(Protestant) Minister Who Had Near-Death Episode Believes In Purgatory

Spirit Daily ^ | 2005 | Michael Brown

[RoadTest]

"Even St. Paul referred to Purgatory!"

Could someone give me the scripture verses for that?

[Jaded]

Mark

[mike182d]

"He says God doesn't want division and that the main reason why he was on the road to hell was lack of love, pride, and disbelief"

So, you joined a Protestant division? Something does not add up here.

[Larry Lucido]

LOL!

[mike182d]

The problem with Protestants is that, ironically, they've become so "letter of the Law." Just like the Pharisees, if a book didn't specifically say a certain thing could be done, it can't be done, and St. Paul speaks vehemently against this dangerous reasoning.

A clear example is the Trinity. No where is the word "trinity" found,no where in Scripture does it say that the Holy Spirit is God, and no where in Scripture does it say that God is three in one person - the language simply isn't there. But, following the "spirit" of the Word of God and not confining God to printed text, we can deduce from Scripture God's trinitarian nature.

The same goes for Purgatory. We know three things from Scripture: 1) All men are unclean, 2) nothing unclean can get into heaven and 3) men can get into heaven. Connect the dots and Purgatory is right in front of you - its the grace of God cleansing or "purging" an unclean soul as they enter into union with God the Father in heaven.

What is so hard to understand about this?

[mike182d]

No, you don't. "Jesus" (if it were possible) is slaughtered, according to Catholic docrine,

Could you kindly point out where this is found in Catholic doctrine?

I really wish people knew what they were attacking before they attacked it.

[mike182d]

You're letting the Catholic system put you back under the law.

What do you think sola-Scriptura is? Letter of the Law and nothing else is acceptable.

Protestants subject themselves to a book. Catholics merely subject themselves to the authority that canonized those books.

[Romish_Papist]

"God didn't cause his word to be written and preserved for us if He hadn't thought we could interpret it. The Spirit who wrote it interprets it to believers in Jesus Christ."

You're right. The Holy Spirit does allow for interpretation. That is the whole point of the Magisterium. It's why Jesus entrusted the Word to Peter and his successors. I cannot see how Jesus wanted there to be 31,000 different Protestant denominations, all believing different things. It only stands to reason that He did as He said and established one church headed by Peter and his successors. YOU may disagree personally with what the successors have said, but it doesn't make YOU right. I'll trust Jesus' words and trust in the successive popes over my own interpretation any day.

[mike182d]

And believe me, it's not literal, either.

Yes, it is.

Anyone who is remotely familiar with Scripture and Jesus' parables know that He often had to explain what He meant - people didn't simply understand. He would be frustrated sometimes, but when He used an allegory or a metaphor that people confused, He would clarify for them or for the Apostles. You will find no such clarification in John 6. In fact, you find the exact opposite. Jesus says that you must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life and the Jews simply don't understand and our disgusted by this. They say "you can't be serious?" and how does Jesus respond? He doesn't explain, elaborate, nada. In fact, He reinforces what He said when its questioned by saying, "Amen, amen, I say to you..."

So, in other words, people who question the Eucharist are no different from the Jews in John 6 and when you stand here saying "pfft! How can this be? You're not serious?" Christ isn't going to say "Yeah, you're right." He's going to respond exactly how He responded to the Jews by saying "Amen, amen, I say to you..."

Furthermore, the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist has been believed for 2000 years. It wasn't till after the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century that people disagreed. Do Protestants know something that 1500 years of Christians did not?

[mike182d]

God didn't cause his word to be written and preserved for us if He hadn't thought we could interpret it. The Spirit who wrote it interprets it to believers in Jesus Christ.

Where in Scripture does God give you the authority to interpret Scripture?

[Sidebar Moderator]

This is not a "protected" thread - like a devotional or Daily Mass Reading.

Doctrines can be challenged here.

But BE RESPECTFUL - personal attacks have consequences.

[mike182d]

It's all fakery..

First, "fakery" isn't a word. Second, the only thing "fake" here is your purported understanding of Catholic teaching.

The Catholic "mass" purports to bring Him down to earth and re-sacrifice him, in contradiction to God's word.

The Catholic Church has never taught this ever in the 2000 year history of the Church. Period.

When someone says Christ died for their sins, how? How is it possible when Christ died 2000 years ago before you were even born and sinned? It's because Christ's crucifixion spans throughout all eternity and its power affects the whole of the cosmos throughout time. God exists outside of time and therefore transcends time.

When offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Christ is not being "re-crucified" anymore than when an old married couple renewing their weddings vows is getting "re-married." In the Eucharist, by the power of the Holy Spirit, we are brought, spiritually, before the feet of the crucified Christ at Calvary 2000 years ago in our renewal of our covenant with God.

Christ died once and for all, but the power of His crucifixion affects all men, at all times, throughout all generations.

[mike182d]

But BE RESPECTFUL - personal attacks have consequences.

Yeah? Well you're a jerk...



Just kidding :-)

[Romulus]

...where he told his incredible story to a national audience...

Whatever.

[Romish_Papist]

The idea that Peter never went to Rome has been thoroughly debunked FRiend.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

The idea that Peter never went to Rome has been thoroughly debunked FRiend.

To every papists satisfaction I'm sure.

[dangerdoc]

I think that it is a waste of time to argue details that are peripheral to salvation.

When jesus says this is the rock I will build my churce upon he may have been talking about Peter (translates to small stone) or he may have been talking about the stone rejected by the builder, the stumbling stone, the rock, truth and light all ways that he described himself. Please forgive the paraphrasing, I don't have a Bible handy.

If Peter is at the pearly gate, I am happy to say, I will be there to shake his hand. I think alot of time and blood has been wasted over whether dunk vs. sprinkle, wine vs. juice, ect.

I do think that religion should be scripture based but in the end, religion will get nobody to heaven. Salvation is a personal relationship with the Savior.

[Jaded]

Those who are first will be last and those who are last shall be first.

[Romish_Papist]

Or to anyone who can see past their own preconceived notions to accept the historical evidence. Look it up, it's not all that difficult.

[RoadTest]

"The idea that Peter never went to Rome has been thoroughly debunked FRiend."

Evidence, please