice to bring in his whole household-- family and servants. This is not a privatized faith at all. The apostles then "spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house." We are told that "he and his family were baptized at once." It is probable that this even included children! Baptism remits all sin, original and personal. We do not know the rest of their story. Probably they became a part of the church community established there. They might have also eventually witnessed with their lives.

You make much about many other practices as if they are on the same level with faith and baptism. Catholics would not claim such.

Turning to your apparent mockery, all Catholics aim for heaven and we leave it in God's hands as to whether we will require spiritual perfection on the other side of the grave. Many suffer their purgatory here by joining their crosses to that of Jesus and enduring all things for his sake.

They are not sprinkled with Jericho water but they are filled with faith and are baptized. If it were not essential, it would make no sense to do it. It is the new rite of initiation for a new People of God. No longer is the sign of entry circumcision, but baptism by water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

No doubt Paul recounted the story of Christ and Mary was and is an important part of that story. She would become a mother to the Church community and they would love her in imitation of Christ who loved her.

They would assemble with others no doubt to celebrate the Lord's Supper and the renewal of this new covenant in the blood of Christ.

While they would not speak of indulgences as such, they would proclaim the news of God's favor to them which is the greatest indulgence of all. Paul and Silas could have run away, but chose to witness to him instead.

Hooper Debate 5 - Questions About Faith & Works

FAITH AND WORKS

Mark 16:16: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

HOOPER: Does the last part say, "but he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned? No. It simply says "he that believeth not shall be damned." It is unbelief that damns a person, not the lack of city water baptism. Water baptism doesn't save.

The text says what it says, faith and baptism are intimately linked. It makes sense that you would reject this Scriptural teaching, given that it mandates a church community as necessary to do the baptising. You must take the whole of Scripture, not just the parts you like best. Baptism in itself must somehow be linked to faith-- either of the person being initiated or in the case of infants, as professed by the parents. The message of Jesus about being "born again" is part of the understanding of baptism as a regeneration in Christ. We are washed clean of original sin. Personal sins are forgiven. A person becomes a new creation in Christ and is initiated into the mystical body of Christ, the Church. Sanctifying and actual grace are infused into the soul. We can only be baptised once, but the graces of baptism can be forfeited by serious sin. They can also be restored by repentence, true sorrow for sin and contrition, and the sacrament of confession.

Both faith and good works are necessary for salvation. This is the witness of Scripture.

HOOPER: Nowhere for a New Testament Christians does it say that "faith and good works are necessary for salvation." You are the one who is wanting the Bible to teach it what YOU think it means. You have wrest the Scriptures and are purely preaching ANOTHER GOSPEL. (Gal. 1:8-9) Every true born again Christian knows he is not justified by God by "his own works." The Bible even tells us that, "not of works, lest any man should boast..Eph. 2:8,9. In relation to Salvation, the Bible says it is not of works: Not by works (Titus 3:5) Not of works (Eph. 2:8,9) No more of works (Romans 11:6).

I have already quoted James (in another debate response) to show that the inspired Word does not discount the need for works. Many of the Scriptures quoted here are in reference to the works of the old law. It is true that these works are not required for justification. However, it would be wrong to apply such sentiment to all human activity or work. Our Lord tells us himself (see Matthew 16:24-28): "For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then repay each according to his conduct." What we do matters very much. I subscribe to no Gospel other than the one transmitted to the Church and preached in each generation. As I have said before, faith and works must come as a package. Our works are not simply the fruits of our faith but rather are a manifestation of it. We invite the Lord to continue his saving work in us. We do not boast in ourselves, but of the one who is in us and the Church.

Martin Luther was so possessed by his "faith alone" theory that he even inserted the word "alone" into his version of the bible.

HOOPER: No, Martin Luther added nothing, you are the one who added "good works."

The record is clear. Luther was shown his so-called mistake by an associate and he remarked stubbornly that he would not remove it (alone) even if an angel came down from heaven and demanded it.

HOOPER: Eph. 2:5 makes it clear that "by grace ye are saved." Do you see anything else? It stands ALONE.

Yes, we are saved by grace. This is essential to Catholic teaching. About this much we agree.

HOOPER: It doesn't say we are saved by "grace and good works" as you have added.

Where and how do you think we avail ourselves of grace? Faith and works dispose us to God's grace. There is human cooperation with divine intervention.

HOOPER: Martin simply believed the Scriptures where it concerned the free gift of salvation.

No, Martin simply underwent the tower experience where supposedly his great insight came simultaneously with a good bowel movement after a period of constipation. He was also never able to win the affirmation or favor of his father; he would translate this anxiety into his theology and force the Scriptures to conform to his view where imputation takes the place of transformation. Men are never good in his appreciation, but rather are merely treated as such by God in respects to Jesus and his saving work.

HOOPER: He knew it was by grace ONLY and not by GRACE PLUS WORKS which every Catholic Church, every Jehovah's Witnesses, every Church of Christ, Seventh Day Adventists, et. al. preach. You preach "another gospel." (Gal. 1:8,9).

I preach the same Good News as Jesus and the Apostles did. The message of Luther is that "faith alone" saves; but he errs in dismissing the value of works as an element of faith. There is no competition between faith and works and neither is there with grace. All is grace-- it is this truth that validates the Catholic message while marking your reformational emphasis as fraudulent.

HOOPER: The Bible is clear that we are SAVED BY GRACE PLUS NOTHING. Grace, period.

Men are not robots. Men have the freedom to accept or to reject God's grace. Your terminology, "plus nothing" does not appear in Scripture and is not the same as "grace alone".

HOOPER: In Ephesians we read, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Right, we are not saved by the works of the old law. But Catholics do not mean such by their emphasis upon works. What they mean is OBEDIENCE. Do you think that a man can steal heaven if all his works or actions violate the commandments and the law of love? Please, this is ridiculous!

HOOPER: Why do you have a problem with this? What are the complexities with such verses as Titus 3:5, Rom. 11:6, Eph. 2:8,9 etc.?

The complexities are yours, and those who have spoon-fed you the venom that you use against the Church that first introduced you to Jesus.

HOOPER: Only an unregenerate man will run with passages that emphasize WORKS (Acts 2:38, Matt. 24:13, James 2:26, etc.).

Who are you to judge me? Your presumption shows how serious your hatred of the Church has infected your reasoning. While I disagree with you, it is my hope that ignorance and the misdirection given from others will relieve you of some degree of culpability. While I live in the sure and certain hope of my salvation, I leave such judgment in the hands of almighty God and not with an ex-Catholic baptist who hates the Church.

HOOPER: An unregenerate man will run to to complex verses to negate the clear ones. You would do well to "study" the Bible so you may engage in rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Tim. 2:15). In Ephesians 2:8 and 9, it is clear that one is saved by GRACE and NOT OF WORKS. Grace is not of works (Rom. 11:6). In the Church Age, God will never justify a man who "works" for his salvation (Rom. 4:5). By works shall no man be justified (Gal. 3:11). No one has to work for salvation, it is a GIFT (Eph. 2:8), and a FREE GIFT (Rom. 5:15,16; Rom. 6:23). No one can work for it nor purchase it. It is a "gift of righteousness" (Rom. 5:17) which no Roman Catholic Church could ever give me. One must come to Christ (not the Roman Catholic Church) and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for this gift of eternal life and the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Now, not only are we saved BY GRACE, for Eph. 2:5 makes it clear "by grace ye are saved," but we are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH; and THAT not of yourselves." The "that" has to do with "faith." Faith is the medium.

When told about his error, Luther responded that he would not remove it even if an angel from heaven were to tell him to do so. You have to consider the whole of Scripture and not just dissected verses taken out of context to give the impression of supporting your erroneous positions. The fact that you do not even acknowledge areas of agreement demonstrates that this is not so much a debate of ideas as it is one of venomous anti-Catholicism, in other words a hateful bigotry that should have no place among God's true children.

HOOPER: The man was not in error, just like the many before him, all the way back to Acts 8 with the Ethiopian. Martin Luther simply had the courage to face the falsehood and wickedness of the Roman Catholic Church and her errors. Like so many others, he knew salvation was not by works. When confronted with the the gospel of Christ he believed, "for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;" (Rom. 1:16)

Catholics rightly contend that faith must be actualized with charity. We profess and make real our faith, not only with an assent of the mind and our words, but with our heart and our actions. Christ is only "our personal Lord and Savior" if we exercise necessary faith and good works. The incarnation of Christ, first into human flesh and now into our souls by grace, allows him to perpetuate his ministry through our lives and us. Good works have merit precisely because the Lord living in us ultimately performs them. Since faith and good works are required, it becomes an imperative that we reject the view of Luther.

HOOPER: You can reject anybody's view all you like, it doesn't negate the word of God. The bottom line is that the Roman Catholic Churches teaches that one must earn ("faith and good works") his way into heaven. If one must "earn" his way into heaven by "good works," then Christ's death on the cross was for nothing; this would make the "gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23), as stated in the Bible, a lie according to Rome.

It does make a difference what we believe. The consensus on this issue from modern day Lutherans and Catholics is evidence of a positive development in mainline Protestantism upon this point as well as a reconciliatory stance from Catholicism.

HOOPER: Consensus on the issue from modern day Lutherans and Catholics means nothing. "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. " -Matt. 7:13,14 Jesus is elaborating a familiar doctrine found from Proverbs. (Prov. 14:12 and 16:25) The majority is wrong when it comes to matters of spiritual salvation (Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Campbellites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Lutherans, Christian Science), and any other organization who teaches a "faith plus works" for salvation.

Your condemnation of Roman Catholicism and just about everyone else, shows the absurdity of your position. Maybe you are Baptist, but only of a branch of that denomination that condemns most of the Christians in the world because they fail to agree with you, personally. Further, not all the religious groups you mention concur about the aperatus of salvation, demonstrating ignorance about the soteriology of different faith confessions.

The gate is indeed narrow, and I would contend that our Lord gave the keys to this gate to Peter and his successors. Your closed-mindedness makes any real debate with you pointless. However, I post these corrections for others who might be misled by your prejudiced poison.

Hooper Debate 4 - Questions About Good Works

GOOD WORKS

James 2:22-26: You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

Hooper: For you to think this kind of salvation is exactly like New Testament salvation, only proves you do not accurately study your Bible (2 Tim. 2:15).

You are the one who is going to strip the Scriptures of their truthfulness by human rationalization, which by the way, comes from an anti-Catholic apologists and not through any direct movement of the Holy Spirit guiding you in the truth. We all have our authorities. You trust in men with no safeguard of truth. Mine have been preserved in the truth as a Magisterium from the very first.

Hooper: According to the text you pull to try to prove a "works" salvation, you "conveniently" left out verse 21.

There was no deceit, just no need to quote the whole Bible to make a point. Nothing of my position is undermined.

Hooper: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" Concerning Abraham's "justification," note that verse 21 separated Abraham's IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS (see Rom. 4:22) from his JUSTIFICATION by more than 15 years! (it was not done simultaneously like ours is in the church age.)

Actually, the justification of Abraham was not anything like the Lutheran view of imputation which you insert here. The Hebrew notion of righteousness in the Old Testament did not diminish the need for a true Savior. Indeed, the early Semites did not have a clear understanding of an afterlife; rather, they saw God's blessing in terms of progeny, land and material wealth. Abraham found favor with God because in his great faith he was willing even to sacrifice his son, the child of promise. Your debate here is not with me but with the Scriptures, particularly with James and how he sees Abraham as a figure for Christ and his saving work. As for the "simultaneous" bit, this is not actually the Catholic view. If a person sustains his faith until the very end, then yes, he can live without fear and in the sure and certain HOPE of his salvation. However, you mean it as a one time faith profession, after which (even if the person should prove himself a devil) he will necessary go to heaven. You do not see any kind of spiritual or moral transformation in justification. Rather, using the word IMPUTATION, a term coined (and made part of bible translations) by Luther and his cohorts.

Hooper: Not only that, Abraham's sins were not "taken away" ever after righteousness was imputed to him (see Hebrews 10:4), ours is!

Obviously, before the coming of Christ, no one could enter heaven. Even after his death, Abraham would have waited for his Savior with the other "righteous" dead. Their justification would dispose them to Christ's saving grace later in history. However, people throughout could damn themselves and face eternal perdition.

Hooper: Let's look a little more closely comparing Scripture with Scripture. Here we have: "For if Abraham were justified by works, [James says he was] he hath whereof to glory; but not before God." --Rom. 4:2. Okay, we see that Abraham's works did not justify him in the way we're justified for salvation, because if Abraham could have gloried, he couldn't have before God.

The Catholic Church speaks of Old Testament righteousness or justification as a type or prefigurement for that accomplished by Christ. We never claimed they were the same. But James, who is an inspired author, is still saying that works play a part in our redemption-- not apart from faith-- but as an element of real faith. Faith is more than empty words. Ultimately, faith means obedience.

Hooper: But let's not stop there. Look at the next verse: "For what saith the scripture? Abraham *believed God,* and it was counted unto him for righteousness." --Rom. 4:3. Now, what you read so far is that Abraham was justified by faith, Abraham was not justified by works, Abraham believed God, and was imputed to him for righteousness.

Again, your argument is with James who says we are saved by works. In any case, you cannot have it both ways-- saying that Abraham's justification is not analogous to ours and then saying the opposite. Further, belief here is not any kind of evangelical exhortation. The Hebrews would well interpret Abraham's faith as obedience to God, a work so to speak, even when it was difficult.

Hooper: There were no works involved when Abraham was imputed with righteousness. Now go to James 2. "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, [Paul said he wasn't]

Actually, you have to look at the context again. James here means this as a rhetorical question. It is absolutely stupid, the heights of incompetence, to claim that James wanted someone to say "nay" to his question and dispute him. Martin Luther himself realized that James disagreed with his interpretation of Paul and that is why he originally deleted James from his German Bible.

Hooper: WHEN he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" -James 2:21.

The measure of Abraham's faith is in that pivotal act. You cannot dismiss it. It parallels the work of God in the New Testament where the heavenly Father does not stay the hand of evil men in sacrificing his Son on the altar of the Cross.

Hooper: Now, look closely. Paul, in the Book of Romans, wasn't talking about that. In Rom. 4:2 and 3, Paul wasn't talking about Abraham offering up Isaac, he was talking about Abraham going out there at night and believing that he would have as much seed as the stars in heaven. So we have to make a distinction here. When God calls Abraham out and tells him to look at the stars and says "so shall thy seed be," and he believed in the Lord and is imputed him for righteousness, that's Genesis 15. Then many years later, after Isaac is born, he takes him out there and he's "justified by works" when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar.

First, it is very difficult to harmonize Paul and James in how they reckon justification and works, particularly in how they use the legacy of Abraham. One stresses the element of faith and the other the works of the covenant.

Second, when Paul talks about the faith of Abraham, he means it as a consistent reality in the great patriarch's life. It is indeed measured in his willingness to sacrifice his Son, but the hand of God had been upon him from early on when he was called out from the other tribes to be the father of a new people. Abraham had long trusted God and is indeed the father in faith to both Jews and Christians. He trusts that the same God who gave him Isaac will somehow still keep his promise to make his descendants "as the stars of heaven". It is true that no empty fidelity to the law could save him or anyone. However, his faith was realized again and again by trusting God and in faithfully preserving the covenant that God had established with him-- and not just with him personally, but with his whole people. In a sense, we see something of an Old Testament church. If they keep his covenant, God promises that he will be their God and they shall be his people.

Hooper: Then they are not the same passage at all. Paul is talking about one thing and James the other. Righteousness was imputed to Abraham (by simply believing God) 15 years before he got justified (WHEN he did something...offer Isaac). Abraham's righteousness and justification was not simultaneously applied in his life like ours is. Abraham wasn't justified completely until he offered up Isaac on the alter. His works completed his faith.

James and Paul mention Abraham to augment their own points of views; it would be wrong to read too much of a New Testament or Christological view of salvation in the faith of the ancient patriarch. The iniative is from God. He selected and called Abram (later Abraham) from his tribe to become a new people. He reveals himself as his God and they have to disavow the gods of others. Later they will discern that the other gods are utterly false. You distinguish between righteousness and justification; and yet, such may only be an abberation of translation in that the same word is often translated either way, at the whim of the exegete or theologian. I have no problem with the notion of his works "completing" his faith, but I suspect most your Baptist minister friends would fault you on this concession. It is precisely the Catholic position that faith includes works.

Hooper: Yes, Abraham was justified by works WHEN he offered up Isaac upon the altar. (He did something for justification).

Well, okay, but as I stated before, finding divine favor in the Old Testament was no immediate ticket into Paradise. Only salvation in Christ makes possible our transition from this world to the heavenly shore.

Hooper: Yes, Rahab was justified by works when she hid the spies. Yes, works were involved in their justification. Does your justification involve works? If so, then you are depending on WORKS to save you and not the Blood of Jesus Christ. Your completed justification does not come by your good works as Abraham's did. I don't know about you, but every born again believer's justification is by the grace of God (Rom. 3:24), we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1), and a Christian is justified by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9), and notice that not once does it say we are justified by water baptism and works.

The mention of Abraham and Rahab are merely instances where Old Testament figures found favor with God. They are used by James to sprinboard his argument in favor of works, particularly to those who do not think they have to live out their faith. You seem to capitulate your argument in saying, "Yes, works were involved in their justification." Your argument here is again with James, all I did was quote him and you have jumped up and down trying to eradicate his inspired authority. Final justification has not been completed, although Catholics admit, as they should, that redemption has been accomplished by Christ. We are indeed justified by faith, but NOT by faith "alone". We are, HOWEVER, justified by "grace alone". The role of works, which you seem to admit, does not nullify the saving blood of Jesus. Baptism is an expression of faith, both personal and corporate, and the obligation of a believer is to live a life of holy charity and obedience.

1 Corinthians 13:1-3: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Matthew 7:21: "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my father who is in heaven."

Hooper: I don't know why you are quoting these passages. Do you think these deny born again Christians eternal life? They don't. Besides, you would do well to know there is a difference between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God.

I think these pasages say a lot about people who are twisted by anger and bigotry. Those who become enemies of truth, endanger their relationship with the one who is the Way, and the Truth and the Life. Heaven is where God is, so what difference can there be in speaking of the Kingdom of God and that of Heaven? Christ is the kingdom personified. All his parables and exhortations about the kingdom are beseeching us to make Jesus Christ the treasure beyond measure in our lives.