The Early Church is the Catholic Church

[Thursday]

Purgatory is “a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.” To summarize, in Catholic theology Purgatory is a place that a Christian’s soul goes to after death to be cleansed of the sins that had not been fully satisfied during life.

Jesus died to pay the penalty for all of our sins (Romans 5:8). Isaiah 53:5 declares, “But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed.” Jesus suffered for our sins so that we could be delivered from suffering. To say that we must also suffer for our sins is to say that Jesus’ suffering was insufficient. To say that we must atone for our sins by cleansing in Purgatory is to deny the sufficiency of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus (1 John 2:2). The idea that we have to suffer for our sins after death is contrary to everything the Bible says about salvation.

The primary Scriptural passage Catholics point to for evidence of Purgatory is 1 Corinthians 3:15, which says, “If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.” The passage (1 Corinthians 3:12-15) is using an illustration of things going through fire as a description of believers’ works being judged. If our works are of good quality “gold, sliver, costly stones,” they will pass through the fire unharmed, and we will be rewarded for them. If our works are of poor quality “wood, hay, and straw,” they will be consumed by the fire, and there will be no reward. The passage does not say that believers pass through the fire, but rather that a believer’s works pass through the fire. 1 Corinthians 3:15 refers to the believer “escaping through the flames,” not “being cleansed by the flames.”

Purgatory, like many other Catholic dogmas, is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of Christ’s sacrifice. Catholics view the Mass / Eucharist as a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice because they fail to understand that Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice was absolutely and perfectly sufficient (Hebrews 7:27). Catholics view meritorious works as contributing to salvation due to a failure to recognize that Jesus’ sacrificial payment has no need of additional “contribution” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Similarly, Purgatory is understood by Catholics as a place of cleansing in preparation for heaven because they do not recognize that because of Jesus’ sacrifice, we are already cleansed, declared righteous, forgiven, redeemed, reconciled, and sanctified.

The very idea of Purgatory and the doctrines that are often attached to it (prayer for the dead, indulgences, meritorious works on behalf of the dead, etc.) all fail to recognize that Jesus’ death was sufficient to pay the penalty for ALL of our sins. Jesus, who was God incarnate (John 1:1,14), paid an infinite price for our sin. Jesus died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3). Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 2:2). To limit Jesus’ sacrifice to atoning for original sin, or sins committed before salvation, is an attack on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. If we must in any sense pay for, atone for, or suffer because of our sins – that indicates Jesus’ death was not a perfect, complete, and sufficient sacrifice.

For believers, after death is to be "away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:6-8; Philippians 1:23). Notice that this does not say "away from the body, in Purgatory with the cleansing fire." No, because of the perfection, completion, and sufficiency of Jesus' sacrifice, we are immediately in the Lord's presence after death, fully cleansed, free from sin, glorified, perfected, and ultimately sanctified.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

How about this?

Col 1:24
Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

And this,

Romans 12
1Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Commentary from who?

Your opinion doesn't carry much weight here. Sorry.

That is from Matthew Henry, this is mainline commentary. Wow, my opinion does not carry much weight here or with you? Either way, that is not of the right spirit my friend. I guess we are done.

I guess I am in good company then.

Luke 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.

Matthew 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Mark 7
7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[rakovsky]

I'm not sure. I think we would have to say that one of us is slightly off course. Although, JPII said that we are two lungs of the same body.

I forgot about the John Paul II quote.
If they are the same body and the questions of papacy, purgatory, and the other teachings that make the RC church different from the EO church were in the early church either not yet settled or not yet revealed in the RC viewpoint, wouldn't that lead to a conclusion that the EO'S are no less the Early church than RCS are?

 

[Thursday]

That is from Matthew Henry, this is mainline commentary.

Mainline what?
I don't care what an anti Catholic protestant opinion is regarding scripture. I believed all that stuff for much of my life, but I was wrong.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

How about this?

Col 1:24
Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

This scripture has nothing to do with purgatory. In this letter, Paul is in prison and is suffering because of his faith. He is trying to provide words of encouragement to his followers who are in hiding for fear of their lives due to Roman persecution. He is rejoicing because as he sits in his prison cell, he knows his suffering is a result of his faithful obedience to God's will and he sees it as an honor that he is suffering just as Jesus suffered in prison before He was crucified. He also is encouraging his followers that this suffering is tempory. If his followers persevere through the suffering and "finish the race" they would be rewarded. This scripture has nothing to do with purgatory.

And this,

Romans 12
1Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

This scripture also has nothing to do with purgatory. In Romans 12:1, Paul says, “I beseech you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God, which is your reasonable service.” Paul’s admonition to the believers in Rome was to sacrifice themselves to God, not as a sacrifice on the altar, as the Mosaic Law required the sacrifice of animals, but as a living sacrifice. The dictionary defines sacrifice as “anything consecrated and offered to God.” As believers, how do we consecrate and offer ourselves to God as a living sacrifice?

Under the Old Covenant, God accepted the sacrifices of animals. But these were just a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. Because of His ultimate, once-for-all-time sacrifice on the cross, the Old Testament sacrifices became obsolete and are no longer of any effect (Hebrews 9:11-12). For those who are in Christ by virtue of saving faith, the only acceptable worship is to offer ourselves completely to the Lord. Under God’s control, the believer’s yet-unredeemed body can and must be yielded to Him as an instrument of righteousness (Romans 6:12-13; 8:11-13). In view of the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus for us, this is only “reasonable.”

What does a living sacrifice look like in the practical sense? The following verse (Romans 12:2) helps us to understand. We are a living sacrifice for God by not being conformed to this world. The world is defined for us in 1 John 2:15-16 as the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. All that the world has to offer can be reduced to these three things. The lust of the flesh includes everything that appeals to our appetites and involves excessive desires for food, drink, sex, and anything else that satisfies physical needs. Lust of the eyes mostly involves materialism, coveting whatever we see that we don’t have and envying those who have what we want. The pride of life is defined by any ambition for that which puffs us up and puts us on the throne of our own lives.

How can believers NOT be conformed to the world? By being “transformed by the renewing of our minds.” We do this primarily through the power of God’s Word to transform us. We need to hear (Romans 10:17), read (Revelation 1:3), study (Acts 17:11), memorize (Psalm 119:9-11), and meditate on (Psalm 1:2-3) Scripture. The Word of God, ministered in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, is the only power on earth that can transform us from worldliness to true spirituality. In fact, it is all we need to be made “complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16, NKJV). The result is that we will be “able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will” (Romans 12:2b). It is the will of God for every believer to be a living sacrifice for Jesus Christ.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Thursday]

I forgot about the John Paul II quote.
If they are the same body and the questions of papacy, purgatory, and the other teachings that make the RC church different from the EO church were in the early church either not yet settled or not yet revealed in the RC viewpoint, wouldn't that lead to a conclusion that the EO'S are no less the Early church than RCS are?

I still think you have to deal with the fact that the Catholic Church is led by the successor of Peter and there is not a successor of Peter in the EO.

 

[Thursday]

This scripture has nothing to do with purgatory.

I didn't say it had anything to do with purgatory.

My point was that we are required to suffer as Christ suffered.

We don't get a free pass just by saying we believe. Belief is the first step.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Mainline what?
I don't care what an anti Catholic protestant opinion is regarding scripture. I believed all that stuff for much of my life, but I was wrong.

What? Mainline. blueletterbible.com, bible.com

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I didn't say it had anything to do with purgatory.

My point was that we are required to suffer as Christ suffered.

We don't get a free pass just by saying we believe. Belief is the first step.

I agree. I assumed we were still talking about purgatory because the response was to a statement I made about purgatory. I don't think it is accurate to say that we are "required to suffer as Christ suffered". We are not required to be beaten, whipped, and crucified.

You previously mentioned "taking up your cross". Let me explain to you what that actually means.

Let’s begin with what Jesus didn’t mean. Many people interpret “cross” as some burden they must carry in their lives: a strained relationship, a thankless job, a physical illness. With self-pitying pride, they say, “That’s my cross I have to carry.” Such an interpretation is not what Jesus meant when He said, “Take up your cross and follow Me.”

When Jesus carried His cross up Golgotha to be crucified, no one was thinking of the cross as symbolic of a burden to carry. To a person in the first-century, the cross meant one thing and one thing only: death by the most painful and humiliating means human beings could develop.

Two thousand years later, Christians view the cross as a cherished symbol of atonement, forgiveness, grace, and love. But in Jesus’ day, the cross represented nothing but torturous death. Because the Romans forced convicted criminals to carry their own crosses to the place of crucifixion, bearing a cross meant carrying their own execution device while facing ridicule along the way to death.

Therefore, “Take up your cross and follow Me” means being willing to die in order to follow Jesus. This is called “dying to self.” It’s a call to absolute surrender. After each time Jesus commanded cross bearing, He said, “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?” (Luke 9:24-25). Although the call is tough, the reward is matchless.

Wherever Jesus went, He drew crowds. Although these multitudes often followed Him as Messiah, their view of who the Messiah really was—and what He would do—was distorted. They thought the Christ would usher in the restored kingdom. They believed He would free them from the oppressive rule of their Roman occupiers. Even Christ’s own inner circle of disciples thought the kingdom was coming soon (Luke 19:11). When Jesus began teaching that He was going to die at the hands of the Jewish leaders and their Gentile overlords (Luke 9:22), His popularity sank. Many of the shocked followers rejected Him. Truly, they were not able to put to death their own ideas, plans, and desires, and exchange them for His.

Following Jesus is easy when life runs smoothly; our true commitment to Him is revealed during trials. Jesus assured us that trials will come to His followers (John 16:33). Discipleship demands sacrifice, and Jesus never hid that cost.

In Luke 9:57-62, three people seemed willing to follow Jesus. When Jesus questioned them further, their commitment was half-hearted at best. They failed to count the cost of following Him. None was willing to take up his cross and crucify upon it his own interests.

Therefore, Jesus appeared to dissuade them. How different from the typical Gospel presentation! How many people would respond to an altar call that went, “Come follow Jesus, and you may face the loss of friends, family, reputation, career, and possibly even your life”? The number of false converts would likely decrease! Such a call is what Jesus meant when He said, “Take up your cross and follow Me.”

If you wonder if you are ready to take up your cross, consider these questions:
• Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means losing some of your closest friends?
• Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means alienation from your family?
• Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means the loss of your reputation?
• Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means losing your job?
• Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means losing your life?

In some places of the world, these consequences are reality. But notice the questions are phrased, “Are you willing?” Following Jesus doesn’t necessarily mean all these things will happen to you, but are you willing to take up your cross? If there comes a point in your life where you are faced with a choice—Jesus or the comforts of this life—which will you choose?

Commitment to Christ means taking up your cross daily, giving up your hopes, dreams, possessions, even your very life if need be for the cause of Christ. Only if you willingly take up your cross may you be called His disciple (Luke 14:27). The reward is worth the price. Jesus followed His call of death to self (“Take up your cross and follow Me”) with the gift of life in Christ: “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it” (Matthew 16:25-26).

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[rakovsky]

I still think you have to deal with the fact that the Catholic Church is led by the successor of Peter and there is not a successor of Peter in the EO.

The patriarchs of Antioch are Peter's successors in antioch, where he was bishop.

The early church of 50 to 200 ad did not have a position of Peters' successors in Rome being infallible and if they did it was not settled. In that time period there were numerous disagreements and nobody said "Look, the bishop of Rome disagrees with us in jerusalem, so we, jerusalem, must obey because Rome cannot be wrong on anything and he is every ones leader because he is in Rome."

This is how I deal with it - how can we say that they are not the early church because they do not have a doctrine that the early church was unaware of?

It seems we should say the opposite - the church of Jerusalem is the early church because they have the same teachings as the early church and organizationally started in jerusalem and have apostolic succession. The fact that they have the same level of awareness on the papacy as the early church would naturally make them closer, not farther, from that church.
The absence of the Roman pope does not violate that by definition, because at times even the RCs have lacked a Roman pope.

 

[rakovsky]

I still think you have to deal with the fact that the Catholic Church is led by the successor of Peter and there is not a successor of Peter in the EO.

If the pope was mistaken for dividing the one body of christ in 1054 ad and cutting the patriarch from communion, as shown by the fact that RCs allow us communion, then why should the jerusalem church bear the burden of that mistake and not be counted as the jerusalem early church anymore even though they are no farther in doctrine and having the pope is not a determinate of being the early church?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I still think you have to deal with the fact that the Catholic Church is led by the successor of Peter and there is not a successor of Peter in the EO.

Justinian the Apostate was the successor to Constantine. We see where that went. Many catholics including yourself had admitted that there were wicked popes who abused their power for selfish gain. If all the Roman Catholic Church has left in their defense is apostolic succession, the RCC is in a world of hurt. Because if you can honestly say that the successors of Peter were not infallable, why does it matter if the EO does not have a successor to Peter.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[civilwarbuff]

Probably same thing as Luther did to some extent. Faith and works are both key factors in being saved. RCS and Protestants fight too much over that stuff.

I don't believe works is required for salvation; however anyone who is saved and has no desire to do good works might want to evaluate their salvation......

 

[prodromos]

It clearly demonstrates that he was using authority. For one thing, the Christians in Corinth consulted him for guidance and a decision. For another, he clearly says that he is speaking for God and that they will be in grave danger if they disobey his instructions. Can't get much more clear than that.

The bolded words are false. The Corinthians had consulted the Church in Rome, and Clement's response is on behalf of the hierarchy of the Church in Rome. He never speaks for himself.

 

[rakovsky]

I don't believe works is required for salvation; however anyone who is saved and has no desire to do good works might want to evaluate their salvation......

I think works ie doing what God wants is not absolute because there are newborns who die at birth and situations like that where good works are not an issue. But in those cases, nor is the newborns own conscious faith.

Faith v works could be a false dilemma if seen in an absolute way, as if believing is not an activity.

 

[rakovsky]

Justinian the Apostate was the successor to Constantine. We see where that went. Many catholics including yourself had admitted that there were wicked popes who abused their power for selfish gain. If all the Roman Catholic Church has left in their defense is apostolic succession, the RCC is in a world of hurt. Because if you can honestly say that the successors of Peter were not infallable, why does it matter if the EO does not have a successor to Peter.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

You said it better than I did.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You said it better than I did.

No problem. I have a lot more to say about the topic of "apostolic succession " but perhaps I should save it for later.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[prodromos]

I still think you have to deal with the fact that the Catholic Church is led by the successor of Peter and there is not a successor of Peter in the EO.

Of who is the Bishop of Antioch the successor?
I've asked this multiple times yet you have refused to answer every time.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Grace is the gift. We choose how to respond to God's free gift of grace. If we continue to ignore God's grace and instead pursue worldly goals exclusively and without repentance we will not be saved.

But you said after one has been saved, persistent resistance gets them unsaved.

Where are verses that show that.

And how can one loose what is given in grace?

 

[rakovsky]

No problem. I have a lot more to say about the topic of "apostolic succession " but perhaps I should save it for later.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

It is nice writing to you.
There are theological challenges in Christianity when you get past the basics and you and I have been talking a bit about them already.

The Protestants founders Luther and Calvin came from a minor school in a Catholicism called Humanism shared by Erasmus. They looked at the Bible a bit like the US constitution, as if it has inherent meaning that could be discovered by text analysis. They then downplayed other traditions outside the Bible to various extents while still using them. This approach had both advantages and disadvantages compared to earlier or other approaches.

The good thing is that it refocused attention on the bible as the main religious document.

The bad thing is that the Bible didn't fall out of the sky with perfect clarity for every person of high school education, but was put together and selected over a few centuries and there were major teachings like Trinitarianism that are not explained at even a 12th grade level of clarity so that everyone who is sincere can see the truth of the matter.

So in reality all kinds of issues ranging from apostolic succession to Trinitarianism to the eucharist remain debated by sincere believers who rely on this unfortunately disuniting method, despite its major advantages over the RC model that claims that the Roman pope is infallible when confirmed by his bishops.

There are major Protestant group's and EOS who use a better method and come to more reliable, united conclusions as a result.