Posted on 07/19/2009 2:17:43 PM PDT by NYer
God is not unreasonable. However, the idea that we can understand God by human reason is incomprehensible. Can an ant reason about humans?
Compared to God, we are far less than ants.
We need revelation, and must admit that when revelation ends, so does our understanding.
But for approaching God? Worthless as tits on a boar hog.
Bears repeating...
“If you wish to reject purgatory on these grounds, then you would have to reject the Trinity on the same grounds — and I don’t think you want to do that.”
Incorrect. I can easily define the Trinity from Scripture. It is clear that it exists, although Scripture is silent about the details which church fathers foolishly debated.
Purgatory? Like Mariology, it simply isn’t found.
And where do the New Testament Scriptures come from? Why isn't the "Gospel of Peter" included?
Did Jesus quote without a written authority to back him up, like your church does???
Simply untrue. Show me a single Catholic doctrine or dogma that isn't backed by Scripture. Now, you can't claim the IC, or purgatory, or intercession prayer as "unscriptural," because I could show you any number of Scripture passages which support those doctrines, and you'd likely claim that, basically, we're interpreting Scripture incorrectly, which is of course different than saying we don't have the "written authority to back it up."
You are ignoring the other passages I added in the last post...
Because I've played this game with you before, and I don't really have time to go over these points just for you to tell me that I'm interpreting things wrong, and we musnt use logic when interpreting Scripture.
The very concept of a need for purgatory, meaning a place of purgation or cleansing, is totally rebutted by hundreds of Scriptures that state the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from ALL sin. The very idea that the sacrifice of the Son of God on the cross was somehow insufficient, or not quite enough, for our salvation is a complete contradiction of the Gospel.
You originally said that the Purgatory is not there in the Scripture, and I showed you where it is. What you believe contrary to scripture is of no concern here, as the thread is about Catholic Mariology, not your theological fantasies.
Yours was just another example of some communities of faith that came into existence following the so-called Reformation professing an interest in the Holy Scripture without having any knowledge or respect for it.
If you have further questions about what Purgatory is, please find an appropriate thread or start one, and ping me. I enjoy explaining Catholic doctrine.
Indeed, the souls in Purgatory are saved by the Blood of the Lamb and not through their purgation. You, too, feel free to learn more about Purgatory on an appropriate thread. This one is about Catholic Mariology.
Everyone in Purgatory is already saved by Christ. You are arguing with a straw man.
I think we understand very well what the doctrine is - just not the whole reason for it. If the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us of ALL sin, it must mean our past, present and future sins, since we did not exist when he was crucified, are paid in full. Why do you believe there is something more that must be done to be sanctified? Somehow, our sufferings, no matter how long they last, can be placed alongside Christ's sufferings as equal? Can you not see the error in that thinking?
It boils down to the basics - are we saved by grace or works? Because it CANNOT be both.
“You can’t possibly have read my whole post!”
I did, but I try for some brevity, not wanting to write too very much. I feel like if I write to much, people just leap over it. So I pick an topic or two and try to write back about them efficiently.
You missed the point. God comes down to our level and says:
"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool." Isaiah 1:18
We can only take our reasoning and logic so far. What God has revealed about Himself through His word is plain to see. We make it harder than it has to be by our constant disagreements and 'one-upmanship'. Don't you think?
Then please show where the scripture says as much - that Mary was without sin and was perpetually a virgin. For it's not in any Bible I've read...
Posting excerpts from commentaries on the Catechism doesn't cut it, since they do not include scriptural references. You state the scripturs speaks for itself - sola scriptura on this point. Then show where in the scripture you find the basis for these claims. Book, chapter, and verse.
Where does it say that?
It doesn’t directly, but what Scripture could they have checked, as they are mentioned in Acts 17?
Kolo: "The IC posits that she is not human like the rest of us. That’s plain. Humans are born suffering the consequences of Adam’s sin. The IC says Panagia was not “infected” with Original Sin. If Rome is right and we are “infected” with Original Sin or if the Fathers were right and we suffer the consequences of ancestral sin, if Pnagai was preserved from that then she isn’t human."
With the hypothesis of God's intervention in Mary's conception by her parents (the IC), she was created as a pre-fall human exactly like Adam and Eve. However, unlike Adam and Eve, Mary never sinned. So, then, why did she die, as the Church always believed? In fact, the Eastern Church celebrates the Dormition of the Theotokos from the earliest days of the Church. It couldn't be much clearer that the east always believed that she died and as far as I know the West never contested that.
And if she didn't die, then she is immortal, and therefore divine, whether by nature or by grace, which would make her a goddess of sorts. So, why is the Catholic Church silent on this issue?
But if she did die, it was not because she sinned, but because of her fallen (mortal) human nature that is in all of us as a result of the ancestral sin. That pretty conclusively throws out the IC hypothesis.
Why, many people did just that. The meaning of grace in relationship to sin was explained to you, the significance of the past tense in “kecharitomene” was explained, the expansive usage of “brother” in both Hebrew and Greek was explained, and the broad generalization in the psalm citation in Roman 3 was explained. If you have any more questions, I’d be happy to answer.
And Act 17:4 states that some of the Jews in Thessaloniki also believed that the scriptures proclaim that Christ had to die and resurrect. Yet, what scriptures? All references to that effect are in the New Testament which didn't exist at the time! Ooops, Houston, we have problem, bleep.
But it clearly states that, upon arrival, they went to the Synagogue in both cities (17:1, 17:10). What Scriptures would be in the Synagogue if not the Jewish ones?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.