Is Purgatory in the Bible?

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Thus your remostrations apply to the church you defend, which indeed does effectually convey easy-believism.

First of all, I have never said that our Church was easy-believism. Believing is sometimes very hard work. Very hard. And that IS one of the works that will bring us to heaven, as we have to work at our belief. "Faith cometh by hearing..." So there is a long time of hearing and listening to the Good News before you can believe in it, and then there is the actual work of DOING what God wants of you. Listening, hearing, making a decision, and doing what God wants are all WORKS that are necessary for getting into heaven.

As for what one must do, one must simply believe, which means a life characterized by , following the Lord Jesus, (Jn. 10:27,28) doing righteousness, and repenting when convicted of failing to do so. But the effects of faith are not the cause of justification in the sense Paul teaches in Rm. 4, in which faith is counted for righteousness, and purifies the heart of sins, and seats one in Heaven with Christ, but works do justify one as being a true believer, like as fulfilled prophecy confirms one as being a prophet. Faith without works is dead, but only on Christ's accounted can one be presently made "accepted in the Beloved," and be given citizenship in Heaven, and have "boldness to enter into the holiest." (Heb. 10:19

Simply believing fits the description of your easy believism much more than my definition. "Just believe..." BALDERDASH! How many times did you hear the Gospel preached BEFORE you were able to believe? And then how long after you had heard the Gospel did you dither around before taking the plunge? And after that, how long did you play around in the kiddie pool before making a rational decision to cooperate with Jesus? A quickie decision and a trip to the altar mean nothing. What does mean something, is to decide to really cooperate with God when He calls you to do something, and that can be done at home, or in a crowded party, or anywhere else, as long as, at that time, you realize that you are giving your whole life to God, and not just an hour on Sunday; that your whole life, and not just a little bit is God's and you have to follow along. You have to give God control on whether to marry or not. On whether you take a job offer or not, and so on. No, I don't believe that He cares whether you use steel nail clippers or gold plated ones. I don't think that He minds what color car to buy, although He might want you to go to a different dealer than what you planned.

You see? Making a decision an then living it out are two different things. The Catholic Churches, along with Orthodox, Coptic, Syrian, and so on give you the tools to actually cooperate with God, and not just flap lips.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
First of all, I have never said that our Church was easy-believism.
Where did I say that you said it was? Try to only respond to what was said/argued, not what was not. What I said in this regard was that you are defending a church which teaches easy-believism, even if Rome is not your church, you do not defend her easy-believism, which can hardly be denied. But since unlike me you are defending Rome then you must deal with her embrace of Teddy K Catholics.
Believing is sometimes very hard work. Very hard. And that IS one of the works that will bring us to heaven, as we have to work at our belief.
Now you are contrary to the language of Scripture, which makes a clear distinction btwn faith and works, though the former effects the latter. But faith is not "work."

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (Romans 4:2-6)

Thus salvation is promised to those who believe:

He that believeth [continuous sense] on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believethnot the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36)

Yet because faith effects works (everything we do is a result of what we truly believe, at least at the moment), thus salvation is promised to those who manifest the fruit of faith. Thus the meek shall inherit the earth, not because being meek earns you the earth, or feeding the hungry earns you salvation, but because these fruits are characteristics of true faith, confirming one is a believer. Thus while Paul clearly excludes works as the actual basis of justification, yet he also affirms the doers of the law shall be justified, since works shows these are true believers, versus mere hearers.

For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (Romans 2:13)

The difference is that the effects of faith are not the cause of justification before God, though they justify one as being a true believer.
"Faith cometh by hearing..." So there is a long time of hearing and listening to the Good News before you can believe in it, and then there is the actual work of DOING what God wants of you. Listening, hearing, making a decision, and doing what God wants are all WORKS that are necessary for getting into heaven.
Only in the sense that saving faith is an obedient faith, not that the works actually make one good enough to be with God, which is false gospel.
Simply believing fits the description of your easy believism much more than my definition. "Just believe..." BALDERDASH!
Why is it that you cannot seem to comprehend English well? I proceed to define "simply believing" as meaning a life characterized by , following the Lord Jesus, (Jn. 10:27,28) doing righteousness, and repenting when convicted of failing to do so. Are you so desperate to win a debating point that you must misconstrue things I say?
How many times did you hear the Gospel preached BEFORE you were able to believe? And then how long after you had heard the Gospel did you dither around before taking the plunge? And after that, how long did you play around in the kiddie pool before making a rational decision to cooperate with Jesus?
I did not know much about being born again, having been devoutly raised Catholic which imagines that ritually sprinkling an infant, who cannot repent and believe as the Scripture requires for baptism. But though I was raised devout and believe in God, there was simply no conversion event as seen in Scripture. When souls are born again there is both an immediate as well as progressive change in their life.

But I became depressed and knew i was separated from God due to sin, and that the judgment train was coming. And having moral parents I knew repentance meant you intended to never do the sins you repented from any more, and so I actually put off my repentance until I felt i could keep my commitment. And then i tearfully confessed a priest of being away from God (though i had been going to mass regularly) and my repentance, and began to live a very moral life, yet go to confession constantly after that and live a very moral life. For my conscience convicted me of sins even of thoughts, I did not understand salvation by grace thru faith, not because I was good enough, but that on Christ's account I was accepted in the Beloved.

But an evangelical radio station came on the air locally and as soon as I heard that of salvation by grace thru faith then i confirmed to God that i trusted Christ for salvation, not my works. I had such an earnest ongoing hunger to know how to please God according to the Bible that (as a truck driver) I would listen to that station day and night, and sometimes even speed up going under long bridges do as to not miss any words.

And though i was raised in a rural area, even nature had become new to me. Thus God effected changes in my heart and life that went beyond what I knew. And though i remained a weekly mass and every holy day Catholic for about 6 years after my conversion, I realized the profound difference btwn mere religion and regeneration.

I looked for the fellowship of the Spirit in Catholicism, seeking others who had realized these changes and new life, but that almost nonexistent. So I went to Catholic charismatic meetings, in which i found some life, but the hierarchy linked them up with the liberal nuns "peace and justice commission, and i was never the same.

I would also try to witness to others about Jesus, and was even being challenged by God to do some difficult things by myself, like telling people to repent who were going into bad places. There are a few stories here to tell. But being in a Catholic ears i did not know of an evangelical church, but when i sincerely prayed to God "if it by thy Will to go to different church, I trust you will show me," then He quickly did, which led me into evangelical fellowship, thanks be to God.

And the more I study the Bible then they more i see the contrasts btwn Rome and the NT church. As well as how short I come and overall the church today.

However, most conversions in Scripture were immediate, yet the fact that there is preparatory work leading to conversion does not mean one must actually, practically becomes good in this life or in purgatory enough to be with God. Which is the main issue.
A quickie decision and a trip to the altar mean nothing.
Unless we are talking about powerless preaching, then this also is contrary to Scripture, which you seem to ignore overall. One the day of Pentecost approx. 3,000 convicted (key issue) souls essentially were given in altar call, as was the household Cornelius and others. An altar call can be given after gospel preaching which is to convict souls of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment, (John 16:8) and the altar call, which sometimes does get abused or perfunctory, is an effectual means of bringing souls to meet with God about their heart burdens.
What does mean something, is to decide to really cooperate with God when He calls you to do something, and that can be done at home, or in a crowded party, or anywhere else, as long as, at that time, you realize that you are giving your whole life to God, and not just an hour on Sunday; that your whole life, and not just a little bit is God's and you have to follow along. You have to give God control on whether to marry or not. On whether you take a job offer or not, and so on.
This is true, though as seen in the preaching of Acts, in conversion there is a basic repentance according to the light they had, not a intensive course of the details of the Christian life, but once they were born again, their consecration is to keep pace with the revelation God progressively gives.

But today gospel preaching too weak and superficial. Look what William Booth counseled seeks to do.
No, I don't believe that He cares whether you use steel nail clippers or gold plated ones. I don't think that He minds what color car to buy, although He might want you to go to a different dealer than what you planned.
No, God does care, and can lead a born again believer in even the most mundane things.
You see? Making a decision an then living it out are two different things. The Catholic Churches, along with Orthodox, Coptic, Syrian, and so on give you the tools to actually cooperate with God, and not just flap lips.
That is what is BALDERDASH, since (having been there, done that) it is largely form, and what is basically taught in Catholicism is that you became a Christian via the act of baptism, which is false, and thus they are treated as such all their lives, and never hear a message calling them to personal repentance and faith so that may have a Biblical "day of salvation."

And "The Church" fosters faith in itself as able to get souls into Heaven, however liberal or nominal, as long as they die as Catholics, and thus never having been converted/born they sadly end up in Hell fire, to their eternal horror!
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Where are you getting your information from?

You asked when the Roman Catholic Church broke off from the Church of England. Although Rome and Canterbury were estranged from each other before this, the Church of Rome continued to hope that it could engineer an overthrow of the Tudor dynasty and reassert its control over the English church.

By this point in the reign of Elizabeth I, and after a number of attempts, the Pope concluded that it was not going to happen and instead called all Englishmen in the one and only church in England who remained loyal to him to come out of her and form separate churches. By law, the Church of England remained the Catholic church in England thereafter while the schismatic Roman Catholic parishes became known as "R.C. Chapels."
 
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
You said:

However, I am not arguing for/defending a particular church, much less one that teaches easy-believism, but which church you are defending. Thus your remostrations apply to the church you defend, which indeed does effectually convey easy-believism.

That is where you implied that the Catholic Church is easy-believism.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
However, I am not arguing for/defending a particular church, much less one that teaches easy-believism, but which church you are defending. Thus your remostrations apply to the church you defend, which indeed does effectually convey easy-believism.
You said:
That is where you implied that the Catholic Church is easy-believism.
Once again this shows a lack of comprehension. I did indeed argue that the Catholic Church fosters and examples easy-believism, but the issue was your objection "I have never said that our Church was easy-believism," which i did not say you did, yet that by defending Rome you must deal with her easy-believism.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Once again this shows a lack of comprehension. I did indeed argue that the Catholic Church fosters and examples easy-believism, but the issue was your objection "I have never said that our Church was easy-believism," which i did not say you did, yet that by defending Rome you must deal with her easy-believism.

LACK OF COMPREHENSION indeed! None of the various Catholic Churches preach an easy salvation, or an easy to believe Gospel. Indeed, the belief that we have and teach is a lot firmer than "Just Believe." Giving your life to Jesus is much more than "just believe." As I mentioned earlier, it is hard work. God will give you the grace to go through it, but you're holding the shovel, so to speak. God wants you to dig out those old sins that stain that white robe you wish to put on. You have to repent of those sins, too. As the AA Big Book says, you have to make a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves, then admit to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

But I have not told you any of those things, because since I first posted in this thread, as I was beleaguered right away.

However, do I need to believe in the Calvinist Lockstep? This is the mindset that has upset me the most on these fora. The Lockstep is the only way that sinners can possibly be saved, (so you say). And you conveniently misquote me.

I did say:

One trip to the altar is not enough, just as dying a Catholic is not enough. One has to put his/her whole life on the line, cooperating with Jesus to get into heaven, and you and I both know that. And that can happen in a Catholic Church just as easily as a Baptist church.

What I was trying to get across, and what you're labeling as "cognitive dissonance" is that there is a great deal you don't teach or preach at all. All you want to is get them to the altar, have them say a prayer that is just as Rote as the Hail Mary, so you can cut another notch in your Bible. There usually is no follow-up. No Pastoral calls, or even a letter. You have your notch on the Bible, you can move on to the next sinner. Accountability and discipleship simply don't exist in a lot of Protestant churches.

What one has to do is to accept Jesus into your heart, (which I did when I was 26 yrs old). Then you have to study the Bible--Which I did for many years, where I would start at Genesis and read through to the end of Revelation, and when I finished, I would start over again. (I suppose reading the Bible--several versions) would be acceptable to you, and I did that for 20 years (at least) from the night I got saved. And yes, I still do it today!

And I haven't even begun to mention the prayers. Long prayers, short prayers, even the one I'm praying for you right now. There is a lot to be prayed for. I know I'm not the only one praying for the victims of terrorism, but has anyone asked you to pray for the terrorists? I do, on a regular basis. And none of those prayers start with, "Father, I just wanna..." several times before you get to the meat of the prayers.

So don't tell me that I do now--or ever have--taught or preached easy believism. That won't work.

BTW, for someone to think, say, or even jest about me making a point from the AA Big Book. No, I am not an alcoholic, drug addict or have any other problem that can be solved by a book. I might just as easily have said, “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” (James 5:16 KJV). But you don't seem to find me righteous, do you.

Well, so sad too bad. If you (or anyone else) wants to discuss anything, PM me.
 
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
My home church isnt guilty of those things. We believe in love, not persecution. Our government is the kingdom of God. Our citizenship is in heaven.

Do you follow (in any way) the teachings of Calvin?

If yes, you and you congregation, and the general membership share in the guilt.
 
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I said,
Can you KNOW, for certain, that Ted Kennedy is in hell? It could be that his last conscious thought was "My Jesus, save me." I DON'T KNOW, and neither do you. And if all that you are looking at is one side of the traditionalist fence, then you are wrong, as you are looking at the other side through the lens of the first. And, you don't get to judge who is in heaven and who is in hell. That is Jesus' job.

And through a lot of links bank and forth, you said this.
Which is simply more cognitive dissonance, for the issue was your reply that I was saying I "KNOW, for certain, that Ted Kennedy is in hell," when in fact i never stated or argued that.

Note, that I did NOT say that you said TK was in hell. I said I don't know, which you will not admit.

Also NOTE, I have never claimed that any of the Kennedys were IN heaven. All I asked was CAN you know, for certain, that Ted Kennedy is in hell. I can't, and if you are honest about it, neither can you. Let Jesus be the judge.
 
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
By law, the Church of England remained the Catholic church in England thereafter while the schismatic Roman Catholic parishes became known as "R.C. Chapels.

Okay, maybe by LAW, the CofE remained what the people of England CALLED Roman Catholic, but the consecration of bishops after Reginald Pole were not VALID according to the Roman Catholic Law. The Roman Catholic Church STILL in Communion with Rome was thrown out! Henry VIII did not want them around, Edward VI persecuted them, as did Elizabeth I It was against the LAW to be, aid, help, listen to, etc any Roman Catholic.
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Do you follow (in any way) the teachings of Calvin?

If yes, you and you congregation, and the general membership share in the guilt.
I don't follow Calvin, or Luther, or any other teacher. I take responsibility for my own instruction.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Okay, maybe by LAW, the CofE remained what the people of England CALLED Roman Catholic, but the consecration of bishops after Reginald Pole were not VALID according to the Roman Catholic Law. .

...according to a Papal decision made over 300 years later. That was a time when the Papacy was concerned about losing its influence to a variety of challengers. That's why Papal Infallibility was proclaimed at about the same time, as well as decrees against Democracy and Freemasonry. And of course, there was the struggle to maintain the Pope's secular role as ruler of the Papal States against the Italian unification movement, also occurring at about the same moment in time.

Interestingly enough, the form of the ordinations (consecrations) in question was the same as used by the Roman Catholic Church prior to the Reformation. And the whole issue is somewhat moot anyway, since almost all Anglican bishops today have Apostolic Succession through other lines as well, ones that the Roman Church recognizes as valid.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: St_Worm2
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
LACK OF COMPREHENSION indeed!
It was indeed, and a series of such, and yet continues. I said,
"...for Catholics their church itself is much their source of security, which trust is what it much fosters, thus what is basically conveyed is that salvation is assured as long as one dies as a Catholic, whether it be a Ted Kennedy type or a traditionalist."

Which you miscomprehended or misconstrued into my saying,

"Can you KNOW, for certain, that Ted Kennedy is in hell?"

To which i replied,

"And just how does "salvation is assured as long as one dies as a Catholic, whether it be a Ted Kennedy type or a traditionalist" translate into me saying I KNOW, for certain, that Ted Kennedy is in hell?" Answer me."

Which question you did not answer, but apparently comprehended the question as being is how it is that "salvation is assured as long as one dies as a Catholic...?" which manifest problem (of Teddy K Caths being treated as brethren) you somehow comprehended (or else admit it was a diversion) as being as being negated by false Prot. brethren, in replying:

"The same way that salvation is assured as long as one responds to an altar call...And the next day falls back into drug abuse and child abuse?...,"

And which fringe characterization ignored the issue of the aforementioned problem in Catholicism.

And to which diversion i therefore responded,

"Which is simply more cognitive dissonance, for the issue was your reply that I was saying I "KNOW, for certain, that Ted Kennedy is in hell," when in fact i never stated or argued that."

And as far as you attempt to use Prot/ easy-believism as somehow being a refutation of that in Catholicism, I added,

"However, I am not arguing for/defending a particular church, much less one that teaches easy-believism, but which church you are defending. Thus your remostrations apply to the church you defend, which indeed does effectually convey easy-believism. As for what one must do, one must simply believe, which means a life characterized by , following the Lord Jesus, (Jn. 10:27,28) doing righteousness, and repenting when convicted of failing to do so."

Yet to which (your remostrations apply to the church you defend, which indeed does effectually convey easy-believism) you apparently comprehended as my saying that you actually defended such, saying:

"First of all, I have never said that our Church was easy-believism."

And,

"Simply believing fits the description of your easy believism much more than my definition. "Just believe..."

Yet I never said that you said your Church was easy-believism, or Rome (which church was the issue), thus i responded,

Where did I say that you said it was? Try to only respond to what was said/argued, not what was not. What I said in this regard was that you are defending a church which teaches easy-believism, even if Rome is not your church, you do not defend her easy-believism, which can hardly be denied. But since unlike me you are defending Rome then you must deal with her embrace of Teddy K Catholics.


And in response to your miscomprehension (or misconstruance) that "Simply believing fits the description of your easy believism much more than my definition" I stated,

"Why is it that you cannot seem to comprehend English well? I proceed to define "simply believing" as meaning a life characterized by , following the Lord Jesus, (Jn. 10:27,28) doing righteousness, and repenting when convicted of failing to do so."

For "simple" is not opposed to what is enables and effects, but it does not take a great intellect to accept and follow Christ, and a little faith can move mountains.

And to which I added:

"However, I am not arguing for/defending a particular church, much less one that teaches easy-believism, but which church you are defending. Thus your remostrations apply to the church you defend, which indeed does effectually convey easy-believism."

Yet you came back with a response that indicated that you comprehended the issue as being whether or not i argued that the Catholic Church was guilty of easy-believism, rather than charging you with saying that, thus saying in response to thy above,

"That is where you implied that the Catholic Church is easy-believism."

Which was simply not in dispute or the issue, requiring make to once again to clarify,

"I did indeed argue that the Catholic Church fosters and examples easy-believism, but the issue was your objection "I have never said that our Church was easy-believism," which i did not say you did, yet that by defending Rome you must deal with her easy-believism."


And which brings up to your present response,
None of the various Catholic Churches preach an easy salvation, or an easy to believe Gospel.
Wrong, for Biblically the criteria for determining what you believe is based on what you do and effect, (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20) and by counting and manifestly treating even publicly known proabortion, prosodomite persons as members in life and in death then Rome sends a message that what really matters is that you die a RC, not matter how nominal. This is indeed easy-believism.

A near majority of Catholics also testify to being liberal in morals and doctrine, in contrast to evangelicals and those who most strongly esteem Scripture. And mind you, I was an active, serving Catholic who knows both sides. They are told that they already became Christians by sprinkling water on them as infants who could not repent and believe, as required in Scripture, (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:36,37) and rarely are called to actual repentance and conversion.

Indeed, the belief that we have and teach is a lot firmer than "Just Believe." Giving your life to Jesus is much more than "just believe." As I mentioned earlier, it is hard work.. God wants you to dig out those old sins that stain that white robe you wish to put on. You have to repent of those sins, too...
As I mentioned earlier, work is what faith effects, and that to believe is to characteristically follow Christ in faith and love, in word and deed, relative to the light and grace one has, and repent when convicted of not doing so, thus i do not know why you think this is an argument. You continue to argue against something I did not say. But it is faith that purifies the heart (Acts 15:7-9) and is counted for righteousness, not what faith effects, though "things that accompany salvation" (Heb. 10:9) justify one as being a believer.
But I have not told you any of those things, because since I first posted in this thread, as I was beleaguered right away.
Of course you told me such things,. Now you seem to forget what you ever said.
However, do I need to believe in the Calvinist Lockstep? This is the mindset that has upset me the most on these fora. The Lockstep is the only way that sinners can possibly be saved, (so you say). And you conveniently misquote me.
And just where did I argue some Calvinist Lockstep? Once again you are arguing against something I did not say, indicating you have an axe to grind that prevents reasonable exchange.
What I was trying to get across, and what you're labeling as "cognitive dissonance" is that there is a great deal you don't teach or preach at all. All you want to is get them to the altar, have them say a prayer that is just as Rote as the Hail Mary, so you can cut another notch in your Bible. There usually is no follow-up. No Pastoral calls, or even a letter. You have your notch on the Bible, you can move on to the next sinner.
Dude, what I am labeling as "cognitive dissonance" is just what you example here, that of a failure to actually comprehend - or actually really consider - what I wrote - which was never what you just described me as teaching, and instead you respond to what you erroneously think i said, and here just continue with your axe-grinding as if i taught salvation by an inert faith which does not effect repentance, obedience and holiness. Yet the latter is not the actual cause of justification. Next you will be telling me I uphold once saved always saved.
What one has to do is to accept Jesus into your heart, (which I did when I was 26 yrs old). Then you have to study the Bible-...And I haven't even begun to mention the prayers. Long prayers, short prayers, even the one I'm praying for you right now....
And so just where did I say believing did not mean such?
So don't tell me that I do now--or ever have--taught or preached easy believism. That won't work.
Once again, just where did I say that you yourself taught or preached easy believism? You continually seem to imagine I said something i did not. Which likely applies to Scripture as well. What my argument was that by choosing to defend Rome you are defending a church which manifestly examples and fosters easy believism, as described. And if you want to deny that, just read the laments of traditional RCs about the current condition of their church, and Francis.
BTW, for someone to think, say, or even jest about me making a point from the AA Big Book. No, I am not an alcoholic, drug addict or have any other problem that can be solved by a book. I might just as easily have said, “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” (James 5:16 KJV).
What in the world are you imagining now? Where did I say, or even jest about you making a point from the AA Big Book???
But you don't seem to find me righteous, do you.
The problem, besides the aforementioned tendencies, is that while you seem think much about your own holiness, you will never actually become righteous enough to be with God, except by the justifying faith which is counted for righteousness and effects the same, as one who is washed, sanctified and justified thereby, in the name of Jesus and by the Spirit of God, (1Co. 6:11) and accepted in the Beloved on His account, not your own holiness, which is essential fruit of saving faith.
Well, so sad too bad. If you (or anyone else) wants to discuss anything, PM me.
As long as you keep posting publicly, you can expect to be refuted thereby by the grace of God.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I said,
Note, that I did NOT say that you said TK was in hell.
If you were not charging me with saying TK was in hell, then why sense did it make to respoinse to my statement that what is basically conveyed is that salvation is assured as long as one dies as a Catholic, whether it be a Ted Kennedy type or a traditionalist" with "Can you KNOW, for certain, that Ted Kennedy is in hell?"

That only makes sense if you were challenging what i said, which i did not.
I said I don't know, which you will not admit.
What's to admit since I never claimed I knew he was? One again you must assume i made a statement which i thus must disallow.
Also NOTE, I have never claimed that any of the Kennedys were IN heaven. All I asked was CAN you know, for certain, that Ted Kennedy is in hell. I can't, and if you are honest about it, neither can you. Let Jesus be the judge
And if you are honest about it, or stop imagining things, then you must admit that I never charged you with claiming that any of the Kennedys were IN heaven, or that I know, for certain, that Ted Kennedy is in hell. I do not, but the point was that what is basically conveyed is that he and like RCs will end up in Heaven if they die as a Cath. To the eternal horror of the impenitent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Only if you twist and manipulate the Scriptures. It's a pagan belief that the RCC turned into a money making scheme.

Pope Leo X (A.D. 1475-1521) commissioned John Tetzel, a Dominican monk, to travel throughout Germany selling indulgences on behalf of the Church. Tetzel declared that as soon as the coins “clinked” in his money chest, the souls of those for whom the indulgences had been purchased would fly out of purgatory.

These indulgences not only bestowed pardon for sins committed already, they were used to license the commission of future transgressions as well. In the classic volume, The Life and Times of Martin Luther, noted historian Merle D’Aubigne relates an amusing episode relative to this practice.

A certain Saxon nobleman heard John Tetzel proclaiming his doctrine of indulgences, and the gentleman was much aggravated at this perversion of truth. Accordingly, he approached the monk one day and inquired as to whether he might purchase an indulgence for a sin he intended to commit.

“Most assuredly,” replied Tetzel, “I have received full powers from his holiness for that purpose.” After some haggling, a fee of thirty crowns was agreed upon, and the nobleman departed.

Together with some friends, he hid himself in a nearby forest. Presently, as Tetzel journeyed that way, the knight and his mischievous companions fell upon the papal salesman, gave him a light beating, and relieved him of his money, apparently taking no pains to disguise themselves.

Tetzel was enraged by the foul deed and filed suit in the courts. When the nobleman appeared as the defendant, he produced the letter of exemption containing John Tetzel’s personal signature, which absolved the Saxon of any liability. When Duke George (the judge before whom the action was brought) examined the document, exasperated though he was, he ordered the accused to be released.

John Tetzel's Indulgences
 
  • Informative
Reactions: St_Worm2
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,352
10,607
Georgia
✟912,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Going back a few pages to find a post that is on the topic of purgatory -- I find this.

I wish purgatory were real. That could be a second chance for those who were kind and tried their best to get closer to meeting God's standards, but as a result of that their sins and weaknesses were too strong , they were bewildered and waved, adding lives were short, so that they weren't able to collect enough merits for entering the gate of heaven. Also, towards the leading theme of survival in this world, some people may have made some mistakes involuntarily. Of course, the premise should be:1. they hadn't committed unforgivable significant sin, and all the lacked scores were from venial faults. 2. They struggled before the false moves and regreted after the errors made. And they repented the errors to God genuinely in heart, and they resolved to make progress.

I’m not answering the question, and I’m just sending my best wish to all kind people. After all, we’re just minors and immature before the Godlike subject of how to enter heaven. Again, everyone’s God’s little kid, no matter how old they are.

Well you have a point that though this is not at all in the Bible - yet it is a much better method for getting "almost-all" into heaven and only the truly Hitler-like people excluded from heaven. Of course 'Heaven would cease to heaven" if such a method were in fact true to life - because all the half-converted that it lets in would then proceed to infect all of heaven with the dreaded ebola-of-sin.

Along those same lines - notice how every movie-maker in Hollywood seems to be able to tell the story of Noah in such a way as to get almost all the wicked into the ark - by merely "leaving the ark door open until after it starts to rain really hard". That would have worked to get a whole lot more than EIGHT into the ark.

But what method did God use in real life - according to the actual Bible? Well in real life God had the door of the Ark close 7 days BEFORE the rain started. A truly horrible way to GET THE MOST people INSIDE the ark!

God's purpose is not to have a bunch of wicked people remain wicked and go to heaven. And the idea that a wicked person would "love God more" if only "God would torture him in purgatory - non-stop for a few 100 years" is not rational.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,258
13,496
72
✟369,595.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I said,

And through a lot of links bank and forth, you said this.

Note, that I did NOT say that you said TK was in hell. I said I don't know, which you will not admit.

Also NOTE, I have never claimed that any of the Kennedys were IN heaven. All I asked was CAN you know, for certain, that Ted Kennedy is in hell. I can't, and if you are honest about it, neither can you. Let Jesus be the judge.

There are several things concerning all of the members of the Kennedy clan which we can all agree upon, as follow:

1. None of them are now, or ever will be, in Nirvana (doesn't exist).
2. None of them are now, or ever will be, in the perfectly, perpetually, pretty pink persimmon palace in the sky (doesn't exist).
3. None of them are now, or ever will be, in Limbo (doesn't exist).
4. None of them are now, or ever will be, in Purgatory (doesn't exist).
 
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
There are several things concerning all of the members of the Kennedy clan which we can all agree upon, as follow:
1. None of them are now, or ever will be, in Nirvana (doesn't exist).
2. None of them are now, or ever will be, in the perfectly, perpetually, pretty pink persimmon palace in the sky (doesn't exist).
3. None of them are now, or ever will be, in Limbo (doesn't exist).
4. None of them are now, or ever will be, in Purgatory (doesn't exist).

What I asked, and haven't received an answer was: Do you KNOW that Ted Kennedy is now, for certain, in hell?

Yes or NO?

To follow the thought, I doubt you will say that he is in heaven, so you will say "yes."

With that answer, I can respond, WHO DIED AND MADE YOU JUDGE? Jesus is the only just judge, and if Mr. Kennedy (whom I loath for his liberal ideas and lifestyle, BTW) asked Jesus to come into his heart to rule and reign, then he is NOT in hell.

However, if God will not allow any impure thing into heaven (and by your lights he is impure), then where is he to go. Jesus just saved him, so he can't be in hell, and God won't allow him in heaven, so he can't be there.

WHERE IS HE?
 
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
And if you are honest about it, or stop imagining things, then you must admit that I never charged you with claiming that any of the Kennedys were IN heaven, or that I know, for certain, that Ted Kennedy is in hell. I do not, but the point was that what is basically conveyed is that he and like RCs will end up in Heaven if they die as a Cath. To the eternal horror of the impenitent.

But you just said,
There are several things concerning all of the members of the Kennedy clan which we can all agree upon, as follow:

1. None of them are now, or ever will be, in Nirvana (doesn't exist).
2. None of them are now, or ever will be, in the perfectly, perpetually, pretty pink persimmon palace in the sky (doesn't exist).
3. None of them are now, or ever will be, in Limbo (doesn't exist).
4. None of them are now, or ever will be, in Purgatory (doesn't exist).

Look, how are you certain, without a doubt, that they are in hell. Jesus is the only one to decide that. I cannot, and neither can you, and YOU KNOW IT!

BTW, I never said that he was in heaven, just because he is Catholic, which is what you are trying to get me to say. I reject that idea.

Also, many will say "Lord lord" and will end up in hell
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,258
13,496
72
✟369,595.00
Faith
Non-Denom
But you just said,

Look, how are you certain, without a doubt, that they are in hell. Jesus is the only one to decide that. I cannot, and neither can you, and YOU KNOW IT!

BTW, I never said that he was in heaven, just because he is Catholic, which is what you are trying to get me to say. I reject that idea.

Also, many will say "Lord lord" and will end up in hell

I think you may have me confused with the other poster. I apologize for creating the confusion. My views are, assuredly, not his.

I think we can say that we know various places where Ted Kennedy is not. Whether or not he is in hell or heaven I certainly cannot say with certainty.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: St_Worm2
Upvote 0