Purgatory

[Fidelibus]

No. None of that is as you're trying to make it be. First, I cannot make any judgments on the basis of one post and one or two words in it. I would at least have to do a much more careful study.

We are not talking rocket science here Albion, it is really quite simple.

He (major1) said.....

"However....I would suggest the writings of God as found in the written Word of God as what He said is the only truth." When he says the "written Word of God" , it's seems pretty obvious he is talking about the bible.

Then you posted......"Sola Scriptura does not "say" that the Bible is the only truth." So, between two adherents of sola scriptura, who has it right, you or him? What's so difficult about that?

Second, to do what you are asking, to guess at what a third party meant, is not fair to him.

Lol! It never seems to be a problem when the poster is Catholic!

Talk to me, if you wish, about Sola Scriptura and my own beliefs.

Thought I was.

If that's true, then someone is wrong, isn't that so?

Ahhh....That's been my question to you.

But if it is correct, then it's not that Sola Scriptura is false but that there are people who, like yourself, don't understand what it's all about.

Well, as a non-believer of this doctrine, can you blame me or anyone else for not understanding with so many different variants of it?

No, I'm not. I don't know what every member of every other denomination believes, even if those churches have official statements of belief.

Exactly, that's why I said what I said above!

I've explained the meaning of Sola Scriptura to you in a number of ways already. You apparently don't "get it,"

No, I get it. I get the fact that your hesitation to call out the poster (major1) on his different belief/interpretation of Scripture and yours would show the dis-unity between a couple of self proclaimed sola scripturist Protestants. Something that's been a conundrum for all of Protestantism since it's very short existence. (historically speaking) That I get........ loud and clear!

I have concluded as much because you cannot seem to stay with the topic here (what does Sola Scriptura refer to?) and instead keep trying to find fault with the people you think are adherents of Sola Scriptura.

Okay, so which of the many Protestant and non-denominational churches and sects believers are not adherents to the belief of Sola Scriptura?

As I have mentioned before, the Catholic denominations all claim to use Holy Tradition in order to determine dogma...and no two of them, looking at the same alleged traditions, have come up with the same doctrines.

First off, Swag365 addressed this quite well on post #700.

Secondly, There are no denominations within the Catholic Church. There are Rites though (23), all in full communion with the Holy See.

Have a Blessed day!

 

[Albion]

We are not talking rocket science here Albion, it is really quite simple.

I don't think so. But what's the reason you don't direct your question to Major since it's his view of the matter that you want to know more about?

Secondly, There are no denominations within the Catholic Church. There are Rites though (23), all in full communion with the Holy See.

That's an old and tired line by now. Of course I was referring to all the various Catholic church bodies/communions/denominations/etc. such as the Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Old Catholics, SSPX, SSPV, etc.

Those, along with your own, are all categorized as "Catholic," just as the churches you named (Lutheran, Methodist, etc.) are classified as "Protestant." And it has nothing to do with the different rites that answer to the bishop of Rome.

 

[Major1]

Thanks. I did read the Bible, I continue to read the Bible, as well as hearing the Bible read at Mass every Sunday and the other days I go to Mass. Reading more of the Bible, and studying it closely is one of the big reasons I became Catholic, after being a nice-and-incorrect-Protestant such as yourself. Perhaps if you read the Bible a little more, you will become Catholic too. Have a blessed day.

IF that is the case then why do you believe that Mary was conceived and lived a life of No sin.

IF that is true then why do you believe that Mary was "assumed" to heaven?

IF that is true then why do you believe in Purgatory?

 

[Major1]

Who cares? Only the RC Church has a pope, who we claim as being able to speak infalliably, and who has authority over the whole church. So the pope can enforce uniformity in those areas where he chooses, especially where he defines a dogma infallibly. Nobody has made the argument that Sacred Tradition by itself causes uniformity, so you have no point.

What Scripture in the Bible that YOU read declares the Pope as infallible?

 

[Major1]

We need Jesus, not a book--stand fast by both the oral and written truths that Jesus passed down through the Apostles and popes. It is the Catholic way to develop a personal relationship with Jesus.

If it was not for the book.......where do you think that you would have known about Jesus?

 

[Major1]

I never need to redefine God's Word, I know that heaven, hell, and purgatory exist because of God's Word.

Where in God's Word is the word "Purgatory" found????

 

[Major1]

I should point out that I had in mind the whole range of mistakes that I've encountered on these forums, but replying to your here and now is the challenge. So...

you said


Sola Scriptura does not "say" that the Bible is the only truth. There are many topics not covered there and many of them are indeed "the truth." The purpose of Holy Scripture is not to cover every possible matter that the mind of man can think up.



Wrong again. The principle we call Sola Scriptura does not assert that the reader cannot misunderstand anything that's found in the pages of the Bible. It's the revelation (the Bible) that's authoritative, not the reader.

All sorts of "helps" are used, and properly so. Secular history, for instance, the input of Bible experts, and knowledge of the ancient languages, idioms, recognizing what's literal and what's figurative, etc. Anglicans and Methodists have been more specific in asserting the place of reason and tradition.




Scripture contains all that is essential doctrine, not everything that relates to a person's religious life. An example of the truth of this point is to be found in John 20:30-31.


Agreed!

Agreed!

As is seen right here in front of us, the primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that the WORD Sola Scriptura is found in the Bible. However, That is just as much a fact as the Word PURGATORY is also not found in the Bible.

However, the thought of Sola Scriptura is not taught by the Bible is only true in the shallowest sense. The principle is strongly indicated by verses such as Acts 17:11 which commends the Bereans for testing doctrine—taught by an apostle, no less—to the written Word.

Sola scriptura is all-but-explicitly indicated in 1 Corth 4:61, where Paul warns not to “go beyond what is written.”

Jesus Himself criticized those who allowed traditions to override the explicit commands of God in Mark 7:6-9.

Whether sola scriptura is specifically mentioned in the Bible or not, Catholicism fails to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message.

Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible.
Source: What is sola scriptura? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Valletta]

Like so many words like "Trinity" the word "purgatory" is not in the Bible. That new books should be gathered into a compendium making up all of Holy Scripture is not in the Bible--Jesus said absolutely nothing about such a task, nor that the "true" Bible would be determined by some king 1600 years of so later by dropping books out of a poor translation of the Catholic Bible. If traditions were based on Scripture alone there would be no Bible whatsoever, the NT is based on Sacred Tradition, the oral teachings of Jesus as passed down through the Apostles and popes.

 

[Albion]

That new books should be gathered into a compendium making up all of Holy Scripture is not in the Bible--Jesus said absolutely nothing about such a task, nor that the "true" Bible would be determined by some king 1600 years of so later by dropping books out of a poor translation of the Catholic Bible. If traditions were based on Scripture alone there would be no Bible whatsoever, the NT is based on Sacred Tradition, the oral teachings of Jesus as passed down through the Apostles and popes.

I'm often surprised at people who cannot distinguish between Scripture and the process by which Scripture was determined.

In no way is Scripture devalued simply because the compilation of these writings took some effort. If the valued item were anything else, I am sure your same argument wouldn't be made.

It's not the searching for it that makes gold desirable. It's the gold. It's not the laboratory work that makes a new medicine effective against illness. It's the meds. The same holds for the Bible which, by the way, all the churches that the members here on CF belong to believe to be the word of God.

 

[Valletta]

I'm often surprised at people who cannot distinguish between Scripture and the process by which Scripture was determined.

In no way is Scripture devalued simply because the compilation of these writings took some effort. If the valued item were anything else, I am sure your same argument wouldn't be made.

It's not the searching for it that makes gold desirable. It's the gold. It's not the laboratory work that makes a new medicine effective against illness. It's the meds. The same holds for the Bible which, by the way, all the churches that the members here on CF belong to believe to be the word of God.

I've never come across such a person. You missed my point in the response to the fallacious argument that since the word "purgatory" is not in the Bible it does not exist. I used the example of the word "Trinity" since most Christians believe in the Trinity. "Bible" is the same, the word "Bible" is not found within the context of Holy Scripture. Not only that, there is not even a mention of the Bible, not just the word but how it was formed or what it consists of--no mention in the Bible. Also I explained that Sacred Tradition, the teachings of Jesus as passed down through the Apostles and popes, was the source of the Bible.

 

[Albion]

I've never come across such a person.

In that case, I'd recommend reading a few more of the messages here on CF because I read it in posts fairly often.

You missed my point in the response to the fallacious argument that since the word "purgatory" is not in the Bible it does not exist.

But I have not said that Purgatory does not exist for the reason that it's not mentioned in Scripture.

I used the example of the word "Trinity" since most Christians believe in the Trinity. "Bible" is the same, the word "Bible" is not found within the context of Holy Scripture. Not only that, there is not even a mention of the Bible, not just the word but how it was formed or what it consists of--no mention in the Bible.

Yes, that's all true, but the ABSENCE of some word does not prove that the item in question does exist!

 

[Swag365]

What Scripture in the Bible that YOU read declares the Pope as infallible?

None, as far as I am aware.

 

[Swag365]

IF that is the case then why do you believe that Mary was conceived and lived a life of No sin.

IF that is true then why do you believe that Mary was "assumed" to heaven?

IF that is true then why do you believe in Purgatory?

I believe them because they are true. Have a blessed day my friend.

 

[Swag365]

It's not the searching for it that makes gold desirable. It's the gold. It's not the laboratory work that makes a new medicine effective against illness. It's the meds. The same holds for the Bible which, by the way, all the churches that the members here on CF belong to believe to be the word of God.

The teachings handed down by our Lord and the Apostles are the "gold". Some of those teachings are recorded in Sacred Scripture. Some of those teachings are not recorded in Sacred Scripture. One example of this is that the baptism of infants is proper, and that the baptism of infants saves. That is not recorded in Sacred Scripture, and you believe it. So you believe in Sacred Tradition just like everyone else. You just refuse to admit it, which makes your entire argument a farce.

Why don't we just ask our friend @Major1 about that? Does the Bible teach that it is proper to baptize infants @Major1 ? Can Albion provide us a verse that teaches that, or is his belief in infant baptism a tradition that is not found in the Bible?

 

[Fidelibus]

I don't think so. But what's the reason you don't direct your question to Major since it's his view of the matter that you want to know more about?

Not sure why he hasn't responded to any of my posts, surely he's been keeping up. Unless he has me on ignore. Besides, you kind of put yourself in the equation when you said "Sola Scriptura does not "say" that the Bible is the only truth" after I quoted major1 post of him saying, "However....I would suggest the writings of God as found in the written Word of God as what He said is the only truth." So again, I, a non-believer of sola scriptura am asking two self proclaimed adherents of sola scriptura, does the sola scriptura (the bible alone) say the written word of God is only truth as major1 declares, or does the sola scriptura (the bible alone) does not say the Bible is the only truth? So I will direct the question to the both of you, who is right, Albion or major1? I would think either one of you would be gung-ho in defending your position.

That's an old and tired line by now. Of course I was referring to all the various Catholic church bodies/communions/denominations/etc. such as the Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Old Catholics, SSPX, SSPV, etc.

Wait a minute Albion, you forgot the American National Catholic Church, which has parishes in Connecticut, Florida, New Mexico and New Jersey. And let's not forget there's the Old Catholic Church, the Independent Catholic Church, the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, the Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch at Santa Fe, and a whole boatload of others.

Lol!...... Yes, I'm sure it does get old and tiresome for you, constantly being corrected by Catholics in your very unlearned opinions, and posts regarding this topic.

What you fail to mention Albion, is that these "independent" Catholic churches cheerfully profess that they're not subject to the Roman pontiff. They have said, "Thanks, but no thanks, we're fine on our own without a pope and it's perfectly acceptable to do that and still be Catholic!" I've read somewhere on a Catholic web-site, where a Catholic apologist said something along the lines....."It's ludicrous to think of a group of Catholics being subject to the Pope, and then another subset of "Catholics" who are not subject to the Holy See."

If these folks want to claim the name "Catholic" for their church, they ought to have some truth-in-advertising and profess from the pulpit all that the One Apostolic Holy Catholic Church professes. The decent thing for these churches to do would be to change their name to: Anglican, or just Protestant, or any other Christian denomination which has its roots in Catholicism, and then divorced itself from the Root.

These so-called "Catholic" churches have taken all the hard teachings of Christ, re-conformed them to something more palatable, something more in conformity with their own personal views like........ "I like it when everyone gets to go to communion, even if you're not in communion with my church!" or..... "I don't like it when women can't be priests!" "God wouldn't do [fill in the blank], and it's just coincidence that I don't like it when we have to do [fill in the blank]." ect.... ect....

Again, I remember reading somewhere a Protestant Pastor saying.......""If your god never disagrees with you, you may be worshipping an idealized version of yourself."

Those, along with your own, are all categorized as "Catholic," just as the churches you named (Lutheran, Methodist, etc.) are classified as "Protestant." And it has nothing to do with the different rites that answer to the bishop of Rome.

Ahh..... sure it does, you may want to re-read what I just posted above.

I will end with this quote......

“And so, lastly, does the very name of 'Catholic', which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.”-------St. Augustine

Except Albion, it seems that there are some churches which have indeed the audacity to claim for themselves the name "Catholic", when they have actually embraced not-a-few heresies.

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Fidelibus]

Why don't we just ask our friend @Major1 about that? Does the Bible teach that it is proper to baptize infants @Major1 ? Can Albion provide us a verse that teaches that, or is his belief in infant baptism a tradition that is not found in the Bible?

Excellent idea Swag365! That would be a very informative discussion worth following. Odds are though, neither one of them will accept your challenge.

Have a Blessed day!

 

[Albion]

Lol!...... Yes, I'm sure it does get old and tiresome for you, constantly being corrected by Catholics in your very unlearned opinions, and posts regarding this topic.

It gets tiresome mainly because it's so wrong.

What you fail to mention Albion, is that these "independent" Catholic churches cheerfully profess that they're not subject to the Roman pontiff.

Of course they wouldn't do that. Why would the head of one Catholic denomination 'cheerfully profess' that they're subject to the head of another and completely separate Catholic church?

 

[Fidelibus]

It gets tiresome mainly because it's so wrong.

Said the Protestant.

Of course they wouldn't do that. Why would the head of one Catholic denomination 'cheerfully profess' that they're subject to the head of another and completely separate Catholic church?

It still does not make them Catholic. All it does is make them just another one of the many fragmentations of Protestantism. And again, the decent thing for these churches to do would be to change their name to: Anglican, or just Protestant, or any other Christian denomination which has its roots in Catholicism, and then divorced itself from the Root.

Have a Blessed day

 

[Albion]

It still does not make them Catholic. All it does is make them just another one of the many fragmentations of Protestantism.

I'd love to hear from one of our Eastern Orthodox Christians at this point to tell us how his or her church is "just another one of the many fragmentations of Protestantism."

 

[Major1]

The teachings handed down by our Lord and the Apostles are the "gold". Some of those teachings are recorded in Sacred Scripture. Some of those teachings are not recorded in Sacred Scripture. One example of this is that the baptism of infants is proper, and that the baptism of infants saves. That is not recorded in Sacred Scripture, and you believe it. So you believe in Sacred Tradition just like everyone else. You just refuse to admit it, which makes your entire argument a farce.

Why don't we just ask our friend @Major1 about that? Does the Bible teach that it is proper to baptize infants @Major1 ? Can Albion provide us a verse that teaches that, or is his belief in infant baptism a tradition that is not found in the Bible?

The old Major would have responded...if asked directly.......NO!

There is NO Scripture in the Bible that validates infant baptism.
There is NO Church I am affiliated with or know of that baptizes infants.
IF there are.....they are completely against Bible Scriptures which would make them a NON-Christian church.

So the question should then be.....What do we learn from the Bible?

Matthew 28:19.......
“You must therefore go and make disciples of people of all nations my disciples. You must baptize them.”

A non-believer, a lost person would have to become a disciple of Christ prior to qualifying for baptism. A disciple is a taught one, a believer, a follower, in this case of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:19..........
“Now repent of your sins and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped away. 20 Then times of refreshment will come from the presence of the Lord, and he will again send you Jesus, your appointed Messiah.”

Acts 16:30.........
“‘What must I do to be saved?’ They told him, ‘BELIEVE upon the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved".

A person must become a believer in Jesus Christ first.

Acts 16:32..........
“And they spoke the word of the Lord to him… and he was baptized at once.”

After receiving the word of God, the Philippian jailer accepted it and was baptized. But the point is that, based on the Bible, infants and small children do not have the capacity to comprehend the seriousness of baptism or to undertake the needed changes. So infant baptism is not a practice in harmony with the Bible.

Thank you for the opportunity to bring forth the Word of God to you so that you will have the opportunity to learn and grown in faith.