Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Root of Jesse]

My Church also contains all the authors of the NT.

I would agree with you. I believe all Trinitarian baptized Christians are part of Christ's one church.

Even so, one good deed does not inherit inerrancy. The Jews maintained the OT, but look what Jesus said became of them.

I disagree. Various sects had various canons.

Matthew 15:6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of yourtradition.​

You take this out of context. The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and asked him why his disciples don't wash their hands, as tradition dictates (this indicates a practice, not a Sacred Tradition).

This dispute begins with the question of the Pharisees and scribes why Jesus’ disciples are breaking the tradition of the elders about washing one’s hands before eating (Mt 15:2). Jesus’ counterquestion accuses his opponents of breaking the commandment of God for the sake of their tradition (Mt 15:3) and illustrates this by their interpretation of the commandment of the Decalogue concerning parents (Mt 15:4–6). Denouncing them as hypocrites, he applies to them a derogatory prophecy of Isaiah (Mt 15:7–8). Then with a wider audience (the crowd, Mt 15:10) he goes beyond the violation of tradition with which the dispute has started. The parable (Mt 15:11) is an attack on the Mosaic law concerning clean and unclean foods, similar to those antitheses that abrogate the law (Mt 5:31–32, 33–34, 38–39). After a warning to his disciples not to follow the moral guidance of the Pharisees (Mt 15:13–14), he explains the parable (Mt 15:15) to them, saying that defilement comes not from what enters the mouth (Mt 15:17) but from the evil thoughts and deeds that rise from within, from the heart (Mt 15:18–20). The last verse returns to the starting point of the dispute (eating with unwashed hands).

 

[samir]

Part 3


Then you must consider what "provide grace" means, which is that,

by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism...who are born again, there is nothing that God hates;...are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. (The Council of Trent - Session 5, CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN

Provide grace just means grace is conferred/received in baptism as your quote shows.

Thus as said, the act of baptism (RC sprinkling) is held as making one good enough to be with God.

No. Your quote says the grace merited by Jesus, not the act of baptism, makes one justified before God.

The Catholic idea maintains that the formal cause of justification does not consist in an exterior imputation of the justice of Christ, but in a real, interior sanctification effected by grace [in baptism], which abounds in the soul and makes it permanently holy before God (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii; can. xi). Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis), just as a philosopher by his own inherent learning becomes a scholar... (Catholic Encyclopedia > Sanctifying Grace)

For according to the teaching of the Catholic Church the righteousness and sanctity which justification confers, although given to us by God as efficient cause (causa efficiens) and merited by Christ as meritorious cause (causa meritoria), become an interior sanctifying quality or formal cause (causa formalis) in the soul itself, which it makes truly just and holy in the sight of God. (Catholic Encyclopedia > Justification)

This is also the teaching of scripture.

Which state one must have at death to be fit to enter Heaven - even if by cleansing of Original Sin:

Final perseverance, in its most perfect sense, consists in the untarnished preservation of baptismal innocence until death. In a less strict sense it is the preservation of the state of grace from the last conversion until death. ( Catholic Encyclopedia > Actual Grace)

Which means the act of RC sprinkling renders one holy enough to enter Heaven if such died before sinning.

No, it does not mean anything close to that. I recommend reading the entire article.

However, in Roman Catholicism forgiveness and "infused charity" (which baptism also is said to effect) is actually not enough for one to enter Heaven, for in addition to needing to atone for sins which one has not suffered enough for on earth, then one must attain perfection of character to enter Heaven, for which purpose the suffering of Purgatory exists, even though perfection of character requires growth in grace via the testings this life offers, and not simply suffering.

You are misunderstanding RCC teaching. Baptism is just an instrument God uses to confer grace. It is God's grace, not the act of baptism, that remits sins and makes one a child of God.

For by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation..from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". For " they were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness". -
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

Purgatory/purification after death is based on scripture (Rev 21:27 and many other places) that says nothing impure will enter Heaven and believed by Protestants who have studied it. It simply means God will purify believers who die still attached to sin.

Thus RC professor and apologist Peter Kreeft states,

"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." RC professor/apologist Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224

The problem of sending newly baptized to Heaven, though "concupiscence" remains, while requiring one die as one who has conquered that is a problem for theologians.

But it remains that rather than able to be with God as one purified and justified by effectual faith which is counted as righteousness as Abraham was, and which are sanctified as new creations by regeneration, (1Co. 6:11), and with fruits that attest to this faith, instead in order be with God then one must become practically purified, to become perfect in character.

Do you really think God would allow sinners to defile heaven with their sins without purifying them first so that only the pure will enter and heaven kept free from sin?

And which separates believers into two classes, only one being formally called "saints."

Do not change my objection. What's wrong with recognizing saints as a distinctive class of believers? Because the Holy Spirit never does, but uses saints and believers interchangeably.

There is nothing wrong with it. Holy Scripture never refers to the Godhead as a Trinity either. That believers are called saints in not relevant.

And who are taught that, being justified by the good works that they do in Christ, they can be said to have truly merited eternal life. (Trent)

Matt 25 and John 5:28 and such refers to believers whose faith is such that it produces the effects which correspond to Christ (we obey whom we really believe in), whom God rewards under grace, not because they "truly merit" eternal life, which is a gift.

Since those whose faith doesn't produce those effects will not be saved, those who have chosen to be faithful merit eternal life by their works done with the help of God's grace.

I recommend studying the word merit as many Protestants misunderstand it. Meriting eternal life simply means they will go to heaven because they chose to cooperate with God's grace by being faithful. If God did not promise to reward the faithful with eternal life, then none of them would be able to merit eternal life.

They key word is "own works," versus "works done in God," thereby allowing Rome to basically and effectually teach that, apart from initial justification, salvation by grace thru merit, that by the grace of God man truly merits eternal life, and which necessitates purgatorial perfection if one has not attained to perfection before that. Which in essence is justification as under the Law, that of man actually meriting justification by attaining the level of obedience necessary to be with God, except that more grace is given to attain to that perfection.

Only works done in God count in RCism. I recommend reading the catechism as you have many misconceptions regarding RC teaching.

If Trent is simply saying that one is accounted to have true faith in the light of his works, and fit to be rewarded under grace, because God has chosen to reward believers for doing what He alone deserves credit for, since it is He who convicts, grants, and enables and motivates faith and obedience, then that would not be the same as having "truly merited" the gift of eternal life, but which distinction must be made clear, which I do not see Trent doing, since the natural disposition of man is to presume he will be found worthy of eternal life by basically being good enough, with some mercy expected.

Trent believed and made clear those with faith working through love are fit to be rewarded under grace, because God has chosen to reward believers for doing what He deserves credit for, since it is He who convicts, grants, and enables and motivates faith and obedience. That's what Trent meant by meriting eternal life.

Some common Protestant errors pointed out by Trent:

1. Not everyone with true faith will choose to live for God. Some truly believe but love their sin more than God so they refuse to obey and submit to God's will. Such believers, despite their true, genuine, God-given faith, will not be saved.

2. Although God convicts, grants, and enables and motivates faith and obedience, it is not without the cooperation of the believer who still has free will to reject God. In other words, God doesn't turn believers into robots and do the good works on their behalf without any involvement in their will so they deserve credit for choosing to cooperate.

Meanwhile, perhaps the clearest statement that a RC merits eternal life is that of Trent's canon 32, which teaches (by condemning those who oppose it) that one is justified by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, and truly merits eternal life.

Canon 32 is simply saying believers are given some credit for choosing to do good when they could have chosen otherwise.

It is one thing to say that one is accounted/judged to have eternal life due to works which testify to true faith, which faith God rewards - although in reality what the believer truly deserves is damnation, not the gift of eternal life - (Heb. 10:35) and it is another to say that one truly merits eternal life because he has done such works and attained unto perfection of character.

First of all, faith doesn't save anyone. It is God's grace alone that saves. God's grace saves the faithful, those who choose to believe and obey. Those with true faith who refuse to cooperate with God's grace by doing good works will not be saved.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Why don't you educate us all and give us the Catholic definition of canon of scripture and see how it compares. That way we can see how you play word games to get out of a bind.

You're the ones who can't agree as to the Canon of Scripture. It was there for nearly 1200 years, and you 'reformers' decided to take out several books.

The canon of the Bible refers to the definitive list of the books which are considered to be divine revelation and included therein. A canon distinguishes what is revealed and divine from what is not revealed and human. "Canon" (Greek kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure. Because God did not explicitly reveal what books are the inspired books of the Bible, title by title, to anyone, we must look to His guidance in discovering the canon of the Bible.

Jesus has told us that he has not revealed all truths to us.

Jn 16:12-13
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.
Jesus then told us how he was planning to assist us in knowing other truths.

Jn 14:16-17
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.
Jn 15:26
When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
The New Testament writers sensed how they handled truth-bearing under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.

1 Cor 15:3-4
For I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance what I also received ...
2 Tim 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust (parathou) to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
There was a constant history of faithful people from Paul's time through the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Church.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.
The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.
Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.
The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.
The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.
The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.
There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church--her leadership, faithful people--guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What year closed all your "Traditions" after which new things you might add would be called new practices? But wait, you did say "We also believe that God continues to reveal himself to us" whatever that means, could it be a new teaching or only a new practice or does it mean something else?

I don't know, but there have been no 'new teachings' that are considered Traditions. There are new understandings, which God reveals to us. Some are inspired, those that do not contradict Scripture.

I am talking about necessary and salvation and you think those words are so ambiguous here on CF that you use it as an excuse to not answer a question.

Who determines what "necessary for salvation" is?

What "Tradition" passed down from Jesus through the apostles is necessary for salvation that is not in scripture, currently represented as the Bible?

Meeting to worship God on Sunday is one.
You want to know why Tradition is important? Because people who translate the bible into their vernacular might want to put their particular spin on a verse, like Luther did with Romans 3:28, when he inserted the word "alone" after "faith" ("For we hold that a man is justified by faith [alone] apart from works of law"), a word that was not in the Latin text from St. Jerome. He justified it based on his personal opinion on what the verse should have said, even though it directly contradicts James 2:24 ("You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone"). So Tradition took a hit there, and the whole Protestant Reformation began, based on "Sola Fide", or the erroneous doctrine of being saved by "Faith Alone". Scripture cannot be in conflict with Scripture, and one of the ways this is guaranteed is by Sacred Tradition.

There are some instances of Sacred Tradition in the Bible that are interesting. For instance, in Acts 20:35, Paul says the following:

"In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"
These words are not recorded anywhere else in the Bible, including the 4 gospels, so this is one example of an oral teaching of Jesus being handed on to Paul,who hands it down to us.

Another example of this is in the book of Jude 1:9, which says the following:

"But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
This dispute, between the Archangel Michael and the devil over Moses' body, is nowhere to be found in the written text of the Old Testament.

Here are a few more:

Matthew 2:23:And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."(This "he shall be called a Nazarene" prophecy is not in written scripture anywhere).

Matthew 23:2:"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;"(Moses' seat is not mentioned anywhere in written scripture).

1 Corinthians 10:4:"and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ." (Nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that a rock "followed" the Israelites in the desert.)

2 Timothy 3:8: "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;" (These 2 individuals who opposed Moses are not written in the Old Testament).

Hebrews 11:35: "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (This is a direct reference to 2 Maccabees 7, which Luther threw out of his bible in the 16th century. This story cannot be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible. It is in the Catholic Bible, and has been since the 4th century.)

So what happens if we jettison Sacred Tradition and let Sacred Scripture stand on its own? Heresies based on the modern culture start to creep into the interpretations of scripture, for one thing. All of a sudden, new people pop up who say that the Eucharist is only symbolic, and not the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ (and the word "symbolic" is not even in scripture when referring to the Eucharist. None of the writings of the Early Church Fathers used the word "symbolic" either, always referring to the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Jesus). Artificial birth control and abortion become part of certain churches' "OK list". And today, the Episcopalians and even the Lutherans are saying that it's now OK to have practicing homosexual ministers - Somewhere, Martin Luther, the inventor of the "Scripture Alone" doctrine is turning over in his grave! Both the Old Testament and the New Testament condemn the practice of homosexuality as being evil.

Sacred Tradition does NOT refer to individual practices and customs, such as the language of the Mass, kneeling or standing for Holy Communion, eating or not eating meat on Friday, etc. Rather, it is the oral teaching of Jesus Christ handed on to the Apostles and the Church, which carries equal weight with the Church's book, the Bible. Here is what "Dei Verbum", or the "Word of God" document from Vatican II has to say about Sacred Tradition:

"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."Sacred Scripture does condemn in many places the traditions of man (having to do with Jewish practices about not healing on the Sabbath, hoarding money, not helping Samaritans, etc), but those have NOTHING to do with the Traditions Paul is talking about below.

Here are some great bible verses which help to explain Sacred Tradition:1 Corinthians 11:2: I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" 2 Thessalonians 2:15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouthor by letter.2 Thessalonians 3:6:Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
The Catholic Church guarantees the faithful handing on of the Word of God through the teaching authority of the Pope and his Bishops, known as the Magesterium. The Magesterium ensures that no new erroneous doctrine or heresy pops up to lead the people astray. Like a three legged stool, the trinity of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium makes sure that the Word of God is faithfully handed on to each succeeding generation. If any of the three legs goes away, error is certain to creep in, like it is doing in many protestant churches today, who interpret scripture based on their personal opinion of what they think it says. Sin is now being enshrined in many of their doctrines, and it is happening before our very eyes, as they overturn centuries of their tradition with a simple majority vote of their delegates. http://www.catholicbible101.com/sacredtradition.htm

You have no problem saying something is necessary for salvation even though your church has doctrine that says it is not; in that SS Protestants can be saved.

Your church has doctrine on it, but go ahead and claim ignorance of it to escape a point. And if you think judging Protestants saved to be above your paygrade, then judging what is necessary to be saved is also.

Did you just call Protestants brothers; in Christ I am assuming? If you consider them brothers in Christ, then they will be saved if they are of the body of Christ. Not to say all of any in the visible church are guaranteed salvation.

God's Word is necessary for salvation. That is doctrine. You and I disagree as to what constitutes God's Word. I accept the authority Christ left for us, you don't. Sorry. I leave your salvation to the proper authority.
I called you a brother in Christ, yes. Does that mean that you're automatically saved? I don't know that it does. I don't think all Catholics are saved, either, but it's not for me to judge or try to figure out. Again, I believe that Protestants do so much with what little of Christ's teaching they accept, while Catholics do so little with the complete banquet they've been given.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It is first hand testimony from witnesses who had heard, which had seen with their eyes, which had looked at and their hands had touched the Word of Life Jesus Christ (1 John 1:1).

Sure the written testimonies were written after the fact, but it would be no different to a person writing a witness statement for a court proceeding some several months or even several years after the fact.

Religious institutions have written doctrine as an extension to the FACT of first hand eye witness account, by making claims as if it is the FACT that has been both endorsed by the first hand eye witnesses who are the disciples and that it had been authorised by the first hand eye witnesses as an authority equal to or greater than them.

Once a religious institution takes it upon themselves to act in a legalistic pharisaical spirit, that is in the image of their mother relgious institution the pharisaical institution that Paul abandoned, then they make fraudulent claims based on hearsay by falsely saying that that their doctrine is both endorsed and authorised by the disciples themselves.

We have to reject their claims as baseless and since no evidence can be provided by those relgious institutions making those claims, that the apostles both endorsed their doctrine and authorised them to be of equal or greater authority than them, then we must again reject doctrine that is outside of the details of the written first hand testimony of the disciples who established the faith and who had completely taught what was required for one to be saved.

If religious institutions that make up doctrine some hundreds of years later claim that extra salvatory requirements are necessary for one to be saved, that is not written by any apostle, then it should be rejected. Therefore take all the alleged oral tradition and with a red pen cross out any doctrine that is not present in the writings of the first hand eye witness accounts such as ie purgatory, penance, salvation through relgious institution, forgiveness through relgious institution, Chief Priesthood outside of the non transferable Melchizedek of Christ, God the Father had sworn in their Chief Priest with an oath equal to Christ, religious institution is the way, the truth and the life, reglious institution is guarantor of a better covenant, institution is sinless and infallible equal to Christ and the list goes on.

If you only understood what claims are made through oral tradition of men who have assumed endorsement and authority from the apostles, then we really have a completely different faith and relgious institution as compared to the 1st century Ekklesia/Church. The claim of succession to the original faith looks rather implausible as what was pure and original had been altered to suit the hierarchical structure and mechanisation of a legalistic institution that would encompass the globe and involve itself in political matters completely outside of the great commission and outside of what the apostles were involved in back in the 1st century.

As Jesus said you will know them by their works and since a relgious institution has been made an idol to look up to, as being infallible by those making such claim, then we have to look at the works and policies of the institution from a historical point of view and not blame the fallible men who through the institution's policies made horrendous crimes against humanity and all in the name of religion.

I am sure that the apostles administration had nothing to do with the relgious institution that has evolved today from its inception until now. We have a completely different entity as compared to the 1st century relgious institution that was headed by the disciples.

So, how do you know you can trust what was written down? I mean, people get things wrong all the time! How do you know you can trust it?

 

[samir]

Part 4

I don't have much time to continue this discussion and it's getting off-topic so this may be my last post on the topic in this thread.

Which is according to official profession, which in Scriptuire what one does and effects testifies to what they truly belive.

Faulty logic. That scripture applies to people, not the church. If someone in your congregation engaged in sodomy would that mean your congregation believed sodomy was acceptable?

But regardless, rather than that countering what i said, this official stance makes Rome even more culpable for counting even prosodomite proabortion public figures as members in life and in death, and not effectually disciplining such.

All that shows is there are sinners in the RCC. It says absolutely nothing about the RCC.

You mean you see souls in Scripture kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them, without being idolaters or blasphemers?

And see this study for refuting that Cath veneration is not worship based on a sppsd difference btwn hyperdula and latria.

I suggest you study what the RCC says about it's own teaching instead of relying on anti-catholics to tell you what they really believe. Would you consult with a Baptist to learn what Lutherans believe?

From what we have seen you are far more Catholic than Protestant.

If that's so, it's because Catholics have more in common with the ancient Christian faith taught by scripture and the ECFs than most Protestant denominations.

By now it should have been obvious that I contend that it is necessary to have fruits of repentant faith, "things that accompany salvation," (Heb. 6:9) if it is to be judged as being salvific.

Do you acknowledge that a person can have true faith and refuse to repent? If so, that means repentance and not faith alone is necessary. Do you acknowledge a person with true faith who has repented can later choose to repent of his decision to follow Christ and go back to living in sin and that person despite once being justified will not be saved? If so, that means works and not faith alone is necessary.

Wrong as an overall or absolute statement, and quite the contrary, as seen by survey after survey, and election after election. You want to defend Catholicism based on what its historical teaching says, but ignore what it does and effectually teaches (which Scripture says is what shows what one true believes" Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20), while you only condemn Protestantism (which is too broad a term to be meaningful) including evangelicals based upon your (obviously very limited) experience, but ignore evidence to the contrary, and that of classical teaching. Or you even attack what clearly teaches that faith must have works (as with the Luther quotes), which indicates you have vendetta that disallows objectivity.

I judge Catholicism and Protestantism based on teaching since neither is capable of doing any works (as only people, not churches, can do anything good or bad).

Go read some of classic evangelical commentaries, like Matthew Henry, Barnes. Clarke, Gill, JFB, etc, and you will see saving faith as that which accepts Christ as Lord, and holiness taught/exhorted as a necessary fruit of faith.

"It is not enough for salvation without the benevolent and holy acts to which it would prompt...Faith is not and cannot be shown to be genuine, unless it is accompanied with corresponding acts..." (Albert Barnes, James 2:17)

No doubt, true faith alone, whereby men have part in Christ's righteousness, atonement, and grace, saves their souls; but it produces holy fruits, and is shown to be real by its effect on their works; while mere assent to any form of doctrine, or mere historical belief of any facts, wholly differs from this saving faith. (Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible, James 2:17)

Christ never will own those who yield themselves up [impenitently] to be the servants of sin. And it is not enough that we cease to do evil, but we must learn to do well. Our conversation will always be answerable to the principle which guides and governs us, Rom_8:5. We must set ourselves in earnest to mortify the deeds of the body, and to walk in newness of life. (Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible, on Galatians 5:16-21)

Your pretending to have faith, while you have no works of charity or mercy, is utterly vain: for as faith, which is a principle in the mind, cannot be discerned but by the effects, that is, good works; he who has no good works has, presumptively, no faith.
(Adam Clarke, James 2:18)

"They [who engage in "envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like") thin are not children of God, and therefore cannot inherit the kingdom which belongs only to the children of the Divine family." (Adam Clarke, on Galatians 5:21)

"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. It is like a lifeless carcass, a body without a soul, Jam_2:26 for as works, without faith, are dead works, so faith, without works, is a dead faith, and not like the lively hope and faith of regenerated persons..." (Gill on James 2:17)

"...they that do such works of the flesh as before enumerated; that is, that live in the commission of these things, whose whole lives are employed in such work, living and dying in such a state, without repentance towards God and faith in Christ, shall never enjoy eternal life..." (Gill on Galatians 5:21)

"So Bengel, “If the works which living faith produces have no existence, it is a proof that faith itself (literally, ‘in respect to itself’) has no existence;.. (Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown on James 2:17)

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord,.... Receiving Christ is believing in him:...so that this is not a receiving him into the head by notion, but into the heart by faith; and not in part only, but in whole: faith receives a whole Christ, his person as God and man; him in all his offices...these Colossians had received Christ gladly, joyfully, willingly, and with all readiness; and especially as "the Lord", on which there is a peculiar emphasis in the text (Gill on Colossians 2:6)

There are two problem with this:

1. Many "evangelicals" I know don't care what classic "evangelicals" believed.

2. More importantly, the fruit described is completely ambiguous which means every "evangelical" can claim he has fruits.

If he commits adultery, cheats on his taxes, and tells lies but loves his family, donates to charity, and is kind to his friends he can say he has the fruits of true faith. Those who sin every day can just say we're all sinners but I'm not a habitual sinner because I don't sin constantly. The fruits "evangelicals" I know use to show their true faith are found just as often, if not more often, among atheists and other non-religious people. I actually avoid most Protestants and prefer to be friends with non-religious people instead because I've found non-religious people to be more loving, godly, and have better morals than most Protestants. I'm not saying that to attack Protestants (I know some who are more godly than the non-religious) but to explain my experience. To reiterate, my opinion on Protestantism is based on teaching, not the actions of individual Protestants.

there is little difference btwn Caths and the world in many moral views.

A common misconception and irrelevant anyway. What matters is what the RCC teaches, not what individuals who you think are Catholics believe. If Jesus founded the Catholic Church and the Church teaches the truth should I reject it and refuse to join because some people who attend that church believe something immoral in opposition to the Church's teaching?

Regarding those "Catholics" who hold moral views in opposition to Church teaching, Pope Leo XIII explained it well in his encyclical Satis Cognitum:

"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic"

The no true Scotsman fallacy is a denial made without reference to any specific objective rule, which is just the opposite of what Luther is doing.

That's exactly what he was doing as he never objectively defined faith.

Then you are not reading or refuse to read what Luther clearly taught. How can you fail to see that such teaching that, "Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever" means faith is belief that which effects obedience toward its object, and that believers who don't do good works are simply not believers.

There is no objective rule in that definition. Saying those who don't do good works are not true believers is a textbook example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. If two believers have the same beliefs but one obeys and the other doesn't then Luther would say one is a true believer and the other isn't even though there isn't any difference in their beliefs. If you don't agree, explain how the faith of a person whose faith effects obedience is any different than the faith of the person whose faith does not effect obedience.

The closest to an objective standard would be your interpretation which is more akin to faithfulness. Those who believe and obey are faithful while those who believe but don't obey are unfaithful. The difference being whether one obeys but that would be opposed to faith alone.

"faith will work in you love for Christ and joy in him, and good works will naturally follow. If they do not, faith is surely not present.." "there is no faith where there are no good works." 'Here we have it stated that where the works are absent, there is also no Christ." "...if obedience and God’s commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil’s own doings.."

Saying faith is not present when works don't follow is an unwarranted assumption without any evidence. Since works don't follow in many people with faith he has to resort to saying they don't have true faith which is a fallacy because he can't distinguish it from non-true faith.

Talk about logical fallacies as warranting a conclusion. This is of no more weight than my saying that "the Catholic I know who live in sin all consider themselves to be believers," which even if true, does not mean the belief system is at fault.

That's different because the RCC would admit they are believers and not claim "well they believe but they aren't true believers."

They are not true believers and you are engaging in a fallacious no true Scotsman fallacy again. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

To avoid the no true Scotsman fallacy you have to define believer objectively without relying on actions.

Here's Wikipedia's example:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus (who is Scottish) likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Luther's statements are identical. Replace Scotsman with believer and "puts sugar on his porridge" with "fails to do good works" and you should see it:

Person A: "No believer fails to do good works."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus (who is a believer) fails to do good works."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true believer fails to do good works."

Your one-sided flinging of charges and judgment of evangelicals testifies to being so driven by a agenda that it requires this.

No, basic logic requires it.

So we are back to arguing based on your conclusive personal limited experience.

Not at all. My own experience, as well as many others, proves faith doesn't always result in works.

Scripture does teach faith always characteristically results in love and good works. (Heb. 6:9,10; 1Ths. 1:4-10)

No it doesn't. Heb 6:9-10 merely says the author of Hebrews was confident. I don't see anything in 1 Thess 1:4-10 that teaches it either.

No, as being rewarded for works testifies to effectual faith, which is rewarded.

Where is this ever taught in scripture?

Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. (Hebrews 10:35)[/QUOTE]

How is that relevant?

How are you being consistent? If not everyone who has faith will characteristically love God and thus choose to do good then how can your polemical "Protestantism" be guilty of easy believism for holding that true faith need not be a faith that effects obedience?

I don't understand what you're saying. All I'm saying is:

True statement - "Love for God always results from faith"

False statement - "Faith always results in love for God"

When John 5:28 says all those who do good will rise to life, I believe all of them had faith and did good because of their faith. However, that does NOT mean everyone with faith will do good.

Moreover, what kind of faith in any religion does not effect actions in accordance with what the Object of faith requires, including repentance when convicted of not doing so?

It sounds reasonable that anyone who truly believes that his sin will result in eternal damnation will always choose to repent if he truly believes this. However, this is false because the love of sin causes people to behave irrationally.

It is you who is being ambiguous and your constant rant in flinging such charges sounds makes you like one who has a personal vendetta. As for Scripture, does such a text as "this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God" (Ephesians 5:5) sound ambiguous?

Not ambiguous at all. Believers who are whoremongers and idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of God because their faith alone is not enough.

Another bare assertion that is contrary to the substantiated facts.

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

The RCC still believes and teaches that.

Once again both wrong and not being consistent if you are. For this bombastic statement places all (including "heretics" which the heretical RC church regarded all Prots as) who are not in "the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" - which you are not if you claim to be a Protestant - into everlasting fire, and makes the spiritual body of Christ as only being the same as the organic Roman Catholic church.

That's not true. Heretics are those who accepted the Catholic faith and later rejected it. The Reformers were heretics but not those who were raised Protestants because they never accepted the Catholic faith. Same with schismatics. Only former catholics who left the church are considered schismatics.

In reality only the mystical body of Christ, into which all believers are immersed by the Spirit at conversion, is the only true church for it always and only consists 100% of true believers, while the organic bodies inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, and the church of Rome (and liberal Prot churches) in particular is as the gates of Hell for multitudes.

That's a 16th century man-made Protestant tradition.

In contradiction to this Vatican 2 teaching (despite its often ambiguity and competing influences) affirmed (properly) baptized Prots as being members of the body of Christ and (separated) brethren of Catholics:

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." (CCC 838)

"All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation..." (CCC 818, 819)

"..there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities…"

"They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood." — LUMEN GENTIUM: 16.

The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio

None of those quotes from Vatican II contradict the earlier Catholic teaching you quoted.

But the body of Christ which He purchased with His sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) and is married to, (Eph. 5:25) is not restricted to any one particular organic church. To suppose it is relegates one as a cultist, or as one guilty of the sectarian spirit which the Lord reproved by affirming one who was manifestly doing ministry in His name but who was not part of the apostolic company. (Lk. 9:49,50)

This is false as scripture says Jesus created one visible church.

It would thus apply the SSPX and SSPV Catholics, while it dams all she considers to be "heretics which was Prots and do not remain in "the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

It's also RCC teaching that no one is guilty of heresy or schism unless he is culpable for his actions so SSPX are not necessarily damned. Look up culpability for further explanation.

Those who were raised as Protestants were never within "the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." Although those baptized as infants were part of the bosom of the Church they must still be culpable to be guilty of heresy or schism.

And since Reformers and multitudes of Prots teach that the only kind of faith that saves is that which produces characteristic obedience to Christ, in basic doctrine and morals, and which evangelicals (yet) testify to being more unified in supporting than those whom Catholicism and liberal Protestantism counts as members;

How do you define characteristic obedience to Christ? No one is perfect so how much obedience is necessary?

Rome effectually infers that even Ted Kennedy type Catholics will finally attain Heaven due to their baptism and the merits of Rome (and their own), then you have such Protestants being more Catholic than Rome effectually is.

I highly suggest you learn Catholicism from actual Catholic sources instead of relying on anti-catholics who love to slander the Church because they hate the truth.

 

[Root of Jesse]

How long was it practiced?

I don't know. It was an error that crept in. But it was a practice, not a doctrine.

Did the hierarchy promote and act the part?

Promote it, no. In fact, they were trying to stop it, and unsuccessful at it, just as the Church was bad at stopping the modern-day priest sexual abuse scandal. That doesn't mean they wanted it, accepted it, or demanded it. It means they did a bad job of policing it.

Did the hierarchy from the pope down to the least of the clergy cite institution's policy to merit their actions?

No.

If all these men who ran the religious institution practiced and cited policy to justify the practice over many generations, then how is it not counted as sacred tradition?

Because that's not what "sacred tradition" is. First, it was certain clergy who acted in the name of Christ without having the authority of Christ given by his vicar, the pope. Not all clergy. And when it was discovered, they tried to stop it. It's probably true that some bishops enjoyed the money that was coming in through the practice. Sometimes people do things for worldly reasons forgetting what their purpose is-to shepherd the flock, not to be the wolf among the sheep.

Do we wipe out what the institution represented across a period from 1095 to 1343 and some more.....

Why would you wipe out the institution which has consistently done the works Christ demanded of us? The Catholic Church has fed more people, fed more people, given shelter to more people, educated more people, taken care of more sick people, and so on, than any other institution on the face of the earth, ever?

It is fair to say we had several hundred years of what you say illegal practice carried out by all the hierarchy of the institution from the pope down to the least clergy in a cash cow that brought truck loads upon truck loads of tangible gifts like a cash converter ready to be converted to wealth and then power.

It is not fair to say that because some priests acted wrongly, the entire church should be blamed. The Church never authorized the sale of indulgences, it was never a doctrine or approved practice.

If several hundred years of this practice is not considered sacred tradition, then what is that the institution does that is in comparison????????

Practices, such as priestly celibacy, can be changed. Sacred Tradition never changes.

Back to indulgences, from the article in Catholic Encyclopedia on Indulgences:
Abuses
It may seem strange that the doctrine of indulgences should have proved such a stumbling-block, and excited so much prejudice and opposition. But the explanation of this may be found in the abuses which unhappily have been associated with what is in itself a salutary practice. In this respect of course indulgences are not exceptional: no institution, however holy, has entirely escaped abuse through the malice or unworthiness of man. Even the Eucharist, as St. Paul declares, means an eating and drinking of judgment to the recipient who discerns not the body of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). And, as God'sforbearance is constantly abused by those who relapse into sin, it is not surprising that the offer of pardon in the form of an indulgence should have led to evilpractices. These again have been in a special way the object of attack because, doubtless, of their connection with Luther's revolt (see LUTHER). On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the Church, while holding fast to the principle and intrinsic value of indulgences, has repeatedly condemned their misuse: in fact, it is often from the severity of her condemnation that we learn how grave the abuses were.

Even in the age of the martyrs, as stated above there were practices which St. Cyprian was obliged to reprehend, yet he did not forbid the martyrs to give thelibelli. In later times abuses were met by repressive measures on the part of the Church. Thus the Council of Clovesho in England (747) condemns those who imagine that they might atone for their crimes by substituting, in place of their own, the austerities of mercenary penitents. Against the excessive indulgences granted by some prelates, the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) decreed that at the dedication of a church the indulgence should not be for more than year, and, for the anniversary of the dedication or any other case, it should not exceed forty days, this being the limit observed by the pope himself on such occasions. The same restriction was enacted by the Council of Ravenna in 1317. In answer to the complaint of the Dominicans and Franciscans, that certain prelates had put their own construction on the indulgences granted to these Orders, Clement IV in 1268 forbade any such interpretation, declaring that, when it was needed, it would be given by the Holy See. In 1330 the brothers of the hospital of Haut-Pas falsely asserted that the grants made in their favor were more extensive than what the documents allowed: John XXII had all these brothers in France seized and imprisoned. Boniface IX, writing to the Bishop of Ferrara in 1392, condemns the practice of certain religious who falsely claimed that they were authorized by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next. When Henry, Archbishop of Canterbury, attempted in 1420 to give a plenary indulgence in the form of the Roman Jubilee, he was severely reprimanded by Martin V, who characterized his action as "unheard-ofpresumption and sacrilegious audacity". In 1450 Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Apostolic Legate to Germany, found some preachers asserting that indulgences released from the guilt of sin as well as from the punishment. This error, due to a misunderstanding of the words "a culpa et a poena", the cardinal condemned at the Council of Magdeburg. Finally, Sixtus IV in 1478, lest the idea of gaining indulgences should prove an incentive to sin, reserved for the judgment of the Holy See a large number of cases in which faculties had formerly been granted to confessors (Extrav. Com., tit. de poen. et remiss.).

 

[Root of Jesse]

So just how does this refute SS?

1. Does SS require only explicit statements or does it support decisions based upon manifest principles in Scripture (so that the morality of such a thing as cannibalism can be judged)?

2. Does Scripture support souls correctly discerning both men and writings of God as being so, and thus the establishment of a body of writings, all without an infallible magisterium (and even in dissent from the valid one)?

3. And if so, then why cannot Scripture, and thus SS, support the establishment of a larger body/canon of writings, essentially based upon their unique enduring Heavenly qualities and attestation?

4. As regards sufficiency, does SS refer to only what it formally provides, such as clear teaching on how to be saved, but not what it materially provides in principal, such as the addition of additional writings to Scripture that were provided, and what it materially provides, such as the use of eyes, reason, the teaching office of the church, non-binding practices supported by Scripture, the guidance and illumination of the Spirit of Christ, history, and the preaching of Scriptural Truths (even as "the word" - Acts 8:4), etc. though excluding as essential additions to Scripture? (I myself allow for spiritual "sign gifts," albeit with skepticism, even that God can "speak" to souls today, but not as new essential public revelation equal to Scripture, but with all such claims being subject to testing by Scripture.).

5. Has God ever failed to provide what was sufficient as essential for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith and life obedience, and where do so see Scripture as not being sufficient to provide this, even if by means of being deduced from Scripture?

6. Where do we see Catholicism speaking as wholly inspired of God and even providing new revelation as apostles evidently sometimes did in oral preaching?

7. If not wholly inspired of God, what is the basis for the veracity of a particular event not recorded in Scripture, or prophesied therein or recorded early history where it should be, and requiring belief in such over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred?

To answer all of this, once again, we can all agree that God's Word is sufficient for our salvation. The question then becomes, what is "God's Word". We believe that it is spoken to the apostles and successors, as Jesus told his apostles "Who hears you, hears me." Jesus told Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church, meaning that there could be no error in our faith. When error has tried to creep in, it has fallen away from the Church He created.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Christians today call the Bible our scripture. Look at the very beginning to see a Table of Contents. I guess all you Catholics like to live as if it was 1700 years ago.

Your table of contents is different from the one the Holy Spirit gave the Church. I guess you don't believe that there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It was also in the Bible at the time of the Reformation when the whole Sola Scriptura concept was made famous. So the argument is what teaching outside the Bible at that time, 500 years ago, do the Catholics require.

Well, the Bible was more than what Protestants say it is. There were more books. Things like Hannukah, Purgatory, and several other inconvenient concepts were taken away. In fact, I believe Luther had opinions on some NT books he didn't agree with, along with adding a key word or two here and there...that sort of speaks about personal interpretation. We believe in the Holy Spirit's inspiration.

 

[redleghunter]

You do know that the Jewish Canon wasn't codified until at least the 2nd century? Some groups, namely the Sadducees and the Essenes, didn't take all of it as canonical.

Also, we don't believe that quotation of the OT in the NT constitutes canonicity, or that lack of quotation of the OT in the NT constitutes non-canonicity. There are many books in the OT canon that aren't quoted at all. Ecclesiastes, for one.

Jesus Christ did leave the apostles with the OT canon. Luke 24.

 

[samir]

The Pharisees were equivalent to the church institution you claim is infallible. The Pharisees were from the exact mindset and breed. Jesus was against the establishment of what was alleged to be the church in that time.

Here is what Jesus said about them:

Matthew 23: 1-3 (NRSV) - "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it"

If they're equivalent that means you should do whatever the Catholic Church says and follow it.

This message is not to your religious institution. The message is relevant to the Ekklesia that stood around Jesus then. The words addressed them only as they had the important message to deliver and the faith to establish. Jesus tells them to not tell any man and that after he is killed raised and ascends into heaven then those standing with him who see those events will not taste death. In other words the gates of hell didn't prevail agaibst the 1st century Ekklesia as they were able to deliver the good news of the gospel and to establish the faith. How you or your institution infers this declaration to a church outside of the context of situation and context of 1st century Ekklesia culture is pulling the context right out, that us collapsing the context.

Interesting opinion but I don't agree with your interpretation. I believe Jesus was referring to the visible church he founded with Peter as the foundation as the context clearly shows.

I haven't written anything. I simply accept the 1st hand testimoney of witnesss who were there, like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Are you saying that Matthew didn't write Matthew and Mark didn't write Mark and do on?

When I said your written tradition I was referring to your bible. Tradition is based on 1st century apostolic teaching. Those apostles who wrote scripture also instructed people orally. Why should those they instructed interpret their writings in a way that contradicts what they taught orally? You can't know the apostle Matthew wrote Matthew or that his gospel is scripture without relying on tradition.

Your biships are not witnesses, neither am I, or you or your institution. The Ekklesia of the 1st century are the witnesses who can legally write witness statements, like the Acts of the Apostles. Your bishop, you, I or your institution if adding to these witness statements extra biblical content are not endorsed nor authorised to do so. What we say outside of these witness statements is hearsay. That is why any oral tradition that claims to be an authorised extension to the 1st hand witness testimonies of 1st century apostles must there prove it, for the burden of proof is on them because they are the ones making outlandish extra biblical claims outside of the 1st witness accounts.

The entire Tradition of the Church is based on the deposit of faith given by the apostles. What you're doing is divorcing what they wrote from what they said and following an interpretation of their writings that contradicts what they taught orally. We know what the apostles taught through apostolic succession and know it was preserved faithfully by the unanimous teaching of their successors. If you reject that, you have to reject scripture as well unless you have a 1st century witness who can prove the gospels were written by authentic apostles of Jesus.

As for your definition of the word Gnostic, this would fit those people who make claims outside of the 1st hand witness statements as if they are in the know of some special knowledge as compared to the rest of us. If a religious institution makes authoritative extra biblical claims that are not verified by 1st century witnesses then these claims form the gnosis definition.

I did not offer a definition of the word Gnostic so you misunderstood what I wrote. What I'm saying is the catholic/orthodox church had one set of books they considered scripture and the Gnostics had another set of books they followed. Why do you accept the 27 catholic NT books and not the Gnostic books since you reject the catholic tradition?

Again your not making sense friend. The idea you present is that Matthew didn't write Matthew and John didn't write John and that somehow I need to prove to you that they did.

The evidence for the apostles' written tradition (the 27 NT books) is the same as the evidence for their oral tradition. I don't understand why you demand proof for one but not the other.

Listen it is agreed by concensus from the number of manuscripts and scholars that they are witness statements of those 1st century apostolic witnesses, therefore what is there to prove.

Consensus from whom? The catholic/orthodox tradition.

Your arguments are circular reasoninh and beg belief. You spent all your time making the authority of your bishop and institutional hierarchy owing to your infallible institution more credible than the 1st century apostolic witnesses or you may be claiming that the bishops have special gnosis powers to know things that we lay people don't know.

I'm not a member of any institution nor do I have a bishop. The earliest Christians of the first 3 centuries relied on church tradition for their beliefs. They did not reject the church or their bishops because they didn't agree with their own personal interpretation of scripture. It would have been irrational since they relied on church tradition to know which books were scripture.

Either way you accreditation of your bishops to be the ones able to compile books or interpret them is along the same saying Jesus gave to the Pharisees.......

39You studycthe Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 39You studycthe Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

That passage is about them studying the Old Testament and not seeing that it testifies about Jesus being the Messiah. Not relevant to your claim.

So Jesus instructs people to come to him to recieve life for he is the way the life and the truth and no one comes to the Father except through him.
Now your religious institution accredits itself a go between man in order to get to Jesus in the same way the Pharisees set themselves up through their religious institution.

How can one distinguish between your religious institution and the Pharisical one if you both setup the institution as a go between man.

Jesus charged the Pharisees and their institution as follows......

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

The name of the game is to establish a one to one personal relationship with Jesus. Any religious institution setting itself up as an obstacle or middle man is thereby preventing direct access to Jesus. To prevent direct access to Jesus means that the religious institution is claiming it is the way the truth and the life, in other words it clsims to be Jesus himself or in his place.

We know that no were in the first habd witness statements do apostles teach this doctrine and to do so would be diametrically opposed to the teaching of Christ who says let the children cone to me and prevent them not.

You clearly have a problem with authority and I don't think anything I say will change that.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Jesus Christ did leave the apostles with the OT canon. Luke 24.

But the books aren't named, specifically. The question is, why? The Church used the Canon which was read in liturgical celebrations. Because they were used there, they were considered divinely inspired and useful for instruction in holiness.

 

[Berean777]

So, how do you know you can trust what was written down? I mean, people get things wrong all the time! How do you know you can trust it?

Once you read the written word and live by it, the word is verified in your life. It is like someone giving you the answer to the question of life and you self discover it yourself by reconstructing the solution. As the teacher who is the Holy Ghost says there is no right or wrong solution to reach the same answer, as everyone's sanctification path to the answer Jesus Christ is different as grace is apportioned differently by the Teacher/Holy Ghost.

So the solution to the answer/instruction found in the written word is not a universal solution, rather one that is catered to every learner of the faith of Christ, for it is written all truth shall be revealed, that is knock and the door shall be opened and ask and an answer will be given.

The idea of a universal solution to reach the answer as claimed by a religious institution is wrong, for no one will tell his neighbour to know the Lord for all who seek him through the written word instruction will know him from the smallest to the greatest.

A universal solution owing to a religious institution is so wrong, that it is completely in conflict with the original faith once given to the saints. The Christian faith is not based on an institutionalized transmission teaching where they take the place of the Holy Ghost as Teacher/Rabbi, rather the path to God through Christ is one based on multiple instructions by the Holy Ghost to each individual's different learning styles and therefore the faith is catered for the individual and not the individual for the faith as it was in the bygone pharisaical religious institution. As Jesus would say......

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. (Matthew 12:14)

 

[Berean777]

I don't know. It was an error that crept in. But it was a practice, not a doctrine.Promote it, no. In fact, they were trying to stop it, and unsuccessful at it, just as the Church was bad at stopping the modern-day priest sexual abuse scandal. That doesn't mean they wanted it, accepted it, or demanded it. It means they did a bad job of policing it.No.Because that's not what "sacred tradition" is. First, it was certain clergy who acted in the name of Christ without having the authority of Christ given by his vicar, the pope. Not all clergy. And when it was discovered, they tried to stop it. It's probably true that some bishops enjoyed the money that was coming in through the practice. Sometimes people do things for worldly reasons forgetting what their purpose is-to shepherd the flock, not to be the wolf among the sheep.
Why would you wipe out the institution which has consistently done the works Christ demanded of us? The Catholic Church has fed more people, fed more people, given shelter to more people, educated more people, taken care of more sick people, and so on, than any other institution on the face of the earth, ever?
It is not fair to say that because some priests acted wrongly, the entire church should be blamed. The Church never authorized the sale of indulgences, it was never a doctrine or approved practice.Practices, such as priestly celibacy, can be changed. Sacred Tradition never changes.

Back to indulgences, from the article in Catholic Encyclopedia on Indulgences:
Abuses
It may seem strange that the doctrine of indulgences should have proved such a stumbling-block, and excited so much prejudice and opposition. But the explanation of this may be found in the abuses which unhappily have been associated with what is in itself a salutary practice. In this respect of course indulgences are not exceptional: no institution, however holy, has entirely escaped abuse through the malice or unworthiness of man. Even the Eucharist, as St. Paul declares, means an eating and drinking of judgment to the recipient who discerns not the body of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). And, as God'sforbearance is constantly abused by those who relapse into sin, it is not surprising that the offer of pardon in the form of an indulgence should have led to evilpractices. These again have been in a special way the object of attack because, doubtless, of their connection with Luther's revolt (see LUTHER). On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the Church, while holding fast to the principle and intrinsic value of indulgences, has repeatedly condemned their misuse: in fact, it is often from the severity of her condemnation that we learn how grave the abuses were.

Even in the age of the martyrs, as stated above there were practices which St. Cyprian was obliged to reprehend, yet he did not forbid the martyrs to give thelibelli. In later times abuses were met by repressive measures on the part of the Church. Thus the Council of Clovesho in England (747) condemns those who imagine that they might atone for their crimes by substituting, in place of their own, the austerities of mercenary penitents. Against the excessive indulgences granted by some prelates, the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) decreed that at the dedication of a church the indulgence should not be for more than year, and, for the anniversary of the dedication or any other case, it should not exceed forty days, this being the limit observed by the pope himself on such occasions. The same restriction was enacted by the Council of Ravenna in 1317. In answer to the complaint of the Dominicans and Franciscans, that certain prelates had put their own construction on the indulgences granted to these Orders, Clement IV in 1268 forbade any such interpretation, declaring that, when it was needed, it would be given by the Holy See. In 1330 the brothers of the hospital of Haut-Pas falsely asserted that the grants made in their favor were more extensive than what the documents allowed: John XXII had all these brothers in France seized and imprisoned. Boniface IX, writing to the Bishop of Ferrara in 1392, condemns the practice of certain religious who falsely claimed that they were authorized by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next. When Henry, Archbishop of Canterbury, attempted in 1420 to give a plenary indulgence in the form of the Roman Jubilee, he was severely reprimanded by Martin V, who characterized his action as "unheard-ofpresumption and sacrilegious audacity". In 1450 Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Apostolic Legate to Germany, found some preachers asserting that indulgences released from the guilt of sin as well as from the punishment. This error, due to a misunderstanding of the words "a culpa et a poena", the cardinal condemned at the Council of Magdeburg. Finally, Sixtus IV in 1478, lest the idea of gaining indulgences should prove an incentive to sin, reserved for the judgment of the Holy See a large number of cases in which faculties had formerly been granted to confessors (Extrav. Com., tit. de poen. et remiss.).

When things are too good to be true they usually are.....that is......

Why have so many people within the religious enterprise being implicated over a very very very long time, some historians write that it was practiced over several hundred years. If as you say the pope or popes rejected it and that it was just a small operation headed by sinful men who were tempted by worldly things then these questions arise......

If the pope (s) knew about the practice why did they not put a stop to it immediately?

If this practice was so rife across several hundred of years, then what does it say about the cohesionness of the institution itself, that is, was it an internal rebellion resulting in anarchy within the institution?

Was it that the institution hierarchy was powerless or incompetent to deal with the problem that was practiced across several hundred years?

Was it the case that the popes on face value rejected it but underneath secretively promoted it?

I think the latter is the possibility because if we are to take the alleged claim of the infallibility of the religious institution then we must say that the gates of hell should not have prevailed against the alleged church and in this matter a practice that goes unchecked for such a long period of time by the hierarchy is one that is bordering on wilful and knowing acceptance by the hierarchy from the pope down.

The public relations reply in defense that the popes or hierarchy rejected it is an epic fail on their part, which is no different to how deceptively islamic leaders respond when citing rejection of terrorist acts within their own members, after sermon after sermon they slant hatred towards their enemies.

The reason why the religious hierarchy didn't do anything because they loved it, really loved the cash cow Ch ching ch ching ch ching......

 

[Berean777]

Here is what Jesus said about them:

Matthew 23: 1-3 (NRSV) - "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it"

If they're equivalent that means you should do whatever the Catholic Church says and follow it.

Again you take versus out of context and collapse the context in doing so. Please listen, Jesus said this because what they taught was from the written word (old testament) but how they acted was anything but. So you are missing the point here, Jesus after calling them so many times hypocrites would literally say that these guys don't do what they preach and that was the intended message and nothing more.

Sure if you want me to consider a religious institution to be a hypocrite and just follow the truth of scripture that it preaches but not to respect it, then you don't need to win me over, consider it done.

Interesting opinion but I don't agree with your interpretation. I believe Jesus was referring to the visible church he founded with Peter as the foundation as the context clearly shows.

Again you take versus out of context and collapse them, as you wish, but please consider that Jesus was instructing his disciples as to events that would take place in their immediate future and so the message the gates of hell will not prevail against you, means God speed you will prevail to deliver the good news and establish the faith.

Jesus would say......

Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:38)

Obviously he is not referring to people outside of the scope of immediate events that would follow, that is his crucifixion, resurrection and ascension.

When I said your written tradition I was referring to your bible. Tradition is based on 1st century apostolic teaching. Those apostles who wrote scripture also instructed people orally. Why should those they instructed interpret their writings in a way that contradicts what they taught orally? You can't know the apostle Matthew wrote Matthew or that his gospel is scripture without relying on tradition

It is your burden of proof to provide evidence from apostle meetings with the bishops you claim to have received oral instruction. You see as anyone can interpret scripture according to their own interpretation, hence anyone can make a claim that their bishop recieved an instruction from an apostle.

Therefore prove it.

The entire Tradition of the Church is based on the deposit of faith given by the apostles. What you're doing is divorcing what they wrote from what they said and following an interpretation of their writings that contradicts what they taught orally. We know what the apostles taught through apostolic succession and know it was preserved faithfully by the unanimous teaching of their successors. If you reject that, you have to reject scripture as well unless you have a 1st century witness who can prove the gospels were written by authentic apostles of Jesus.

Again you need to prove why you believe what you believe when making conjecturs and unprovable claims. Sorry I cannot and will not take you at you word or your institution's word.

I did not offer a definition of the word Gnostic so you misunderstood what I wrote. What I'm saying is the catholic/orthodox church had one set of books they considered scripture and the Gnostics had another set of books they followed. Why do you accept the 27 catholic NT books and not the Gnostic books since you reject the catholic tradition?

Why I reject any religious institution for that matter because they are not the way the truth and the life. My testimoney is that I have found Jesus myself through my personal relationship with him. Your trying to sell me something else or something I already have.

If I am spiritually married to Christ why do I need to marry a religious institution?

The evidence for the apostles' written tradition (the 27 NT books) is the same as the evidence for their oral tradition. I don't understand why you demand proof for one but not the other.

Prove to me that it is the same. How could an unverified secondary source be the same as the primary source, if much of what is secondary is not found in the primary and at times it is found to be in conflict with the primary.

Consensus from whom? The catholic/orthodox tradition.

Inclusive of all and scholars who are neither. I can agree with their consensus but it doesn't mean I agree with how they use them within their religious institutions.

I'm not a member of any institution nor do I have a bishop. The earliest Christians of the first 3 centuries relied on church tradition for their beliefs. They did not reject the church or their bishops because they didn't agree with their own personal interpretation of scripture. It would have been irrational since they relied on church tradition to know which books were scripture.

I agree with you, they had beauty before the fall, just like Lucifer was beautiful before his fall. When they started to legislate the faith through the many councils and make an office called a Chief Priest pope/patriarch then we saw decrees that stole people's salvation by establishing an outward idolised institution to go through in order to be saved. This placed them as the many christs who made an institution equal to the sinless Christ by declaring it infallible.

That passage is about them studying the Old Testament and not seeing that it testifies about Jesus being the Messiah. Not relevant to your claim.

It also highlights a religious institution that prevents people from coming to Christ directly in the same way the bishops of religious institutions have perpetrated to make their cult like following of legislative decree built institution the very word that they abide in rather than regarding the personhood of Christ as the life and not the institution itself.

You clearly have a problem with authority and I don't think anything I say will change that.

Maybe a revolutionary as Jesus and his disciples were considered even until now. You see if my authority is Jesus Christ, then your bishop or my bishop cannot be my authority. As Jesus said........

A Warning Against Hypocrisy

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteriesa wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

8“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

Do these versus closely describe the authority you speak of?

 

[redleghunter]

But the books aren't named, specifically. The question is, why? The Church used the Canon which was read in liturgical celebrations. Because they were used there, they were considered divinely inspired and useful for instruction in holiness.

They were considered divinely inspired because of what is recorded in Luke 24. I do not believe the apostles were confused on what was inspired Scriptures. Thus the TaNaKh mentioned by Christ in Luke 24.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The facts are clear...
The burning at the stake during the Inquisition was carried out by civil governments at the RCC's request, not by the RCC itself.

As if that absolves Rome, who actually required RC rulers to exterminate the "heretics" that heretical Rome referred to:

Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215
Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess i t without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.

The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land . (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp, emp. mine)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

1 Cor 3 speaks of the judgment of God where the works of the faithful will be tested after death. It says our works will go through “fire,” figuratively speaking.

Regardless of how much you want to make 1Cor. 3 as providing "the clearest and strongest biblical teachings on Purgatory," among other disallowances, it simply remains that this cannot be Purgatory because this judgment and its suffering does not commence at death, as with Purgatory, and thus the vain offering of indulgences" in trying to escape it (which the text also does not support), but awaits the Lords return, as substantiated.

And that in contrast, as also substantiated, wherever Scripture manifestly deals with the next life location for believers, it is to be with the Lord . (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Which leaves Caths attempting to extrapolate mythical Purgatory from a couple ambiguous texts or ones that manifestly do not refer to believers postmortem suffering.

In Scripture, “fire” is used metaphorically in two ways: as a purifying agent (Mal. 3:2-3; Matt. 3:11; Mark 9:49); and as that which consumes (Matt. 3:12; 2 Thess. 1:7-8). So it is a fitting symbol here for God’s judgment. Some of the “works” represented are being burned up and some are being purified.

Wrong: no works are not being purified, but burned (for he that defiles the temple of God "him shall God destroy" - (1Co. 3:17), so that the planter suffers "loss," (1Co. 3:15) - not a gain, as would be the case if it was purgatorial cleansing- while the works that remain are nowhere said to be purified, but that they "abide. "

Meanwhile, the works are not said to be personal character defects, but building materials/means used to build the church with, as in tares versus wheat, reflective of the means used in building they church, which all engage in, directly or indirectly. Bringing souls into the church by carnal means (even by supporting such) that defile the temple means their destruction and the believers loss of rewards, while those of true faith gain rewards. And thus, speaking of rewards given at that judgment seat, Paul says that says to the Thessalonians and Philippians that they are Paul's joy and crown. As shown.

The judgment seat of Christ is manifestly not about being purified in order to enter Heaven, but is about the given and loss of rewards, with those who suffer loss being saved despite this loss, not because of them.

Which has been said before, yet RCs insist on reading into Scripture what they can only wish was being said.

What is being referred to cannot be heaven because there are imperfections that need to be “burned up” (see again, Rev. 21:27, Hab. 1:13).

There simply are no personal imperfections that need to be “burned up,” but tares will be, but not at the actual judgment seat, and the text does not say that there are any imperfections actually at the judgment seat itself, but the judgment refers refers to the testing that takes place on that Day of the Lord:
Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. (1 Corinthians 3:13)

"All who die in God’s grace, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven (CCC1030)."

The CCC is a poor substitute for Scripture, which does not teach this.

Scripture is very clear when it says, "But nothing unclean shall enter heaven" (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, "You [God]... are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong...

As a point of fact, all believers are said to be with the Lord at death, or will be at the Lord's coming, as shown, not purgatory and the holy city that Rev. 21:27 refers to is of Heaven, but Heaven is manifestly of greater sphere, for if you really want to press the issue of judgment not being possible in Heaven if there are imperfections there, then you must place the Great White Throne judgment someplace else.

However, the fact is that God abhors evil as the hyperbole (cf. Prv. 15:3; Jer. 16:17) of Hab 1:13 states, and nothing unclean will enter the Heavenly City, nor will evil dwell with God, (Ps. 5:4) but believers are already "accepted in the the Beloved," and "made to sit together with Him in Heaven" (Eph. 1:6; 2;6) and have direct access spiritually into the holy of holies, for if of true saving faith, they are always considered to be washed, sanctified and justified in the name of Jesus and by the Spirit of God. (1Co. 6:11)

It is their positional righteousness by effectual faith that made them to sit together with Christ in Heaven, despite not being practically perfect, and on the same basis can be with God at death, while "he that is dead is freed from sin," while it is those who deny the Lord Christ that shall die in their sins. (Jn. 8:24)

In Matthew 5:24-25, Jesus is even more explicit about Purgatory.
Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny (Matthew 5:25-26).

"Even more explicit about Purgatory?! Where does this even say it refers to the afterlife, versus the example used, replete with judge and officer?

And if referring to spiritual realities, then again, why must this refer to the afterlife, versus temporal judgment such as inflicted in church discipline in this life as in 1Co. 5; 1Tim. 1:10, and which fits with this warning.

And if referring to the next life, then where or where is this taught in the life of the church (Acts onward, interpretive of the gospels), with its manifest teaching on the afterlife, yet wherever it manifestly speaks of the after life for believers, we only see it taught that believers go to be with the Lord at death or at His return.

Even if you restrict 1Ths. 4:17 to only the Thessalonians, do you suppose that all the Thessalonians were so perfect enough in character so that they would be fit to be henceforth be with the Lord when He returned, as they expected Him to? Let alone a few hours in the cross making one perfect in character, which takes more than just inescapable suffering.

Also, sins not being forgiven in the world to come refers to the millennial reign of Christ, which RCs deny, and otherwise this is another unclear passage that needs to be interpreted in the light of the rest of Scripture, which does not teach of believers being forgiven after death, but it does of souls in that millennial kingdom.[/QUOTE]

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Actually, Albion, he is correct.

Biblical proof for purgatory
2 Maccabees 12: 38-45 (RSVCE)
Then Judas assembled his army and went to the city of Adul′lam. As the seventh day was coming on, they purified themselves according to the custom, and they kept the sabbath there.

39 On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers. 40 Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jam′nia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.

So you must resort to a book that even for most of A.D. history was disputed or held in doubt by RCs as being Scripture proper, and which teaches that it is good that offerings be made for those who died in mortal sin, for which Rome says there is no hope? Spare us the special pleading about how maybe they repented at death.

Matthew 5:24-26 (parable for purgatory. We are pure in heaven, and there is no salvation in hell, so where is this prison that we go to pay our "coins" aka sins?)
Matthew 12:31-32 (if we are pure in heaven, where can sins be forgiven in this age to come?)

1 Corinthians 3:10-15 (what is this fire to test our works? And even if our works burn up we will suffer but we will still be saved. We do not suffer in heaven, and our works cannot be judged until after our death.)[/QUOTE]
All answered today here, by God's grace.

Matthew 18:23-35 (same parable, God will send us to jail to repay our debt, but we are pure in heaven, so where is this jail?)

" O thou wicked servant" is referring to a lost-type soul in this life, while extended to Hell would make it eternal.

Hebrews 12:22-24 (who are the just men MADE perfect? Obviously they were not perfect when they died, but were MADE perfect. Where?)

You are also misconstruing this text, grasping onto the words "made perfect" but contextually the word "perfect" is not referring to moral perfection, but the realization of the new covenant, as per the theme in Hebrews, to wit, And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. (Hebrews 11:39-40)

Rather than these being non-saints, and thus in need of Purgatory to become good enough to enter Heaven, this "so great a cloud of witnesses" (Heb. 12:1) were of the Hall of Faith, "Of whom the world was not worthy," who had obtained a good report through faith as overcomers, including Enoch (Heb. 11:5) who was caught up to God long ago.

But who all left this world in faith, "not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." (Hebrews 11:13)

Which promises was the coming of Christ and His "better" (key word in Hebrews) high priest, promises, and covenant which they looked forward to in Christ, who not only opened Heaven but made the glorious prophetic plan of God complete by the inclusion of NT believers.

Philippians 2:9-11 (where is this under the earth? Not hell, as that is the devils domain, and it is obviously a seperate place to both earth and heaven, so what is this place under the earth that all knees shall bow before Jesus?)

Wrong again. Hell is not said to be devils' domain, and the lake of fire is what is prepared for him, (Mt. 25:41) and the text says "every" knee and tongue, and the Spirit does indeed foretell of universal confession of Christ, if as a matter of fact by the lost, and of willing worship by the elect:

And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. (Revelation 5:13)

These clearly point to a place, outside of heaven and earth,

What?! These clearly do not clearly point to a place, outside of heaven and earth called purgatory.

ECFs on the teachings of Purgatory/place to become pure after death

Is that you NYer?