Purgatory

[Major1]

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

They may be true to the Catholic teaching you are told. However they are NOT to be found in the Word of God. Does that not cause you any concern at all???????

The Roman Catholic Church does not accept the Bible as the only source of truth. In fact, they do not believe the Bible is the only source of divine truth. The following quote comes from the Second Vatican Council.

. . . there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. . . Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known.
Source: Second Vatican Council. “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation.” no. 9.

This statement says that they believe that Sacred Scripture and sacred tradition are both necessary and both are divine truth. It is also important to notice that they believe sacred tradition preserves the Word of God. That is, sacred tradition has greater authority than the Sacred Scriptures. It is also important to note that they believe their understanding of divine truth evolves.

YOU have repeatedly stated that the Catholic church is the only source of truth. YOU have stated that the Catholic church is responsible for the Bible. YOU have stated that the POPE and the Catholic church is infallible.

Now then, I have to ask you ......does it concern you that the Bible YOU say the Catholic church is responsible for actually CONDEMNS traditions as doctrine which you accept as truth. That is a PARADOX that deserves an thoughtful response instead of a Catholic apologetic answer.

BUT the Bible says in Galatians 1:8.......
"But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed."

Colossians 2:8........
"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ."

Mark 7:8-9, 13............
“Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
He was also saying to them,
“You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.” . . . thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

 

[Major1]

None, as far as I am aware.

I REST MY CASE!

Romans 3:23...........
"ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God"

Psalm 51:5 ..............
“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Ecclesiastes 7:20..........
"Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins."

"ALL" is inclusive of humanity.
It includes Adam, Noah, Moses, Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew, Paul Peter, Mary, the Pope and you and especially ME!

All men are sinners and all men deserve to go to hell. It is only the grace of God by which men can be saved from hell to heaven by faith ONLY in the finshed work of the Lord Jesus Christ plus NOTHING.

Salvation DOES NOT include a church affiliation or water baptism or any good works.

Salvation is ONLY through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ!!!!

Again.........thank you for the opportunity to once again open the Scriptures and teach the simple Word of God.

 

[Albion]

In a way, we're contending against a theology that is even less credible than what churches that are considered by some people to be cults or at best marginally Christian base their beliefs upon. Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, Emmanuel Swedenborg, and other people claimed to have had direct communication with the divine, and entire denominations have developed out of that.

But when we take up the idea of "Sacred Tradition," which is the basis for doctrine in some of the oldest and largest denominations, we're talking about something that, in practice, is pure myth.

The term was just made up and has no Biblical basis. There really is no record of any continuous belief among the people that verifies whatever doctrine has been proclaimed by way of Sacred Tradition, even if that were a valid way of determining what the people of God absolutely must believe.

By contrast, however, Ellen Gould White, Herbert W. Armstrong, Joseph Smith, and others who are considered prophets by many followers, were real people whether or not any of us believe what they said.

 

[Major1]

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.

You are correct about the words Purgatory and Trinity.

However.....The Trinity comes under the heading of IMPLIED TRUTH because even though the specific word is not found, it is implied all through the Bible beginning even in the very 1st Verse.

In Genesis 1:1, the plural noun “Elohim” (“God” in the ESV) is joined with the singular verb “created”:
“In the beginning, [Elohim] created the heavens and the earth.” The pattern is repeated in

In Genesis 1:27.......
“So [Elohim] created man in his own image, in the image of [Elohim] he created him; male and female he created them.”

In Genesis 1:1-2...........
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

Colossians 1:16..........
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him".

So then.....if you agree that Jesus is equal to the Father and the Spirit, then by Bible study you now know that the TRINITY is IMPLIED in the Scriptures.

NOW. Will you take the time to do exactly the same thing to show where the word PURGATORY is suggested, or implied anywhere in the Scriptures????????

You said.................
"the NT is based on Sacred Tradition, the oral teachings of Jesus as passed down through the Apostles and popes."

NO sir, that is a totally incorrect statement. There is NO record whatsoever of any POPE being quoted in the Bible.
The New Test is a record of witnesses who were recorded by the Apostles and then placed into writings.

 

[Fidelibus]

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."

Nice try Albion, but this does not hold water. When I wrote of the "fragmentations of Protestantism" I was obviously was making reference to my earlier post #647.

"It would be nice to think that Scripture is so clear that no visible living interpretive authority is needed to provide the authoritative interpretation, if the fragmentation of Protestantism over the past five hundred years is not enough to falsify such a position, then how many more centuries of division would be needed to falsify it?"

Either you forgot this post, or you flat out didn't read it. At the time of my posting of the post you are referring too, I had no doubt that you were aware of the existence of the Eastern Orthodox long before the Protestant Reformation. Apparently I was mistaken.

With that being said, I would love to see your response to the first part of major1' latest post # 720 in regards to Swag365 post #714.

Have a Blessed day!

 

[Major1]

In a way, we're contending against a theology that is even less credible than what churches that are considered by some people to be cults or at best marginally Christian base their beliefs upon. Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, Emmanuel Swedenborg, and other people claimed to have had direct communication with the divine, and entire denominations have developed out of that.

But when we take up the idea of "Sacred Tradition," which is the basis for doctrine in some of the oldest and largest denominations, we're talking about something that, in practice, is pure myth.

The term was just made up and has no Biblical basis. There really is no record of any continuous belief among the people that verifies whatever doctrine has been proclaimed by way of Sacred Tradition, even if that were a valid way of determining what the people of God absolutely must believe.

By contrast, however, Ellen Gould White, Herbert W. Armstrong, Joseph Smith, and others who are considered prophets by many followers, were real people whether or not any of us believe what they said.

Correct!

The statements made by those you posted were nothing more than personal opinions!

 

[Albion]

Nice try Albion, but this does not hold water...
"It would be nice to think that Scripture is so clear that no visible living interpretive authority is needed to provide the authoritative interpretation, if the fragmentation of Protestantism over the past five hundred years is not enough to falsify such a position, then how many more centuries of division would be needed to falsify it?"

Either you forgot this post, or you flat out didn't read it.

Well, the point is ridiculous, not credible, and that's in addition to it being off-topic. Taking all of that into consideration, how much more ink do you suppose needs to be directed at refuting it??

 

[Fidelibus]

Well, the point is ridiculous, not credible, and that's in addition to it being off-topic. Taking all of that into consideration, how much more ink do you suppose needs to be directed at refuting it??

You are welcome to your personal opinion, which is of course, subject to error.

You know Albion, you've never seemed to be one for a loss of words. So why the crickets and deafening silence when it comes to this?

"With that being said, I would love to see your response to the first part of major1' latest post # 720 in regards to Swag365 post #714."

Have a Blessed day!

 

[Albion]

You are welcome to your personal opinion, which is of course, subject to error.

...and you as well. Have a nice day.

 

[Fidelibus]

...and you as well. Have a nice day.

So, more crickets in regards to major1 post #720?

 

[Swag365]

They may be true to the Catholic teaching you are told. However they are NOT to be found in the Word of God. Does that not cause you any concern at all???????

Friend, the word of God is not limited to the Bible. If you will kindly read your Bible you will discover that.

The Roman Catholic Church does not accept the Bible as the only source of truth. In fact, they do not believe the Bible is the only source of divine truth.

You do not accept the Bible as a source of truth at all, friend. That is why you believe that "By faith only a man is justified, and not by works," which is the exact opposite of what the Bible clearly states: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

YOU have repeatedly stated that the Catholic church is the only source of truth. YOU have stated that the Catholic church is responsible for the Bible. YOU have stated that the POPE and the Catholic church is infallible.

Nonsense. I never said these things.

Now then, I have to ask you ......does it concern you that the Bible YOU say the Catholic church is responsible for actually CONDEMNS traditions as doctrine which you accept as truth. That is a PARADOX that deserves an thoughtful response instead of a Catholic apologetic answer.

The Bible condemns traditions of men that clearly contradict the word of God, such as "By faith only a man is justified, and not by works," which is the exact opposite of what the Bible clearly states: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

 

[Albion]

So, more crickets in regards to major1 post #720?

If you insist, but there's not much there to answer to.

You start by suggesting that I cannot know anything about the Catholic Church (because I'm an Anglican) even though I was a member of the Roman Catholic Church longer than most of the Catholics who post here, had years of Catholic instruction, and taught religion in a Catholic school.

Then you move on to repeating your flatly misinformed claim that the Eastern Orthodox churches, Oriental Orthodox churches, and a dozen or more that could be added to the list are not classified as "Catholic" on the basis of doctrine and practice, in just the same way as the many Protestant churches are classified as Protestant. The latter is a favorite line of yours, so I'd expect some comprehension of the concept.

So what's to answer to all of that? It's already been explained a number of times.

 

[Swag365]

"ALL" is inclusive of humanity.

Is our Lord Jesus human? You tell me, friend.

by faith ONLY in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ plus NOTHING.

Well let's see what the Bible has to say about that:

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

I will stick with the Bible. Thank you.

Salvation DOES NOT include a church affiliation or water baptism or any good works.

Well your fellow Protestant in arms @Albion disagrees with you now doesn't he? Which Protestant is correct today?

Let's see what the Bible has to say about it:

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter)

I will stick with the Bible. Thank you.

Salvation is ONLY through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ!!!!

Well let's see what the Bible has to say about that:

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2)

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasures up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile (Romans 2)

I will stick with the Bible. I reject your tradition of men. Thank you.

 

[Swag365]

If you insist, but there's not much there to answer to.

You start by suggesting that I cannot know anything about the Catholic Church (because I'm an Anglican) even though I was a member of the Roman Catholic Church longer than most of the Catholics who post here, had years of Catholic instruction, and taught religion in a Catholic school.

Are you going to try to impress us with your big degrees and all the big things you have studied too? There are plenty of people who have studied and taught, and yet still have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Swag365]

In a way, we're contending against a theology that is even less credible than what churches that are considered by some people to be cults or at best marginally Christian base their beliefs upon. Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, Emmanuel Swedenborg, and other people claimed to have had direct communication with the divine, and entire denominations have developed out of that.

But when we take up the idea of "Sacred Tradition," which is the basis for doctrine in some of the oldest and largest denominations, we're talking about something that, in practice, is pure myth.

The term was just made up and has no Biblical basis. There really is no record of any continuous belief among the people that verifies whatever doctrine has been proclaimed by way of Sacred Tradition, even if that were a valid way of determining what the people of God absolutely must believe.

By contrast, however, Ellen Gould White, Herbert W. Armstrong, Joseph Smith, and others who are considered prophets by many followers, were real people whether or not any of us believe what they said.

This is quite amusing considering that both @Albion and @Major1 believe in the tradition of men Sola Fide, which directly contradicts the clear text of the Bible. They also believe in the tradition of men Sola Scriptura, which is found nowhere in the Bible and which also contradicts the clear text of the Bible.

Our friend @Albion on the other hand, correctly holds that infant baptism is proper, while our friend @Major1 correctly notes that infant baptism is not to be found within the text of the Bible. Thus, @Major1 demonstrates that @Albion in fact believes in the same Sacred Tradition that he professes to reject!

And neither @Albion nor @Major1 can provide a verse from the Bible that teaches that "the book of James is the divinely inspired word of God" even though both of them hold that "the book of James is the divinely inspired word of God" is a truth to be held by the Christian faithful. Thus, both of them demonstrate that they in fact believe in the same Sacred Tradition, which they profess to reject.

We should rename this thread to "Protestants in denial." The whole thing is very amusing to me.

 

[Major1]

This is quite amusing considering that both @Albion and @Major1 believe in the tradition of men Sola Fide, which directly contradicts the clear text of the Bible. They also believe in the tradition of men Sola Scriptura, which is found nowhere in the Bible and which also contradicts the clear text of the Bible.

Our friend @Albion on the other hand, correctly holds that infant baptism is proper, while our friend @Major1 correctly notes that infant baptism is not to be found within the text of the Bible. Thus, @Major1 demonstrates that @Albion in fact believes in the same Sacred Tradition that he professes to reject!

And neither @Albion nor @Major1 can provide a verse from the Bible that teaches that "the book of James is the divinely inspired word of God" even though both of them hold that "the book of James is the divinely inspired word of God" is a truth to be held by the Christian faithful. Thus, both of them demonstrate that they in fact believe in the same Sacred Tradition, which they profess to reject.

We should rename this thread to "Protestants in denial." The whole thing is very amusing to me.

Trying to play me against my friend Albion is like calling the Sea an Ocean. You are working allfull hard to prove something that does not even exist. But if it makes you fell better.......please continue.

Now then, Major does NOT have to provide a Scripture from the Bible that teaches the book of James is inspired.

All Major has to do for the 6th time is to remind YOU that YOU have stated that the Catholic church was responsible for the Bible.

Your argument then is with YOUR own Catholic church which included the book of James in the canon of Scripture.

 

[Swag365]

Trying to play me against my friend Albion is like calling the Sea an Ocean. You are working allfull hard to prove something that does not even exist. But if it makes you fell better.......please continue.

Now then, Major does NOT have to provide a Scripture from the Bible that teaches the book of James is inspired.

All Major has to do for the 6th time is to remind YOU that YOU have stated that the Catholic church was responsible for the Bible.

Your argument then is with YOUR own Catholic church which included the book of James in the canon of Scripture.

Nonsense. I believe that the book of James is the inspired word of God, and that this teaching is part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. You also know that the teaching is part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which is why you cannot provide a verse from the Bible that teaches it!

 

[Major1]

Is our Lord Jesus human? You tell me, friend.

Well let's see what the Bible has to say about that:

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

I will stick with the Bible. Thank you.

Well your fellow Protestant in arms @Albion disagrees with you now doesn't he? Which Protestant is correct today?

Let's see what the Bible has to say about it:

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter)

I will stick with the Bible. Thank you.


Well let's see what the Bible has to say about that:

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2)

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasures up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile (Romans 2)

I will stick with the Bible. I reject your tradition of men. Thank you.

YES. But Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. HE DID NOT HAVE A SIN NATURE so as to be included in the "ALL" have sinned. I assumed that everyone know that so I apologize for not be more clear for you.

You just said..........
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
That is a quote from the book of JAMES.

You just said again for at least the 6th time in post #775....."the book of James is not the divinely inspired word of God". Now you just quoted from that same book.

Do you not see how hypocritical that is??????

Does it not bother you at all to say one thing in one post and then contradict that very same comment in the next post.????/ Do you think that speaks well of your Catholic teachings?????

You then said............
I will stick with the Bible. Thank you.

But you have also said that.........."Catholic Traditons and the teachings from the Pope is just as good as the Bible"!

Do you understand how people are having so much trouble grasping your comments!!!!

 

[Major1]

Nonsense. I believe that the book of James is the inspired word of God, and that this teaching is part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. You also know that the teaching is part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which is why you cannot provide a verse from the Bible that teaches it!

So NOW.....after being shown that the Catholic church placed the book of James in the Bible.......it is now an inspired book!!!!

As I said...........the Bible itself declares in 1 Tim. 3:16..."ALL Scripture is inspired by God".

Is the book of James in the Bible?????

Yes.

Is it then Inspired?

Yes.

End of class!

 

[Swag365]

YES. But Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. HE DID NOT HAVE A SIN NATURE so as to be included in the "ALL" have sinned. I assumed that everyone know that so I apologize for not be more clear for you.

You just said..........
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
That is a quote from the book of JAMES.

You just said again for at least the 6th time in post #775....."the book of James is not the divinely inspired word of God". Now you just quoted from that same book.

Do you not see how hypocritical that is??????

Does it not bother you at all to say one thing in one post and then contradict that very same comment in the next post.????/ Do you think that speaks well of your Catholic teachings?????

You then said............
I will stick with the Bible. Thank you.

But you have also said that.........."Catholic Traditons and the teachings from the Pope is just as good as the Bible"!

Do you understand how people are having so much trouble grasping your comments!!!!

Nonsense. I never said that the book of James is not the divinely inspired word of God. I believe that the book of James is the inspired word of God, and that this teaching is part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. You also know that the teaching is part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which is why you cannot provide a verse from the Bible that teaches it!

As for "ALL" you correctly note that "ALL" does not include every human being. So your argument fails.