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

Spirit Daily ^ | 2005 | Michael Brown

[magisterium]

Well, first, who are they who are confusing you? Certainly, I would agree that it is all very confusing, listening to the multitude of varying opinions regarding the Catholic Church. I would recommend learning about the Church from the Church itself, to test what it says for consistency with Scripture, history and the constant witness of teaching through time since the Apostolic Era. The Church is her own best witness!

Not to beat a dead horse, but I would earnestly recommend reading the Fathers of the Church, churchmen writing between the end of the first century and the eigth Century, in order to see what was taught and believed immediately after the time of the Apostles. Again, if these people got doctrine "wrong," then we're all wasting our time, for Christ then would be demonstrably a liar who could not keep His promise to guide and guard His Church from error in doctrine. Read early Church history, to see how the practices and faith of the age of the Christian martyrs dovetail with present-day Catholic beliefs with regard to the Sacraments, Scripture, what is necessary for salvation, belief in the "communion of saints," and a host of other things.

Read beyond, into the age of the great ecumenical councils, and see how they knew that, guided by the Holy Spirit, the bishops, successors to the Apostles, had the power and authority to "define" points of doctrine which seemed unclear (like the concept of the Trinity, which is hazy, at best, in Scripture, but developed fully at the Council of Nicaea in 325) that, in some cases, even Protestantism believes, though it might not acknowledge the source! Read how they understood their authority also existed in the ability to determine the content of Scripture, and this, in turn was but the final step in authority held by the Church to write (under inspiration, of course!)the New Testament, compile it over time from within a much wider collection of books, and vet that collection down to the 27 NT books we all know today and 46 OT books we Catholics use. Read further, and see how those same bishops understood that they had the authority to condemn the many heresies which, promulgated by men wittingly or unwittingly guided by Satan, threatened to undermine the integrity of the Faith, and understand that much of their council here is responsible even for the elements of the Truth all non-Catholic Christians hold to even today.

Read further, and see how the Church has developed some doctrines over time without injury to the original kernels or premises. She developed them much the same way you and I developed over life. Are we "identical" to oursleves as small children today? No. But the small child of years ago and the adult of today are, nevertheless, one and the same person. Even so with Catholic doctrine. It all comes from the Deposit of Faith, the Scripture and Spirit-led Tradition that comes down to us from the Age of the Apostles.

Read the good and the bad of general Catholic history, and understand that, while our doctrine is pure and inerrant, sometimes our leaders are mighty sinners regardless! While we have many saints who have been leaders of our flock and rank-and-file members, we have had our share of rogues, as well. But, in this, we only fulfill the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares which Christ used to describe His future Church (Matthew 13:24-30), where saints and sinners are together part of "the kingdom of Heaven." You will come to understand that, while our bishops and (especially) our popes may make seemingly grandiose claims about their authority, no one should mitake infallibility in doctrine for impeccability in lifestyle.

All of these things constitute a beginning. They nurture both the head and the heart, but they cannot truly convince anyone unless an open mind is employed, and made available to the grace of God. I invite you to explore all of these things with an open mind, testing everything, like the Bereans in Acts 17, with a view to discerning the Truth.

Only one church can lay claim to both the fullness of the Faith and unbroken continuity throughout the Christian Era. I and the other Catholics on this board will keep you and any others who desire to know the Truth in our prays, that you may be granted the grace of true discernment by God, and employ it to its fullest effect! If you seek it and such grace is given, you will know which Church is, in fact, that which was founded by Christ and comes down to us through the Apostles!

[mike182d]

We don't need purification.

Then why do we need Christ anymore? What's done is done and that's that, right?

Furthermore, that's not Scriptural. Give me a passage that says we don't need purification.

We will be given new glorified bodies, but purification will not be involved.

Then what is there to be glorified if our bodies are perfected in grace already?

So many contradictions in one post...

[mike182d]

God changed the names of a lot of people in the Bible, Jesus had two Simons on his hands, could he have changed Peter's name to avoid confusion.

You're right, but you'll find that whenever God changed someone's name it was because they played an instrumental role in furthering His Kingdom. Abram became Abraham as he became a spiritual father of God's people, Jacob's name was changed to Israel as he became the spiritual father of God's people, and Simon's name was changed to Peter because...there were two Simons? That doesn't seem to make much sense. There's a pattern here with how God works and Peter is part of that larger plan.

I am not a theologian but could the keys to the kingdom of heaven be the knowledge that Jesus gave him or the Holy Spirit.

Be that as it may, Peter was given the keys to it and thus was entrusted with its protection as the "King" was away. This was very common of the Dividic Kings in ancient Israel and something the Jews would have picked up on right away.

The Bible describes Jesus as the chief cornerstone of the church. I think there is some room for interpretation when he has his discussion with Peter but that seems pretty clear.

Where does the Bible say that? It says that Christ is the cornerstone of our faith, and certainly this faith is at the heart of God's church, but it was Peter who was entrusted with its care while Christ was away.

You can try and explain away a multitude of scenarios which contradict this passage, but it becomes nothing more than a contradiction and you're left with having to disregard a passage of the Divine Word of God to make your theology work. Is a theology that disregards specific passages of Scripture because they're inconsistent with one's beliefs a sound theology?

[AnalogReigns]

I believe it became required dogma in the 1200s. But of course the claim was (and is) "we've always believed this!" Naturally the evidence says differently...definitely a medieval innovation.

[mike182d]

I believe it became required dogma in the 1200s. But of course the claim was (and is) "we've always believed this!" Naturally the evidence says differently...definitely a medieval innovation.

Thanks.

[mike182d]

Apparently he didn't go to hell because he rejected Christ. He went to hell because he did not believe.

So, that would mean the devil could get to heaven. He believes in Christ even though he rejects him.

[mike182d]

I believe it became required dogma in the 1200s. But of course the claim was (and is) "we've always believed this!" Naturally the evidence says differently...definitely a medieval innovation.

Wierd. None of the text of my last post showed up...

Since you are so "definitively" sure of this being a medieval invention, could you kindly provide the date and the document that invented this dogma?

You'll find that sola-Scriptura and sola-fides are more medieval inventions than purgatory.

[silverleaf]

Christ does not say "NO DIVORCE".

He said to his disciples that divorce did not come from the Creator, who created two flesh, male and female, to be joined. Christ further said that divorce arose because of the hardness of the hearts of men that developed followng their creation. He told the disciples that remarriage after a divorce "for reasons other than sexual immorality on the part of a spouse"...would be considered adultery.

[dangerdoc]

I should really keep a Bible at work but I think the passage is Ephesians 2:20 NIV version. If I misquoted, I apologize.

I think Peter is one of the most important people in our faith. I think we can agree he was less important than Jesus. I believe that Jesus is the head of the church, He is the husband and we are the bride. If you consider the traditional Jewish family, the Husband was the head of the family.

There are multiple passages describing the church and what it should be. I agree there is an argument to be made based on the passage you quoted but there is other information in the Bible. I think you can believe that Peter is the head of the church and I can believe otherwise but as long as we place our faith on Christ, we will see each other in eternity and we will both know the answer.

There are many passages in the Bible that can be quoted that seem to contradict other passages but when I read the Bible as a whole, the contradictions fade away. When I read the passage, I see Jesus referring to himself as the rock the church is built upon.

I look forward to your reply but I may choose to not pursue this conversation further. It is not my job to change your mind and I really don't mind if you disagree with me. I have enjoyed our conversation but I feel a little guilty using freerepublic bandwidth. I just want you to know that I think you are a brother in Christ and I have entered this discussion because it was enjoyable, not to stir up any antagonism.

[silverleaf]

We will be given new glorified bodies, but purification will not be involved

Christ Himself alluded to a purification process after death when, on the third day after His crucifixion, when Mary recognized Hom at the tomb, he cautioned her not to touch Him to touch him because he had not yet ascended to the Father.

Yet some time and some days later, when He appeared to His 11 disciples, He invited Thomas (the doubter) to touch Him to feel his wounds.

I do not think any of us adequately comprehend the process that occurs after death, to be so sure as to condemn others for a different interpretation. Particularly when that interpretation is founded on events as described in the scriptures.

[SoothingDave]

I should really keep a Bible at work

Biblegateway.com

SD

[SoothingDave]

We don't need purification.

We don't? You are now a perfected human being?

We will be given new glorified bodies, but purification will not be involved.

How would you describe getting rid of an old, dirty body and obtaining a new, perfect one? Have you really given this much thought?

SD

[mike182d]

I think Peter is one of the most important people in our faith. I think we can agree he was less important than Jesus. I believe that Jesus is the head of the church, He is the husband and we are the bride. If you consider the traditional Jewish family, the Husband was the head of the family.

No Catholic denies that Jesus is the most important. However, I think most Protestants overlook an obvious fact: Jesus isn't here. Jesus left us and is going to come again. Now, He didn't leave us orphans, but Jesus Christ isn't present here on earth to tell people what's true and what's not true about Himself. Further, it is insufficient to say that the Holy Spirit will guide the individual hearts of men to the Truth because there are over 70,000 different denominations of Christianity. There are nearly as many beliefs about Jesus Christ as there are people. So either everyone is right, which is illogical, or the Holy Spirit is very confused.

Jesus did not leave us orphans and knew that people would challenge our beliefs about Him. He left us with the Church to guide us in uncertainty and we believe the authority of the Church because the Church existed before the Bible did.

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter which denomination or "non-denomination" you join, there is always a Pope, an infallible interpreter of God's will: either the one in Rome or yourself.

When I read the passage, I see Jesus referring to himself as the rock the church is built upon.

Then why would Jesus confuse people by naming Simon "rock" and say he is the "rock" upon which He will build His Church if He was the only rock?

If it helps, think of the building of house. Jesus, as the Rock, is the solid ground upon which we build a house that spans as far as the eye can see, but Peter, as the "rock" is the concrete foundation of the house built on that very rock.

The Pope isn't the source of our salvation, Christ is. But Christ isn't standing before us, telling us who is wrong and who is right. Christ isn't here to tell us that Arianism is a heresy, or that God is three in one person, etc. He entrusted Peter with that job until He comes again.

I have enjoyed our conversation but I feel a little guilty using freerepublic bandwidth.

My friend, freerepublic bandwidth has been wasted on far less important matters. :-)

I just want you to know that I think you are a brother in Christ and I have entered this discussion because it was enjoyable, not to stir up any antagonism.

God bless you brother, it has been a pleasure.

[ELS]

for later reading

[Romish_Papist]

You might want to revise your statement. From the DOuay Rheims:

7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. 8 And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

All found right here: http://www.drbo.org/chapter/48010.htm

[SoothingDave]

glorification. In the twinkling of an eye (no time for purgatory).

Who told you purgatory took time?

SD

[Romish_Papist]

He said Moses allowed the bill of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. He then goes on to say, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Pretty plain as day to me.

[Vicomte13]

Yup, Jesus said all those things.
Importantly, Jesus said that what's in the Torah concerning divorce is a tradition of Moses and didn't come from God.
Which means that at least those sections of Deuteronomy and Leviticus that refer to divorce were NOT "God-breathed", and that either Paul is wrong when we says "ALL Scripture is God-breathed", or that Paul is right, but that there are parts of what WE call Scripture that are not really Scripture at all (such as the parts of the OT in which God lays out the rules for divorce), because those parts are not God-breathed.

We also don't have anything in Scripture to tell us what Scripture IS, exactly.
I don't mean to be too hard on Scripture, of course. I just want to chasten the tendency to make an idol out of the Bible.