Purgatory!

[Albion]

The Protesting-Catholics of the 15th and 16th centuries felt that same way at one time.

Actually, the Protestants of the 16th century (I don't know who you had in mind for the 15th century) did NOT feel that way.

They rejected the idea of Christ having vested all authority in any denomination or official segment of his church to the exclusion of any other. They believe(d) that the true Church of Christ transcended all visible church organizations and was identified by adherence to faith in Christ rather than to the church institution.

The "cults and new religions" (as writers often term them in order to distinguish them from the Protestant churches) that were founded during the 19th century, however, are known for having returned to the idea of Christ having vested authority in a particular church organization--theirs. But since there was no continuity with the historic church (again, unlike the Protestants), their claims generally rested upon accounts of some new prophesy or else "revelation" that had previously been lost.

 

[Erose]

John told us that the Holy Spirit would teach us everything.

(1 John 2:27) “But you have not lost the anointing that he gave you, and you do not need anyone to teach you, the anointing he gave teaches you everything; you are anointed with truth, not a lie, and as it has taught you, so you must stay in him.”

ok. The question fall into the realm of how He will teach you.

Has the Holy Spirit/Jesus taught you what you believe about God?

Yes.

Has Jesus/Holy Spirit actually ever spoke to you and explained scripture to you?

Yes.

The only way one can know the truth is to have God personally teach him or her.

My witness is that Jesus/Holy Spirit has taught me about God. His teaching of me has gone on for forty years.

So yes I know God, and have seen Jesus.

Like I said. Same here. So obviously one of us is wrong, or both of us is wrong; but both of us cannot be right.

 

[from scratch]

Let's discuss the following like adults who are searching for the truth!

Purgatory comes from the Latin, purgo, meaning, "I cleanse." The Catholic Church agrees that it is a place of suffering, but are divided on how those in purgatory suffer. Some say fire, others say, tribulation.

Those who teach purgatory say, "That some die in grace and in the friendship or God, but burdened with venial sins and imperfections, or before they have done suitable penance for their sins. They teach that the souls of these are cleansed in purgatory of these last hindrances to their entry into the vision of God.

Their communion with the faithful on earth is not broken. The living can bring comfort and alleviation to those in purgatory by their intercessions, by Masses, prayers, almsgiving, and other pious works which, in the manner of the Church, the faithful are accustomed to do for others of the faithful. They admit that the word purgatory in not a Biblical, and that this doctrine is not taught in Scripture." This from the words found in the Catholic Catechism.

The doctrine is founded on several verses, one being 2 Mac.12:43-44-45. I will not bring these verses into the discussion because Maccabees has no evidence of being Divinely inspiration.

Matt.12:31-32-33, Jesus said, "I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

1 Cor.3:15, "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire (meaning purgatory.)"

1 Pet.3:19, "By which also He (Jesus) preached unto the spirits in prison (meaning purgatory.)"

This is a teaching of the Catholic Church; Restorationist and Mormons who deny that death brings the final judgment. They maintain that millions of people will have an opportunity for salvation after they die. The Jehovah Witnesses believe men do not have a soul or spirit, and upon his death, the body goes back to dust. But, on the last day, God will create them again out of nothingness.

Each denomination has its own little twist, but the following will give us a rough idea of the thinking behind it. It is believed that God created only to bless. Christ's kingdom is moral in nature, and extends to moral beings in every state or mode of existence: that the probation of man is not confined to the present life, but extends through the mediational reign; and that as Christ died for all. Therefore before He delivers up the kingdom to the Father, all men shall be brought to a knowledge and truth, thus breaking the bondage of sin and death.

Your thoughts;

Phil LaSpino

I'm wondering why you want to discuss purgatory. Is purgatory something you believe in? Man(kind) isn't on probation.

 

[Erose]

Wow! Sorry but everything Erose wrote in the post above is a personal opinion of his that happends to be totally wrong.

Really? I don't think so. Only a few Protestant denominations (which are only the true early ones) have anything similar to a creed or some form of thorough confession, and definitely not any form of an official catechism. Thus the required beliefs of most evangelical churches for example are very small in comparison to the high churches in Protestantism, and the Apostolic Churches.

Personal interpretation of Scripture is a doctrine based upon relativism, it is as simple as that.

Concerning obedience? Well the lack of this virtue is what creates denominations. You have someone who thinks he is smarter and wiser than his original church leadership, and thus determines that he does not need to be obedient and eventually rejects the leadership, and starts his own church.

 

[from scratch]

I think that they teach that man is body & breath rather than body & soul. It seems that their teaching rejects any continuing existence of the human soul in consciousness after bodily death.

Interesting. I think you're right.

 

[South Bound]

Really? I don't think so. Only a few Protestant denominations (which are only the true early ones) have anything similar to a creed or some form of thorough confession, and definitely not any form of an official catechism.

I see. If "only a few do", then you should have no problem naming a couple that don't.

You're able to put your money where your mouth is, aren't you?

 

[from scratch]

Well, get this one. The guy I was talking about that I used to work with, he grew up in the Addventist church but was no longer a member but because he still believed what they taught he was totally bought and sold on the idea of soul death. The way he saw it, he could sin all he wanted and not have to pay the price as when his body dies, so does his soul. The way he saw it, it was a win win situation. He got to do all the sins he loved to do, you know, party, party, party; sleep around, sleep around, and sleep around, and never have to worry about judgment. And I'm telling you, he totally believed this. I tried to speak to him about sound doctrine and it didn't matter.

It is sad but what would happen was that I would give him a verse and talk about it with him. He would then in turn talk it over to his mother and talk to her about it, and the next day he would tell me what she said and how wrong I was. I don't care what anybody says, most people look towards an outside party to tell them what is true. This person in the thread saying they don't look to a third party, I view that as mostly rubbish, maybe not for him or her. Whether it's your church, your pastor or Bishop, your mother, brother, sister, or friend, most people would rather take someone elses word for it.

That indeed is a major problem within what is called Christianity.

 

[from scratch]

What he says is confussing. I agree with him about us not carrying our sin nature with us when we die. No longer having that propensity to sin haunting our soul will be a very welcome change if you ask me.

Now what I've been saying is that God created in us a born again spirit that God can and does recognise as being comepletely pure, perfect, righteous, and holy. When we die, God sees both the soul and spirit, the soul He sees maybe battered and torn because of the effects of sin, but He doesn't see sin in the soul, why, because the sin nature isn't there. He sees the wounds, yes, but not the sin. The sin nature is the reason why we sin, it's the reason why we have all the wounds in our soul. When that goes away, so does the character of sin in the soul.

Paul addresses this in Romans 12 about the living sacrifice. He discusses this in Romans 7 about the body (carnal aspect of our current lives) being at war with us (our soul).

 

[Erose]

Some years back I discovered that Jerome had erroneously translated "repent" as "do penance" in the Latin Vulgate and this developed into people being given strict penances to complete after their confession. Often times these penances were such that many were not able to complete them in their lifetime and it was probably out of this that the doctrine of purgatory developed.

Yeah. No. As MC said disciplinary penance was much harsher in the early church.

Concerning the Latin Vulgate the Latin phrase is agat(e) poenitentiam, which can be translated into English as "do penance"; but there are other variations that would also be acceptable. "Agat" means "I do", "I act" or "I make". And "poenitentiam" means "repentance", "penance", or "regret". So two acceptable translations of the Latin phrase "agat(e) poenitentiam" are: "make repentance" and "act with regret".

But in the old English do penance was synonymous with repent, but only in the full understanding of what repent actually means. Repent isn't just being sorry for one's sins. No, it's full meaning is to regret one's sins, and strive to make amends for those sins. So in a true sense, since today the word "repent" has been watered down, perhaps it would be better to go back to the usage of "do penance". Maybe it would mean more of what one should do when they truly repent.

 

[from scratch]

Not necessarily. Conditional mortality/immortality, being the only alternative to either unconditional immortality or mortality, doesn't suggest that life or consciousness necessarily ceases to exist after bodily death, if one possesses immortality.

Further, it isn't exclusive to Seventh Day Adventists. As a former agnostic, I still possess a fairly stringent standard for accepting doctrine, and conditional immortality is the only assumption I can find which is supported by biblical statements such as "God is able to destroy body and soul," "Christ alone possesses immortality," and that we must strive to "put on immortality" just as we "put on Christ." The alternative has far less support, otherwise I'd accept it, but if forced to choose between both Jesus' and Paul's doctrine, and an assumption that supports the doctrine of hell, hades, or some other version of the afterlife held by pre-Christian Gentiles for the sake of maintaining the ways of any institution, then I'll have to go with scripture, even if that leads me into "heresy."

Is Jesus merely toying with our minds when He talks about the physically deceased?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Yeah. No. As MC said disciplinary penance was much harsher in the early church.

Concerning the Latin Vulgate the Latin phrase is agat(e) poenitentiam, which can be translated into English as "do penance"; but there are other variations that would also be acceptable. "Agat" means "I do", "I act" or "I make". And "poenitentiam" means "repentance", "penance", or "regret". So two acceptable translations of the Latin phrase "agat(e) poenitentiam" are: "make repentance" and "act with regret".

But in the old English do penance was synonymous with repent, but only in the full understanding of what repent actually means. Repent isn't just being sorry for one's sins. No, it's full meaning is to regret one's sins, and strive to make amends for those sins. So in a true sense, since today the word "repent" has been watered down, perhaps it would be better to go back to the usage of "do penance". Maybe it would mean more of what one should do when they truly repent.

But the reading "do penance" is how it came to be widely understood. Erasmus' reading of the original Greek μετανοια came as something of a shock to the early sixteenth century, including a certain monk from Wittenberg.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Really? I don't think so. Only a few Protestant denominations (which are only the true early ones) have anything similar to a creed or some form of thorough confession, and definitely not any form of an official catechism. Thus the required beliefs of most evangelical churches for example are very small in comparison to the high churches in Protestantism, and the Apostolic Churches.

Personal interpretation of Scripture is a doctrine based upon relativism, it is as simple as that.

Concerning obedience? Well the lack of this virtue is what creates denominations. You have someone who thinks he is smarter and wiser than his original church leadership, and thus determines that he does not need to be obedient and eventually rejects the leadership, and starts his own church.

That's a pretty simplistic reading. A reformer does not believe he is smarter and wiser than the original church leadership; he believes he is being faithful to early generations of church leadership over-against corruptions in the present day. A cursory reading just of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article II, shows how the early Lutherans attempted to show not only that they were more faithful to Scripture than Johann Eck in his Confutation (the first written argument against the Augsburg Confession), but how they were more faithful even to Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Hugh of St. Victor than their late medieval nominalist Catholic opponents. I'm always trying to hammer it home to my Book of Concord class that the early Lutherans did not attempt to roll back the clock to the first century, but were mostly concerned over developments in Catholic doctrine over the past three centuries especially and less so over the high medievals.

 

[Erose]

I see. If "only a few do", then you should have no problem naming a couple that don't.

You're able to put your money where your mouth is, aren't you?

Do you know of any non-denominational church that has a set creed, or fixed catechism? I don't.

Southern Baptists have a short "message and faith", that pretty generic; but no official catechism. Southern Baptist Convention > The Baptist Faith and Message

The Disciples of Christ has a short creed; but no official catechism.

Our Confession

Many other Baptist churches lay claim that the follow the Westminster Confession of Faith, but oddly enough as a Baptist, never heard it mentioned once as a Baptist; and after I learned of its existence, our pastor said that it is only a guideline, not binding.

Pentecostal churches to be a member you need to believe three things: Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Jesus Name Baptism, and their "oneness" doctrine concerning Jesus. No official confession, nor set catechism.

I can go on and on. Facts are facts. Most churches especially those that evolved from the Radical movement, are pretty easy on what one has to believe. But you already know that.

 

[Erose]

That's a pretty simplistic reading. A reformer does not believe he is smarter and wiser than the original church leadership; he believes he is being faithful to early generations of church leadership over-against corruptions in the present day. A cursory reading just of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article II, shows how the early Lutherans attempted to show not only that they were more faithful to Scripture than Johann Eck in his Confutation (the first written argument against the Augsburg Confession), but how they were more faithful even to Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Hugh of St. Victor than their late medieval nominalist Catholic opponents. I'm always trying to hammer it home to my Book of Concord class that the early Lutherans did not attempt to roll back the clock to the first century, but were mostly concerned over developments in Catholic doctrine over the past three centuries especially and less so over the high medievals.

I'm sorry I don't buy it. If Luther was really concerned with reforming the Church, there would never have existed a Lutheran Church. Don't get me wrong, there was a bunch of things he was right on, and there was much corruption among the authority of the Church due to the secular powers of the day meddling in the Church administration system. And yes at that time, just like sadly today, Catechism wasn't a priority, so there was a good number of false ideas floating around out there at that time. So I do believe that Luther and others had legitimate beefs. But somewhere the power corrupted him, and he ceased being a reformer and became a revolutionist.

If the Protestant reformation was just that a reformation movement, there wouldn't be 1000s upon 1000s of Christian denominations in the West. It may started out as a reformation movement, but it quickly changed to a revolution. And at that point all bets were off, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and the rest started throwing out what they didn't like and started adding things that they did. That isn't obedience.

 

[Erose]

But the reading "do penance" is how it came to be widely understood. Erasmus' reading of the original Greek μετανοια came as something of a shock to the early sixteenth century, including a certain monk from Wittenberg.

The reading "do penance" is an English translation. But most scholars if not all of them in the West at that, read the Latin Vulgate in Latin, and none read the Bible in English.

 

[Albion]

Do you know of any non-denominational church that has a set creed, or fixed catechism? I don't.

As concerns a creed, sure. There are many non-denoms that have and publish a Statement of Faith with numbered articles of belief that amount to a Creed. As for a Catechism, probably not.

 

[South Bound]

Do you know of any non-denominational church that has a set creed, or fixed catechism? I don't.

First of all, why did you say "denominations" and then, the minute somebody challenges your bovine skubulon, change it to "non-denominational church"?

Second, yes, I know of many that affirm the creeds and several that affirm the Westminster Catechism.

Third, whether or not I know of any wasn't the question. You made the claim. therefore, it's up to you to show evidence for your claim.

Southern Baptists have a short "message and faith", that pretty generic; but no official catechism. Southern Baptist Convention > The Baptist Faith and Message

First of all, the BFM is a kind of catechism. It's just not called a catechism.

In addition, Baptists affirm creeds, confessions, and catechisms, including, but not limited to:

ANABAPTIST CONFESSIONS OF FAITH


•WALDENSES CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1120 and 1544
•THE SCHLEITHEIM CONFESSION, 1527
•DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH, 1527
•RIDEMANN'S RECHENSCHAFT, 1540
•THE DORDRECHT CONFESSION, 1632
•A DECLARATION OF SEVERAL PEOPLE CALLED ANABAPTISTS, 1659


ENGLISH BAPTIST-SEPARATIST CONFESSIONS

•A TRUE CONFESSION, 1596
•SHORT CONFESSION OF FAITH IN XX ARTICLES, 1609
•A SHORT CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1610
•A DECLARATION OF FAITH OF ENGLISH PEOPLE REMAINING AT AMSTERDAM, 1611
•PROPOSITIONS AND CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 1612-1614


EARLY ENGLISH BAPTIST ASSOCIATIONAL CONFESSIONS

•JOHN SPILSBURY AND HIS CONFESSION
•THE FIRST LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1644
•THE FIRST LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1646 Edition
•AN APPENDIX TO A CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1646, Benjamin Cox (Coxe)
•THE FAITH AND PRACTISE OF THIRTY CONGREGATIONS, 1651
•THE TRUE GOSPEL-FAITH DECLARED ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, 1654•THE MIDLAND CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1655
•THE SOMERSET CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1656
•CARTER LANE DECLARATION OF FAITH, 1757
•JOHN GILL'S DECLARATION OF FAITH, 1757


ENGLISH BAPTIST GENERAL CONFESSIONS


•THE STANDARD CONFESSION, 1660
•THE ASSEMBLY or SECOND LONDON CONFESSION, 1677 AND 1688, approved 1689
•A SHORT CONFESSION OR A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF FAITH, 1691
•THE COALHEAVER'S CONFESSION, 1745
•ARTICLES OF RELIGION OF THE NEW CONNEXION, 1770
•THE GOATYARD DECLARATION OF FAITH, 1792




AMERICAN BAPTIST CONFESSIONS

•THE PHILADELPHIA CONFESSION, 1742
•THE SANDY CREEK CONFESSION, 1758
•THE NEW HAMPSHIRE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1833
•TREATISE ON THE FAITH AND PRACTICE OF THE FREE WILL BAPTISTS, 1834 AND 1948
•THE ABSTRACT OF PRINCIPLES, 1858
•BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE, 1925
•BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE, 1963
Report of Committee on Baptist Faith and Message, May 9, 1963
Report of the Presidential Theological Study Committee, June, 1994
Report of Committee on Baptist Faith and Message, June 9, 1998
1963 and 2000 Amendment Comparisons

•CAMBRIDGE DECLARATION, 1998


GENERAL BAPTIST CONFESSIONS

•LIBERTY ASSOCIATION ARTICLES OF FAITH (1824)
•GENERAL ASSOCIATION ARTICLES OF FAITH (1870)
•GENERAL ASSOCIATION ARTICLES OF FAITH (1949)
•A SHORT CONFESSION OF FAITH, IN TWENTY ARTICLES, JOHN SMYTH


BAPTIST CATECHISMS

•A CATECHISM FOR BABES, OR LITTLE ONES, 1652
•A SHORT CATECHISM ABOUT BAPTISM, 1659
•INSTRUCTION FOR THE IGNORANT, BUNYAN'S CATECHISM, 1675
•BENJAMIN KEACH'S CATECHISM, 1677
•THE ORTHODOX CATECHISM, 1680
•A CATECHISM FOR BOYS AND GIRLS
•A CATECHISM OR INSTRUCTIONS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH
•THE PHILADELPHIA BAPTIST CATECHISM
•THE BAPTIST CATECHISM, CHARLESTON ASSOCIATION CATECHISM, 1813
•THE BAPTIST SCRIPTURAL CATECHISM, 1850
•A PURITAN CATECHISM, 1855
•A CATECHISM FOR LITTLE CHILDREN, 1864
•COMPEND OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES HELD BY BAPTISTS: IN CATECHISM, 186
•A CATECHISM OF BIBLE TEACHING, 1892
•A BRIEF CATECHISM OF BIBLE DOCTRINE


WALDENSES CATECHISM

•A CATECHISM OF THE SACRAMENTS OF BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S SUPPER


HARMONY OF CALVINISTIC BAPTIST CONFESSIONS OF FAITH

•First London Baptist Confession of Faith (1644/1646)
•Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)
•New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833/1853)
•Abstract of Principles (1859)
•Baptist Faith and Message (1925)

The Disciples of Christ has a short creed; but no official catechism.

That's OK. They're not Christians.

Many other Baptist churches lay claim that the follow the Westminster Confession of Faith, but oddly enough as a Baptist, never heard it mentioned once as a Baptist; and after I learned of its existence, our pastor said that it is only a guideline, not binding.

That you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true.

Pentecostal churches to be a member you need to believe three things: Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Jesus Name Baptism, and their "oneness" doctrine concerning Jesus. No official confession, nor set catechism.

First of all, as someone who attended an AoG, I can assure you that not all Pentecostal churches believe this.

Second, if a church does believe this, then it is, by definition, not Christian, as the Trinity is a defining belief of Christianity.

I can go on and on. Facts are facts. Most churches especially those that evolved from the Radical movement, are pretty easy on what one has to believe. But you already know that.

No, all I know so far is that you have no problem slandering others.

 

[Albion]

I'm sorry I don't buy it. If Luther was really concerned with reforming the Church, there would never have existed a Lutheran Church. Don't get me wrong, there was a bunch of things he was right on, and there was much corruption among the authority of the Church due to the secular powers of the day meddling in the Church administration system. And yes at that time, just like sadly today, Catechism wasn't a priority, so there was a good number of false ideas floating around out there at that time. So I do believe that Luther and others had legitimate beefs. But somewhere the power corrupted him, and he ceased being a reformer and became a revolutionist.

That's quite uncharitable and, worse, historically incorrect. There is no doubt that Luther did not intend a rival church, but it wasn't vanity that led to the establishment of one anyway. Most people know that Luther himself was condemned in an effort to shut him up, rather than address his concerns, but they do not have as much information about the beginnings of the Evangelical church. The fact is that Luther only reluctantly agreed to pastor a congregation of Christians who had left the Roman Church because they agreed with Luther's ideas concerning Scripture, Faith, etc. He didn't organize them or recruit them.

If the Protestant reformation was just that a reformation movement, there wouldn't be 1000s upon 1000s of Christian denominations in the West.

I don't see how that makes any sense. Any movement that promotes freedom is going to leave people with the ability to move on and out in a wide variety of ways. That doesn't mean that this is what the liberators wanted to happen and, in the case of the Protestant Reformers, absolutely contrary to what they believed prudent or desirable.

And at that point all bets were off, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and the rest started throwing out what they didn't like and started adding things that they did. That isn't obedience.

Well, obedience belongs to God first, not some monarch in Rome trying to perpetuate the Roman Empire in theory if not in reality.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

I don't see how that makes any sense. Any movement that promotes freedom is going to leave people with the ability to move on and out in a wide variety of ways. .

Christianity is about truth setting you free, not freedom leading you to the truth.

Luther put the cart before the horse and disaster followed.

 

[Albion]

Christianity is about truth setting you free, not freedom leading you to the truth.

It looks like you didn't understand what I wrote there, but I don't have the time or inclination to teach you all about the Reformation at this moment.