Purgatory!

[catholichomeschooler]

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.

Nor the knowledge.

 

[Albion]

Nor the knowledge.

The next time you feel you have to have the last word, just say so.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

The next time you feel you have to have the last word, just say so.

I don't think that is possible with you.

 

[stevenfrancis]

I know that the Catholic/Orthodox Church is the only Church with any authority from God.

Thank you sir. Fair enough. We are in agreement here.

But I also know that the Catholic/Orthodox Church has abandoned much of the written Word of God.

Which written words of God would those be? We are most often accused of adding to, (i.e. our continued use of the Dueterocanonicals), rather than abandoning the written word. I'm very curious about the answer to this question, so that I may do some research on this matter. To see where the Church of Christ, and the protection of the Holy Spirit changed Churches. What Church that would now be. Did Christ lie to his Apostles? Did the gates of hell, in fact prevail, and cause her to go into a state of apostasy, and make the Holy Spirit move on to a different Church. In the new, visible or invisible Church which is now watched over and protected by the Holy Spirit, (since I know Jesus is not a liar, and is in fact THE truth), what are the doctrines of faith which the Church no longer teaches, which the new blessed Church of Christ, (named_____________________________), teaches correctly on. Are these doctrines of the new church, different from the ones which the Apostles, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Bishops and Popes have taught? What authority makes the new doctrines true, and guarantees their truth?

I also know that because it stopped teaching the whole truth, it no longer walks with the Holy Spirit.

Here again, sir, what is the whole truth? Where is Christ's Church deficient in truth. What is the date, year, etc. that Jesus commanded the Holy Spirit to leave His Church, and inspire another? Once again, what was that Church? Does IT still exist? Or has it been further transferred. Is it an invisible Church which was around since the Apostolic Age? What part of the whole truth have we lost. It is somewhat distressing. The Catholic Church boldly claims to be the Church founded by Jesus, and to be the only Church teaching the whole truth of Jesus Christ. And you're saying that while this may have been the case up until (some point), it is not the case now. When He comes again, Christ has a Church, which is His bride. It is visible. What Church has that become, and when?

The Church today, is very much being presided over as the Pharisees governed the Church is Jesus’ time here on earth.

I don't even know where to go with this. Do you mean by men who teach the perfection of Jesus, but themselves have difficulty in living it? (i.e. sinners)? Are you aware of very many people who are not sinners? Do you know of any men who can live up to the model of Jesus? Do you mean that there are some bad actors in the political heirarchy of the Church who are more politician and less pastor? You are right on both accounts, if this is what you're getting at. Jesus didn't multiiply himself to make the Church. He built the Church on weakness. He built it on Peter. Peter, who denied Christ 3 times. Peter who almost drowned by losing his faith on a water walk. Peter who was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and then rebuked as satan in the next passage in scripture. We are ALL human beings. We're weak. Our only strength is in Christ. But Jesus also said to Peter that he was to feed His Lambs and feed His sheep. He was also told he was to die in the same way as Jesus. He settled disputes among the Apostles. He healed, and made new Apostles. He kept the word of God safe from a world which hated it. If you look beyond the politics. If you look beyond the weakness of man, you begin to see something about the Church. It is the reason she is so hated. She still, to this day, speaks truth to a culture that hates truth. She still acts as an emissary of Christ to the sick, the poor and the hungry, being the largest charity in the world. But mostly, (and this is big), she still retains the magesterial teaching authority, and is the trusted protector of the sacred deposit of the faith, from Jesus to today. I know I'm a simpleton, and a late in life convert, but I don't see any other Church which fits the bill for being the Church founded by Christ. One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. I can point to no point in history where she lost her charter from Jesus, I don't see a particular place it was transferred to.

God bless you and keep you,

 

[Erose]

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.

And I pointed out the fact that Luther didn't start with the idea of starting a rival church. He did, I believe, start out as a reformer; but the problem is it didn't last. And what Luther was condemned by the Catholic Church on was those points that were heretical, and not everything that claimed. There were other reformers during that time, who stayed within the Church. Luther did not. So what I wrote, is historically correct; it is just not the way you perceive it to be.

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.

I don't think they wanted it to happen either. But it did. They opened a can of worms, and I don't think that they knew what was going to happen, but it happened. The Protestant Reformation was not a reformation. It was a revolution.

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

Obedience belongs first to God yes, and then to those He has appointed over us.

If Luther remained a reformer, he should have understood that the Church is huge, and it takes time for change to occur within her walls. Him and others expecting the Church to change overnight wasn't being very realistic.

But the facts are the facts. This whole idea of a Protestant Reformation is a farce. It should be called the Protestant Revolution, which is what it is.

 

[Albion]

And I pointed out the fact that Luther didn't start with the idea of starting a rival church. He did, I believe, start out as a reformer; but the problem is it didn't last.

And I didn't quibble with any of that. It was what you followed it with that drew my attention.

And what Luther was condemned by the Catholic Church on was those points that were heretical, and not everything that claimed. There were other reformers during that time, who stayed within the Church.

Who would those be, Erose? Let's take this one step at a time.

So what I wrote, is historically correct; it is just not the way you perceive it to be.

No, you were factually incorrect, regardless of whether one likes or dislikes Luther.

But as I said, let's take it one point at a time in order not to be just shotgunning the issue.

 

[Erose]

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

non-denominational churches are in themselves denominations. So they still apply.

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

They do? How many Baptists have heard of this Catechism? Is it still used in Sunday school class? Is it handed out to the members of the Church, and are told this is what you are to believe?

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.

I'm going to pull an Albion here, I don't have time to look for something that isn't there. If there are no creeds or catechisms then I won't find information on the web saying that "Hey we are so and so church and we don't have a creed or catechism."

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

Not much you have to believe in to be a Southern Baptist is there?

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)

Nice list. But how many of these churches make it a requirement to believe these? How many actually use these in their Sunday schools? How many pass these out to their members?

That's OK. They're not Christians.

They think that they are.

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

No. You got me on that one.

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

No AoG is basically Baptist who allow speaking in tongues, so they aren't like most of the others. The major ones though UPC, Church of God, etc. have these beliefs, but not much else.

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

They think they are.

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

I'm stating facts, nothing more.

You want to know what the Catholic Church teaches on "x"; all you got to do is get on-line and look it up in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. That is what it teaches and that is what she holds as true. If a Catholic believes otherwise, then they are wrong; and the Church is right. I don't think the same holds in Evangelical Churches. There is a wide range of beliefs on doctrinal subjects that there shouldn't be.

Maybe it has changed some over the last 20 years since I left Protestantism, and all of this is no longer. I don't hear much any more the "Personal Interpretation of Scripture" mantra that I used to hear when I was an Evangelical. So if it has changed, then I will back off and discuss this no more.

 

[Albion]

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.

Absolutely true, and not just a few.

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.

He's probably going to pull a "reverse Albion" there and say he doesn't have to prove a POSITIVE or something that he himself asserted.

 

[Erose]

And I didn't quibble with any of that. It was what you followed it with that drew my attention.

OK

Who would those be, Erose? Let's take this one step at a time.

Who? or do you mean what? Also this thread is about purgatory, and it has been completely derailed, and quite frankly should be closed.

No, you were factually incorrect, regardless of whether one likes or dislikes Luther.

I disagree.

But as I said, let's take it one point at a time in order not to be just shotgunning the issue.

Why? So that you can only offer "you incorrect" instead of supporting your points? You will have to provide something more than you normally do, which is usually only your opinion, before I waste my time on a discussion of this magnitude.

 

[Erose]

Absolutely true, and not just a few.

A non-denominational church is a denomination in itself so it is still a denomination. It is the final stage of splintering that Protestants love to do.

He's probably going to pull a "reverse Albion" there and say he doesn't have to prove a POSITIVE or something that he himself asserted.

No. I'm going to pull a Albion. Not a reverse Albion. A reverse Albion, would be me actually providing sources.

 

[Albion]

OK




Who? or do you mean what? Also this thread is about purgatory, and it has been completely derailed, and quite frankly should be closed.

Perhaps, but you chose to make it about Luther and I'm just saying that if that's the case, we ought at least be speaking factually about him and his place in history.

So, do I take it that when you said "And what Luther was condemned by the Catholic Church on was those points that were heretical, and not everything that claimed. There were other reformers during that time, who stayed within the Church" you didn't really know of any?? Or shall we just agree that this wasn't true, and move on?

Why? So that you can only offer "you incorrect" instead of supporting your points? You will have to provide something more than you normally do, which is usually only your opinion, before I waste my time on a discussion of this magnitude.

I know the drill, my friend. If I say it and it's news to any Catholic, he trots out the "your opinion" or something less polite in order to evade the discussion.

But if you cannot substantiate your comments WITH EVEN A REASONED OR COHERENT EXPLANATION, then it's obviously nothing. Contrary to what you'd like people to think, no one has demanded that you produce a stack of history books, but just some evidence of knowing the facts surrounding the allegations. In this case, I threw you a real softball--just identify a few of those alleged
other Reformers who stayed with Rome ("There were other reformers during that time, who stayed within the Church.")

 

[Albion]

A non-denominational church is a denomination in itself so it is still a denomination.

But that's a separate issue. Let's call each non-denom a mini-denomination. The question still remains as to whether any of them have Creeds of Catechisms. (References have already been made to examples of non-denoms which do, so that should be a dead issue now).

No. I'm going to pull a Albion. Not a reverse Albion. A reverse Albion, would be me actually providing sources.

I didn't ask for sources, only whether or not you knew what you were talking about. Now that I have your answer to that, I'll have to explain it to you.

Luther was NOT one among many when he did what he did vis-à-vis the Roman Church. Calvin, Knox, Cranmer, et al came after him and were influenced BY him and his struggle. Wyclif and Hus are never considered to be figures from the Reformation, and Luther did not "pick up" on their thinking. He was, in fact, surprised when, later, it was pointed out to him how parallel his objections to Catholic doctrine were to those of Hus. And as for the Eastern Orthodox churches, whose views were and are similar to his with regard to Indulgences (the issue that touched off the break), he had only a very general knowledge of them, as would have been common among even the educated classes of Western Europe at that time.

What this means, or why we may say it is important to this debate, is that it shows Luther not to have been -- as you theorized -- a rebel who should have just fought it out within the church.

Of course, those forerunners (Wyclif and Hus) were burned, if you remember, so even had Luther taken pains to stay within the church, renouncing his own beliefs and conscience, it's only a fantasy that modern-day Catholics like to believe that anyone who raised issues with the Papacy in that time period was on safe ground so long as he professed a loyalty to "the Church!"

You're welcome.

 

[South Bound]

non-denominational churches are in themselves denominations. So they still apply.

Actually, they're not. That's why they're called "non-denominational".

They do? How many Baptists have heard of this Catechism?

I should hope all of them. The Westminster Catechism is kind of a big deal. But even if none of them have, your question is irrelevant because your claim was that Baptists don't affirm creeds, confessions, or catechisms.

Is it still used in Sunday school class?

Sometimes, yes.

Is it handed out to the members of the Church, and are told this is what you are to believe?

Depends on the church. The WC is only one of dozens of the historic creeds, confessions, and catechisms of Christianity.

I'm going to pull an Albion here, I don't have time to look for something that isn't there.

Then why on Earth would you make a claim with no evidence, knowing that it would be easily refuted?

If there are no creeds or catechisms then I won't find information on the web saying that "Hey we are so and so church and we don't have a creed or catechism."

Then why did you make the claim, knowing you had no evidence for your claim?

Not much you have to believe in to be a Southern Baptist is there?

In the last three SB churches I've been a part of, yes. There is a membership process that takes several weeks.

Nice list. But how many of these churches make it a requirement to believe these?

All of them require an affirmation of one the tenets expressed in at least one of those creeds.

How many actually use these in their Sunday schools? How many pass these out to their members?

Don't know. I haven't polled them.

They think that they are.

Yes, they do. People think they are things all the time that they actually are not. If you don't believe me, then just watch the first episode of each season of American Idol. Each one of those contestants believe to the very depths of their being that they're brilliant singers and yet, the only reason they're there is that it's so obvious that they're not, that their delusion provides comedic material. And even as they're being hustled out of the room with the hosts and all of America laughing, they insist the judges are wrong.

No AoG is basically Baptist

Both Baptists and AoGs are laughing at you now.

They think they are.

See above.

I'm stating facts, nothing more.

But you haven't stated facts. I've provided copious evidence to show that you haven't stated facts.

You want to know what the Catholic Church teaches on "x"; all you got to do is get on-line and look it up in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church.

And yet, when I post examples from the CCC, you argue against it.

That is what it teaches and that is what she holds as true. If a Catholic believes otherwise, then they are wrong; and the Church is right.

So, if a Catholic disagrees with the CCC (e.g. stating that sinners do not expiate their sins in Purgatory), they're wrong. But if a [Protestant] disagrees with the creeds and confessions, that's just evidence that there is doctrinal chaos in [Protestantism]?

Maybe it has changed some over the last 20 years since I left Protestantism, and all of this is no longer. I don't hear much any more the "Personal Interpretation of Scripture" mantra that I used to hear when I was an Evangelical. So if it has changed, then I will back off and discuss this no more.

I've been a Christian for twenty-five years now and the only time I've ever heard about "personal interpretation of scripture" is when Catholics are telling us that's what we "really" believe.

 

[Nanopants]

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

I'd think it depends on what you mean, and what example(s) you may have in mind. I assume Jesus wasn't always completely transparent, and that being under threat of being caught and condemned, yes He may have been at least a little tricky.

 

[MoreCoffee]

How did the thread get into Baptist confessions? None of the Baptists I know ever showed me a confession that included purgatory. In fact I can't recall any Baptist church of my acquaintance that had a confession of faith; they all had statements of faith that were a page or so long with around 12 to 20 points of doctrine. Stuff like this:

We believe...

... in one true and living God, Eternal Father, Son and Holy Spirit who is the creator and sustainer of all things, and therefore the Lord of everything and everyone.

(Gen 1:1, Col 1:16, Matt 28:19).

...in Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of God who gave Himself in love to take the consequences of humanities' rejection of God, and offers right relationship with God to all who rely on Him for salvation.

(Jn 1:1, Rom 3:21-23)

...in the Holy Spirit, who brings spiritual life helping us to see clearly what Jesus has done for us, and takes up residence in everyone who believes, adopting them as God's children, and enabling them to live for Jesus as their king.

(Rom 8:14-16, Gal 5:22-23)

...the Bible is God's words to us given through human authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, for our instruction, encouragement and spiritual growth.

(2 Pet 1:19-21, 2 Tim 3:16-17).

...in the church, the gathering together of all who have faith in Jesus Christ, to celebrate who God is and what He has done, to listen to His word and to encourage each other in following Him.

(Col 3:15-17, Heb 10:24-25)

...in the return of Jesus, who comes to gather together all who have loved him throughout history, judge those who reject Him, and to restore all things to their proper order.

(1 Thess 4:15-18, Acts 17:30-31)

...in the practice of Baptism and the Lords supper, in which we publicly testify to our relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

(1 Cor 11:23-26, Matt 28:18-20, Acts 2:41)​

Which is okay but hardly comparable with the 1689 Baptist Confession.

 

[South Bound]

How did the thread get into Baptist confessions?

Ask your fellow Catholic. He's the one who made the dishonest claim that we don't have creeds, confessions, or catechisms.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ask your fellow Catholic. He's the one who made the dishonest claim that we don't have creeds, confessions, or catechisms.

What's your local church's statement of faith like? Is it like the one I posted from one of the Baptist churches in my city? The one in my previous post.

 

[South Bound]

What's your local church's statement of faith like? Is it like the one I posted from one of the Baptist churches in my city? The one in my previous post.

You just said the topic of this thread is Purgatory, not Baptist creeds.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You just said the topic of this thread is Purgatory, not Baptist creeds.

It is, but since you made Baptists creeds into part of your critique it seems only fair to ask what your own congregation has to say about the matter. Do people in your church have to read and agree to the 1689 Baptist confession before they can be received into full membership? If not then isn't the inclusion of that creed in your list nothing more than blowing smoke because it is a dead letter from the past that is no longer believed very much?

On purgatory, Baptists are mistaken.

 

[South Bound]

It is, but since you made Baptists creeds into part of your critique

Do you mean, "since my fellow Catholic chose to make it an issue"?

it seems only fair to ask what your own congregation has to say about the matter. Do people in your church have to read and agree to the 1689 Baptist confession before they can be received into full membership?

No.

If not then isn't the inclusion of that creed in your list nothing more than blowing smoke because it is a dead letter from the past that is no longer believed very much?

No.

On purgatory, Baptists are mistaken.

And I believe I've shown sufficient evidence to show that we're not. Anyway, why should we care that you think we're wrong? After all, all you have is "Well, you just don't understand" and your religion holds no authority over us, nor are we subject to its teaching or heretical doctrines.

And, most damning of all (hopefully, only in a metaphorical sense), no two Catholics in this thread have been able to agree on an answer.

Some say sinners expiate their sins in Purgatory. Some say they don't. One genius even says "their" doesn't mean "their". Some say Purgatory is to cleanse sins. Some say the Bible's teaching that the Blood of Christ cleanses from all sins is true (albeit, always with a caveat). Some say the purpose of Purgatory is to "perfect sinners". Some say that the Bible's teaching that Christ has already perfected those whom He is sanctifying is true (albeit, again, always with a caveat).

So, perhaps you and your fellow Catholics should get together and decide what you believe before you lecture us on what we believe.