• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Purgatory

Discussion in 'Denomination Specific Theology' started by jhjhh, Dec 30, 2020.

  1. Swag365

    Swag365 Well-Known Member

    +420
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    Nonsense.
     
  2. Swag365

    Swag365 Well-Known Member

    +420
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    You believe that the book of James is the inspired word of God, and you cannot produce any verse from the Bible that teaches it.

    The canon of Scripture is tradition.
     
  3. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,614
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    "Nonsense" is a really good word for you.

    My 12 -year-old grandson is continually making up new sounds. He says a sentence then changes one word in the sentence to some silly one-syllable nonsense word. It cracks him up every time.

    I agree with him.
     
  4. Swag365

    Swag365 Well-Known Member

    +420
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    I wish your grandson well, sir. And I wish you well too.
     
  5. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,614
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I will no longer respond to such silly NONSENSE! 10 times is enough and if you need to debate this....go back and read the other 9 posts on the subject.

    This argument over James has now reached over the top.
     
  6. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,614
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Thank you. We are in fact both very well.

    I pray the same for you.

    By the way....I have not criticized you in any way. I have questioned your comments and posts on the things you believe but you of course free to believe whatever you choose to believe.

    I believe as a Protestant that what we believe on spiritual matters must be found in the Bible which is the written Word of God.

    You as a Catholic choose to believe teachings that have been added called traditions. That is OK with me.

    I do not think that is the basis for Biblical Christianity but then again that is your choice.
     
  7. Swag365

    Swag365 Well-Known Member

    +420
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    I don't need to debate it. I already know that you believe that the book of James is the inspired word of God, and that you cannot produce any verse from the Bible that teaches it. If you could produce that verse, you would have done it already. The fact that you cannot produce the verse clearly demonstrate that you hold to the very same Sacred Tradition that you profess to reject.
     
  8. Swag365

    Swag365 Well-Known Member

    +420
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    Thank you too.

    Well you said that I do not read the Bible. That was a criticism.

    Regardless, there are plenty of things on which we can agree, and perhaps it would be better to focus on those. After all, both of us can agree that we are saved by grace and by the merits won by our Lord Jesus by his sacrifice on the cross.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2021
  9. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,614
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Not reading the Bible is not a criticism but an observation.

    And yes.....we are actually not arguing against each other as much as we are supporting our different theological positions.
     
  10. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,614
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    But my dear friend......I have already told you that there is NO Scripture which specifically says James is an inspired book of the Bible. I have told you several times that the infallible church of the Catholics religion which you have said produced the Bible which includes James. Again, that argument is them muted and does not matter one way or the other.

    But that is not the problem. You see, there is NO book in the Bible that claims it is specifically an inspired book. So do you think that all of them should be removed or just James.

    You see, because NO individual book of the Bible claims it is inspired, your argument about James just does not have any legs to stand on.

    When I speak of the Bible as inspired, I am referring to the fact that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God and makes the Bible unique among all other books.
     
  11. Swag365

    Swag365 Well-Known Member

    +420
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    James should not be removed, nor should any other book of the Bible be removed.

    I agree with your understanding of what the word "inspiration" means.

    Let's take a look at 2 Thess 2:15 (KJV):

    Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.​

    "The book of James is the inspired word of God" is a tradition that was taught by the Apostles by word of mouth. As you wrote, there is "NO Scripture which specifically says James is an inspired book of the Bible". But one of the Apostles told people in the Church that the Book of James was inspired. The teaching was handed down orally by the Apostles, but the teaching was not recorded in Sacred Scripture.

    The teaching is one of the "traditions" that is referred to at 2 Thess 2:15. And you hold to that tradition, just as the Bible says you should.

    The point is that not all Christian truths are found within the Bible. Some traditions are recorded in Sacred Scripture. Other traditions were given orally by word of mouth. The "traditions of men" are those traditions that were neither recorded in Sacred Scripture, nor orally taught by our Lord or the Apostles.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2021
  12. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    941
    +261
    Catholic
    Private
    Nonsense, I never said you did not know anything about the Catholic Church because you are Anglican.

    What I did say after you posted:

    Was......

    That being.....

    Followed up with.....

    So please show me where in these quotes I said that because you are you are an Anglican, you cannot and do not know anything about the Catholic Church? That is a flat out falsehood, and a retraction should be in order. However, I won't hold my breath.

    Gotta agree with Swag365 post # 734.

    "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."

    I've always been told it is impossible to pat oneself on the back...... Hmm... guess it's not! ;)

    Nope, more fallacies Albion. Again...... what I said was...

    "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"

    First off, take note that I didn't say word one about the Oriental Orthodox Church.

    Secondly, are you suggesting that the Eastern Orthodox church, Oriental Orthodox Churches are a result of the Protestant Reformation? Because I'm sure not, and I bet they would agree!

    Thirdly, I pretty sure the EO and OO churches do not consider themselves in full communion with the Holy See.

    One thing I will say Albion, and I think you should know this with all your self proclaimed knowledge of Catholic Church teachings ..... is what the Catholic Church does say, and that is of all the non-Catholic Christians in the world, the Eastern Orthodox are probably the closest ones, doctrinally, to the Catholic Church. They still have valid orders, it’s possible under certain circumstances for Catholics to receive the Eucharist at Eastern Orthodox liturgies, so they still have, in case you didn't know, valid orders, valid Eucharist, so they’re very very close.

    Good lord!.....What I said was that the dozen more churches (more like tens of thousands) I spoke of outside of the EO, and OO churches, like your very own Anglican church, as well as the Seventh Day Adventist churches, Baptist churches, Lutheran churches, Methodist churches, Presbyterian churches, Pentecostal churches, and non-denominational “Bible” churches, ect. (not even mentioning all the other fragmented, home, garage, rented hall churches, ect.) were not in existence until "after" the Protestant Reformation. That being some fifteen hundred years "after" Jesus' ascension into heaven. A historical fact even you cannot deny!

    Sure there is, but you deflected by going on a whole different tirade accusing me of a slew of fallacies.
    But that's okay, I have very thick skin. So with that being said, let's look back at what major1 had to say on his post #720 in response to Swag365.

    "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 by the looks of this, I would think you would have much to say about what he is saying here. Especially how he says that your very own church is a........ NON-Christian church!

    I would bet if it were a Catholic calling your church a "NON-Christian church" you would find much to answer to! So, let's see if you have the sand to do the same with our old pal major1!



    Have a Blessed day!
     
  13. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,614
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    2 Thess. 2:15 is Paul referring to what HE HAD TAUGHT them when he was with them. It is the Word of God which enables the believer to stand and be stable where he stands.

    How can this verse be used to validate Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition when its context is about the return of Christ, not about apostolic succession? There is nothing here about RCC Sacred Tradition where authority and tradition are passed down from apostle to apostle.

    Matthew 15:3 & 9 God in the flesh said..............
    "And He answered and said to them, “And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? . . . BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.”

    2 Thess. 2:15 would be wrong to use to support what anyone has thought up or said since the death of the last Apostle.

    The word "traditions" is a technical term from a Greeek verb that means....."to hand down by tradition".

    These TRADITIONS in vire here that Paul is referring to were the gospel itself which had been preached among those in Thessalonians church. Taught actually means PREACHED!

    The gospel accounts came from the Apostles who were with Jesus.
     
  14. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,614
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I am well aware of the RCC teachings that you are rooted in. I compliment you on your through education from the RCC.

    What you must then ask yourself is......what the RCC has taught me is truth????

    You see my friend, what the RCC has taught you and what you have believed is that truth is relative. What I mean by this is that by what you believe, you can “stretch” the truth based upon the situation. So then, if you are in a bad situation and the truth might bring about something unpleasant, then you can change the truth to suit your need. But the fact of the matter is that either it is true, or it is false. Really, it is that simple! It is that black and white! There is no gray area when it comes to the truth. And the source of “truth” is only found in the Bible.

    You have said several times that YOU read the Bible. You have stated that the Bible is the Word of God.

    John 17:17 says.........
    "Sanctify them with TRUTH.....THY WORD IS TRUTH"!

    Now I submitt to you my friend this simple question...how can you say what you have said and then accepted the teachings of the Catholic church which are not found in the Bible?
     
  15. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    941
    +261
    Catholic
    Private
    Would you agree major1, (or anyone else reading this post) everything you/he posted here outside of quoting Scripture directly, is nothing more than your (his) fallible, personal interpretation and opinion, that has zero authority over anybody within this forum, (or the world for that matter) and could be in error? A 'yes' or 'no' answer would suffice.

    Have a Blessed Day!
     
  16. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    941
    +261
    Catholic
    Private
    Keep this in mind when you read my next sentence.

    Please show the verse or verses in the Bible where it say's that "the source of truth is only found in the Bible?"

    I sure don't see in this verse where it say's "the source of truth is only found in the Bible"

    Key words missing.......... "only" and "Bible."

    Have a Blessed Day!
     
  17. Swag365

    Swag365 Well-Known Member

    +420
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    I don't think the verse can be used to validate the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. I think it can be used to validate the concept that there are valid traditions handed down by the apostles but which are not found in the Bible, but the verse does not prove that that specific extra-biblical doctrines taught by the Catholic Church were taught by the apostles, of course.

    Well that is a valid point. Since the very nature of the traditions that I refer to are oral and not recorded in the Bible, someone could certainly come along, make up a story, and say "this was taught by the apostles" even though the apostles never taught it. I think this is the primary reason why Protestants object to the idea of "tradition" and prefer Sola Scriptura, correct? You think that the Apostles never really taught a doctrine like purgatory, infant baptism, or the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You think that the Roman Catholic Church simply made up a story like purgatory out of thin air, and made up a story about it being "tradition handed down by the apostles" even thought the Apostles never taught that, correct?

    I can understand that, because from my perspective, the major Protestant doctrines like Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Penal Substitution, OSAS, etc. are nothing more than stories that were made up out of thin air by Martin Luther and the other Reformers, because none of these things are taught by the Bible, and in fact contradict the Bible.

    So here's my question for you. Let's take something that we both agree on. We both agree that the book of James is the inspired word of God. Here, you already wrote that there is "NO Scripture which specifically says James is an inspired book of the Bible". Why do you believe that James is inspired, although the Bible does not teach it? How do you know that "the book of James is the inspired word of God" is just not another story that someone made up out of thin air, like purgatory, infant baptism or the real presence?
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2021
  18. Swag365

    Swag365 Well-Known Member

    +420
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    Thank you for the compliment. I'm well aware of the Protestant teachings that you are rooted in, and compliment you on your thorough education from Protestant teachers.

    Absolutely. What you must then ask yourself is . . . is what Protestant teachers have taught me the truth?

    Nonsense. The Catholic Church has not taught me that truth is relative.

    Absolutely. I totally agree.


    Nonsense. For example, it is true that the book of James is the inspired word of God. But you already wrote that there is "NO Scripture which specifically says James is an inspired book of the Bible". So here we have a truth that is not found in the Bible.

    Now let me ask you. Our Lord died and was resurrected in AD 33. At the earliest, the first book of the New Testament was written around AD 48, which is 15 years later. How did people get saved before the New Testament books were written, if the truth is only found in the Bible? Were all of the Christians who lived before the first book of the New Testament was written, lacking the truth? Were they all damned to hell because they did not know the truth? If not, how did they know the truth? How did they know about our Lord Jesus? How did they know about salvation by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus, when they did not have any books of the New Testament?

    The Bible is the word of God, but it is not the only word of God. Is every single word that our Lord said recorded in the Bible? Is every single thing that the Apostles taught recorded in the Bible? No, but these are also the word of God.

    Because the word of God is not limited to the Bible. The word of God also includes everything that our Lord taught that is not recorded in the Bible, and it also includes everything that the Apostles taught that are not recorded in the Bible. To ensure that both of these and the Bible are free from corruption, our Lord built "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3). Our Lord also taught us that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16), that he gave "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" to the leaders of his Church, and that "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". I believe that the Catholic Church is the same church that our Lord founded when he personally walked the Earth, and that gives me confidence that the Catholic Church teaches the truth revealed in Sacred Scripture, and the truth handed down orally by our Lord and the Apostles (Sacred Tradition).

    Let me ask you this, friend. Who was it that made copies of the Bible by hand for over a thousand years, before the printing press was invented? Who was it that God worked through for over a thousand years to preserve the New Testament that you hold in your very hands today from being corrupted?
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2021
  19. Swag365

    Swag365 Well-Known Member

    +420
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    Well I think that @Major1 automatically equates "God's word" with "the Bible" because of his Protestant upbringing. It's natural for him to think that way because that is how the Christian communities in which he was raised think. For example, when I was a Protestant, whenever I read "This is my body" and the "Eat my flesh" verses in John 6, I always presumed that the verses were meant symbolically. It never even occurred to me that the verses could be understood in a different way, because the entire community in which I was raised always treated those passages as symbolic. I didn't even know that there was any other interpretation, let alone that the majority of the Christian world has always viewed the verses more literally. If I had been raised in a well-educated Catholic environment, I would probably have looked at the verses in a much more literal sense, the way that I do now when I see the passages.

    I think one of the major stumbling blocks for Protestants, especially in the Southern part of the USA, is that they have been extremely isolated theologically and have only really had significant exposure to one particular form of Christianity. Most of what they learn about Catholicism comes from anti-Catholic sources, the south has a very long history of anti-Catholicism (coming from the KKK, for example), and many of their pastors demonize Catholics as being a group of pharisaical people trying to "earn their way into heaven," so they tend to be very biased and wary of anything Catholic. I think God will forgive them because many of them have been brainwashed from their youth to be anti-Catholic.

    But getting back to the point, if @Major1 does an unbiased, independent, study of the phase "word of God" as it is used in the Bible, I think he will clearly see that the phrase does not only refer to Sacred Scripture. But whether he will do that, of course, is up to him. His mind may be closed on the matter, unfortunately.
     
Loading...