Yes, I've been warned about him ...
Posted on 10/22/2011 1:21:35 PM PDT by NYer
Too bad Jesus couldn't finish the job He was sent to do:(
Amen with that.
Purgatory was never taught by Jesus or any of the apostles.. forcing scripture to fit ones theology is very cultish
Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
You guys go ahead and try to work your way into the presence of God.. I am clothed in Christ.. I will trust in Christ
Jhn 13:10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash [his] feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.
Well I have heard of all of those named.. and ya know what..NOT ONE OF THEM was infallible... ...I will trust the word of God..something most Catholics are woefully ignorant on
Yes, I've been warned about him ...
:)
forcing scripture to fit ones theology is very cultish
I'll try to remember that.
This is getting tiresome. I simply cannot see how an attempt to present what the Scriptures actually say would quote Phil 2;13 without 2:12 or the other way around. Unless one were forcing the Scriptures to fit one's theology, which, I am told, is cultic.
It intrigues me that when argument fail, gratuitous and irrelevant remarks take their place. Second time in this thread.
The usual courtesy, if that matters, of this forum is that when you quote someone, you ping him.
It seems to me those quotes support my side of the argument. Purgation does not wash away sins but their effect on the sinner and those who have washed may still need parts of them washed again.
Ooops, sorry about that. I thought I had when I "replied" to RnMomof7. I didn't follow the thread back far enough ...
My apologies ... mea culpa ...
Denying scripture, then? Hmm.
Food for thought: You assent to the teachings of a protestant ecclesial community, one of which revolves around personal interpretation of the Bible, do you not? Shall we then discuss any of the numerous points upon which protestants devolve? Perhaps Luther’s infamous addition comes to mind? “Forcing scriptures to fit ones theology” indeed.
The question was raised, by another, as to the scriptural basis for Catholic belief in Purgatory. I endeavored to help the poor guy out, by giving that which was requested. In my response to his inquiry, I don’t recall my having stated anything along the lines of whether or not you, or other protestants herein, must agree with it. Don’t misunderstand me. I do pray for you and others here, that you might understand it. But simultaneously, I comprehend your unwillingness. Catholic teachings on Purgatory are historically vastly older than protestantism. Although Purgatory was formally declared a dogma at the Council of Trent, that was a reaffirmation of a long-existing belief.
I won’t rattle on too much more, as there are still prayers to say, and children to love here, but here is a somewhat brief excerpt from a wonderful book by Father John Nageleisen, entitled “Charity For Suffering Souls.”
“27. Our Lord Himself, though He was most zealous in correcting abuses, and well knew that the Jews prayed for the dead, not only did not interfere with this practice, but confirmed it. For He said, “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” (Matth. xn. 32.) From these words SS. Augustine, Gregory the Great, Bernard, the Venerable Bede and others conclude as follows: Whatsoever may be the nature of this speaking against the Holy Ghost mentioned here as an unpardonable sin, whether it be understood as referring to the obstinacy of the Jews or of the unbelievers in resisting the acknowledged truth: one certain, clear and indisputable fact follows from this passage of the gospel by the very exception made in it: it proves convincingly that certain sins are forgiven in the next world. Now this forgiveness is not obtainable in heaven, because sin does not gain admittance there, nor in hell, whence there is no redemption. There is only one possibility: these sins are forgiven in Purgatory—hence there is a Purgatory.
Moreover, Our Lord exhorts us: “Be at an agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.” (Math. v. 25, 26.) Many holy Fathers, among them Origen, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose and others, declare that this passage is to be understood not only as referring to a place of eternal punishment, but also to one of temporal atonement in the next world, because deliverance is promised to those that “repay the last farthing.”
28. The doctrine of the Apostles agrees with that of their divine Master. Like Him, they never reproved the Jews for believing in a middle state, nor did they ever prohibit prayers for the dead. St. Paul (I. Cor. xv. 29.) mentioning the Jewish custom of pious practices for the dead, refers to these as to a baptism, or religious rite, and draws therefrom the conclusion of a future resurrection. He writes, “What shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them?” Thus he teaches us that the custom of praying for the dead is one beneficial to them, and hence to be retained by the Christians. But if there were only heaven and hell in the next world, such prayers would be unprofitable. St. Paul affirms this doctrine still more explicitly when he teaches that there are faithful who attain heaven by fire, or, to use his own words, they “shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” (I. Cor. in. 15.) According to the Apostle there are such as make Christ the foundation of their salvation, but build on this foundation an edifice of wood, hay or stubble, that is, they believe in Christ, but mix many imperfections with their good works. “If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” (I. Cor. in. 15.) “The fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is,” whether “gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble.” (Ib. 12. 13.) The holy Fathers remark that by gold, silver and precious stones are meant good works, by wood, hay and stubble venial sins and imperfections. Hence St. Augustine says, “Punish me in Thy wrath, that I may be cleansed in this world, and so transformed that I shall not stand in need of the purifying flames like those that are ‘saved as if by fire.’ Whence this? Because they built on the foundation with wood, hay and stubble here below. Had they built with gold, silver and precious stones, they would be safe from both fires, not only from the everlasting one that shall torment the wicked forever, but also from the one that purifies those that are saved by fire.” “
By the way, it has only been in the last 50 or so years that the word “cult” has developed perjorative connotations. For instance, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult, we find:
Definition of CULT
1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator (health cults)
5a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Were you to do research, you would find that the first two were the more common usages until somewhere around the middle of the last century. And likewise, you would discover, doubtless to your displeasure, that it was not commonly confined to Catholicism, but also applied to you of the denominations. Que sera.
I would rather be at peace with you, whether we agree or not. But either way, I will most assuredly pray for you. God be with you.
Well, what you REALLY need to apologize for is that now I’m going around the house growling, “Hello, NEWman!”
But that doesn't make sense either considering Jesus Christ has full authority to even cast out demons as well as too completely heal anyone. Better yet lets look at two persons in the New Testament. It is a pretty much established common belief among all Christians that GOD can not look upon sin and no one Unholy can ever see him. I believe that too be true. I also believe that once a person accepts Christ as Lord and Savior they are no longer Unholy. Not because of their good but rather because of The Holy Spirit dwelling within them and because their salvation was paid in full by Christ.
Stephen stood before the religious leaders of the day and made an obvious spirit filled speech too them. His face it states in The Bible was glowing. As he finishes he looks into the heavens and who does he see? He sees Christ at the right hand of GOD. He is very much physically alive at this point. Stephen no doubt was a spirit filled man but Stephen was also human and was born into the curse. Now then if Jesus Christ blood had not cleansed his sins then how did he see both Christ and GOD?
The young man holding the ones who stoned Stephens garments was a man who years later was to have his own encounter with Jesus Christ. What did Saul see? He saw a blinding light over shadowing him. Paul did not know who it was nor even what it was at first until a voice within the light spoke to him. Did Saul {Paul} see Jesus Christ? No. But why? Because Paul had yet to accept Christ and receive salvation. He was under condemnation of the law and unclean. That was in the works as he had his vision.
Yet another person the Disciple the Lord loved as it is written. What did John see on Patamos when he was given the Revelation of Jesus Christ and told to write? John as well was very much physically alive. What made John clean and without sin before GOD so that he saw what he saw? It was the Blood of Jesus Christ.
Look at Stephens last words. What were they? Father forgive me? No because he knew he was forgiven.
59And as they stoned him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60And he fell to his knees, shouting, “Lord, don’t charge them with this sin!” And with that, he died.
It would make no sense for Stephen to be sent into purgatory after seeing what he saw. What is it that 100% removes our sin and heals us? It is Jesus Christ.
NAB is produced by most liberal Catholic Bible scholars available in cooperation with the Protestants, -- always a bad idea.
A few liberal Protestants, which still would not be an excuse (ask Aaron), and rather than blame being shifted away from Rome, liberalism is well entrenched in Rome even in high places. I know that the NAB is liberal, but it is an official work of Rome, even the properly stamped officially approved Bible for America, and has been for years, and the note remains even in the latest revision (NABRE). Thus if you resort to negating its comments then you impugn the authority of the very Roman Catholic church which you are defending as the supreme teacher.
A serious Catholic should wholly disregard the "catholic" NAB comments.
And because of such thus we get different answers from RCAs as to just what is official teaching depending on what they want to prove. But 1Cor. 3 is not infallibly interpreted, nor does your interpretation have the required “unanimous consent of the fathers.”
The problem with this interpretation is that it makes the particular judgment a non-event: the believer is saved and ... is made wait till the Second Coming to enter heaven and be with the Lord. While this reading is possible, it is not mandated by the text as it is possible that the manifestation to others is delayed but the purification itslef is immediate.
There is no problem with this substantiated reasoning; the problem is with your premise. The Lord knows those who are His, (2Tim. 2:19) and there is no waiting for getting into Heaven now, which believers are already positionally in, (Eph. 2:6; Phil. 3:20) and the clearest texts speak of them being there after death, as shown, or if the resurrection took place in the 1st century the church would be immediately and forever with the Lord. (1Thes,. 4:17) At the first resurrection (Rev 20:6; cf Jn. 5:29a) they will receive glorified bodes, (1Jn. 3:12; 1Cor. 15:51,52; 1Thes. 4:16) and at which time the judgment in 1Cor. 3 takes place when believers receive the promised rewards. (Rev. 11:18; 1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Mt. 25:31; Rev. 11:18; 22:12)
There is both a loss and a gain described in 1 Cor. 3 (vv 8, 15) and in the case of the purgatorial passage according to the Church there is also a loss of the direct passage into sainthood, and a gain of that very sainthood in the end. There is no contradiction between the scripture and the teaching of the Church here.
A loss and gain aspect does not make it the same, and there certainly is a contradiction, as the loss is not that of a delay into sainthood, which is read into the text (and all believers are called saints: Rm. 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25,26,31, etc.), and the suffering is that of loss of rewards due to “any man's works” not enduring the fire test, as was demonstrated.
espacially that of holding the damnable Protestant convictions in order to hurt the Catholic Church will..be damned forever.
You must exalt Rome like this, but we consider the source and find that what is damned is your spurious attempts to defend Rome, and that she has become the gates of Hell for many.
There is no such distinction as "workmanship in building the church" opposed to "personal faults which one must be purified from".
I stated that “the loss of rewards in 1Cor. 3 does reflect upon the character of the builder.” Personal faults are manifested in works, just as true faith is manifest by works, and believers are thus judged according to their works as it testifies to their faith or lack thereof. Thus there is a distinction as regards cause and effect, as well as what is burned up which is the flammable works themselves while the precious stones gain a reward. In context, it is manifest that this was ones workmanship in building the church, and the believers were Paul's work, and crown of rejoicing in that day of Christ when the judgment on rewards for believers formally takes place.
When one commits a sin, that is a sin against the entire Church as well as an individual loss, and when one does penance, that builds him individually and also builds up the Chruch as a whole (Col. 1:24). That the passage is not about the clergy only is seen in "every man's work" being underscored in the passage.
I did not restrict it to the clergy, but expressed that believers are building the church directly or indirectly, and which Col. 1:24 supports, as seen in my comments on it above.
>Nowhere does Scripture tell of believers being in a postmortem place of suffering for purifying of faults<
In this passage, 1 Cor 3 verses 13 through 15 in particular we see that post-mortem suffering. Your point seems to be that the souls that go through the purgatorial cleansing are with the Lord already, -- which indeed in a way they are -- so you yourself agree that the suffering and loss described in the passage in focus is occuring following the believer's natural death.
If this was the issue and purgatorial cleansing was defined as i expressed, and awaited the return of the Lord, then there would be no debate, but some basic commonalities do not negate differences, which was what my points addressed
the fire is that which consumes the false building material, which is shown to be the manner of converts one built the church with
No, because in 1 Cor 3:9 every believer is said to be such building. It is therefore he himself being burnt in the cleansing fire, not some disembodied "works" or "materials". You are not following the language of the metaphor through.
It is you who is not following the language of the metaphor correctly, as it is not “buildings,” but “God's building,” and the temple is also collective (“ye” is plural), and it is not every building but the material one builds with that the “fire” reveals. And here you are not following what the fire metaphor does correctly, which is not progressive cleansing one of unwanted personal faults through potentially eons of years, which would reward him with access to glory, but that of revealing what is chaff (wood, hay, stubble), which results in loss of rewards, with one may be saved despite of, if somewhat empty handed.
The Lord does know both who is saved and who is lost before hand, but as the sentencing of the lost is awaits the great white throne judgment, (Rv. 20:11-15) so the giving of rewards awaits the day of Christ, when the Lord gives “reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.” (Rv. 11:18)
In this case, both East and West agree on the essentials,that there is a purification after death of those capable of being purified and thus saved...
We also believe in the need for purification as a mark of true faith, but we see in Scripture this being dealt with in this life.
Thanks.
To God be the glory if it helped.
Dave, you have to remember that we are dealing with Calvinists who believe; "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was "No!"
Too funny...lol!
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.