Purgatory

[Major1]

No, it's #2 or #3. If you are heaven-bound, you must first spend time in Purgatory.

Yes. That is the Catholic teaching of course.

 

[Major1]

You read the Bible? Congratulations my friend. You did well.

Of course I did. I have and still do. Started when I was 12 years old.

That is why I am a born again Christian.

Romans 10:17........
“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

If you would take as much time to read the Bible as you have the CCC you would be amazed at what you could learn about God.

 

[Major1]

Except for those Christians who once believed, fell, and are now atheists.

Let me guess your response: "They were never really saved in the first place" quoting 1 John 2?

Correct!

What other answer could there possibly be?????

 

[Swag365]

Tradition of the Catholic church...YES. Sacred.....NO.

1. The book of James was included in the canon of Scriptures by the Catholic church. Since YOU believe the RCC is infallible, then your problem is with the RCC. I am amazed that you continue to challeange your own Catholic church's infallibility.

Since the time of the Reformation, the book of James has been controversial.

At one point in his career, Martin Luther famously stated, “St. James’s epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it” (German New Testament, “Preface,” 1522 ed.).
Luther removed this statement from later editions and even had good things to say about James.
Source: What’s Really Going on the Book of James? | Catholic Answers

Friend, the book of James is most certainly the inspired word of God. Now, could you please provide me the verse that teaches that the book of James is the inspired word of God? You cannot. That is Sacred Tradition. You believe it, but you refuse to admit it.

2. There are NO Scriptures in the Bible that support "Infant" baptism.

Do you agree, @Albion?

3. John 6:63 .........
" It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."
Some people believe that the bread and wine of communion are somehow transformed into Jesus’ actual flesh and blood, or that Jesus somehow imbues these substances with His real presence. These ideas, called transubstantiation (professed by the Catholic and Orthodox churches) and consubstantiation (held by Lutherans), ignore Jesus’ statement that “the flesh counts for nothing” (John 6:63). The majority of Protestants understand that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about His flesh and blood and hold that the bread and wine are symbolic of the spiritual bond created with Christ through faith.

Do you agree, @Albion?

 

[Swag365]

Of course I did. I have and still do. Started when I was 12 years old.

That is why I am a born again Christian.

Romans 10:17........
“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

If you would take as much time to read the Bible as you have the CCC you would be amazed at what you could learn about God.

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.

 

[Swag365]

Correct!

What other answer could there possibly be?????

That "once saved always saved" is false and contradicts the clear word of God, my friend. But that debate has been had before in this forum in other threads.

 

[Swag365]

If you are heaven-bound, you must first spend time in Purgatory.

Nonsense. The Catholic Church does not teach this.

 

[Swag365]

But doing that is common, if this provides any solace. It is almost routine on these forums to read Catholics criticizing Sola Scriptura based upon an incorrect understanding of Sola Scriptura. I find myself taking care with how I word my references to Sola Scriptura, especially in reply to a Catholic member, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. Just as I see in your reply here.

What is your personal pet-definition of Sola Scriptura in this particular instance?

I've personally quoted the definition of Sola Scriptura from the front page of Wikpedia and have you say that is not the "real" definition of Sola Scriptura while still refusing to provide an actual definition.

 

[Fidelibus]

Then I would expect you to address that reply to him, not me.

Thought I did

Well, that's a completely incorrect rendering of the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

Where am I in error?

So as they say, "Houston, we have a problem."

Apollo 13, what a great movie!

But doing that is common, if this provides any solace. It is almost routine on these forums to read Catholics criticizing Sola Scriptura based upon an incorrect understanding of Sola Scriptura. I find myself taking care with how I word my references to Sola Scriptura, especially in reply to a Catholic member, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. Just as I see in your reply here.

I know this is off topic, but how about a short summary of what it is you and the church you attend (Anglican?) believes the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to be. And would this summary share one hundred percent, the same belief/teaching and understanding of sola scriptura as the Seventh Day Adventist churches, Baptist churches, Lutheran churches, Methodist churches, Presbyterian churches, Pentecostal churches, and non-denominational “Bible” churches?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Swag365]

I know this is off topic, but how about a short summary of what it is you and the church you attend (Anglican?) believes the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to be. And would this summary share one hundred percent, the same belief/teaching and understanding of sola scriptura as the Seventh Day Adventist churches, Baptist churches, Lutheran churches, Methodist churches, Presbyterian churches, Pentecostal churches, and non-denominational “Bible” churches?

I'm telling you this supposed definition of Sola Scriptura is like the secret knowledge of the gnostics. He won't tell you what it is, only that he has the knowledge of the real-definition and that you do not.

 

[Valletta]

You might think that God's Word states that hell, heaven and purgatory exist, but unless you redefine "God's Word" to be synonymous with the Tradition of the Catholic Church, you cannot find any references in the Bible (God's Word to most Christians) to Purgatory, although hell (and its Hebrew relative, sheol) and heaven (or eternal life, or the Kingdom of heaven) have lengthy passages devoted to them.

Strangely, although Jesus talked a lot about heaven and hell He never managed to allude to a place called Purgatory. In fact, the only biblical support for the notion comes from a brief passage which is taken to imply the place, from one of Paul's letters.

While you are speculating about purgatory you might as well revive speculation about the state of babies who die without baptism - the place formerly known as Limbo.

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

 

[Albion]

Where am I in error?

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

I just wanted him to show as a sola scripturist where in the bible alone 'He' (Jesus or any writer of Scripture) says that the written word of God is the only truth.

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.

That meaning the bible contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it.

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.

In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong. Does that sound about right?

But do these verses say the bible alone contains all of the material one needs as a sole rule of faith, theology and truth, and that this material is sufficiently clear?

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.

Apollo 13, what a great movie!

Agreed!

 

[Valletta]

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!

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.

 

[Albion]

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.

It's also the way of the SDA, Mormons, and other so-called cults.

I am going to hazard a guess that the information from Jesus that their prophets or even claimed direct contacts with Jesus himself do not "pass muster" with you despite what you wrote here.

 

[Swag365]

It's also the way of the SDA, Mormons, and other so-called cults.

I am going to hazard a guess that the information from Jesus that their prophets or even claimed direct contacts with Jesus himself do not "pass muster" with you despite what you wrote here.

As opposed to the Protestant way of following the teachings of a scrupulous anti-Semite cult leader who tried to remove several books from the New Testament because their teachings contradict the fantasy religion that he concocted out of thin air.

 

[Fidelibus]

Sola Scriptura does not "say" that the Bible is the only truth.

So you're saying that the posters (Major1) understanding of sola scriptura is in error, for he say's it does on post #620. I will re-post his quote below.

However....I would suggest the writings of God as found in the written Word of God as what He said is the only truth.

There are many topics not covered there and many of them are indeed "the truth."

Outside of the Bible? Could you give examples?

The purpose of Holy Scripture is not to cover every possible matter that the mind of man can think up.

Does that include everything pertaining to “faith and practice”? I have to wonder if the poster (major1) would agree.

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.

When you say "we"........ again does that include the Seventh Day Adventist churches, Baptist churches, Lutheran churches, Methodist churches, Presbyterian churches, Pentecostal churches, and non-denominational “Bible” churches? Would you be confident to say that these churches mentioned would agree 100% with your above assessment of sola scriptura?

It's the revelation (the Bible) that's authoritative, not the reader.

Okay, say two Protestants from different denominations reads completely different meaning or interpretation of any given passage from the same bible, how would they determine who is in error, and whom is not if it is the bible that has sole authority?

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.

But under the belief system of Protestantism, would not all these sorts of 'helps' and 'Bible experts' be considered fallible and are subject to error? Yes/No?

Anglicans and Methodists have been more specific in asserting the place of reason and tradition.

By who's or what authority?

Scripture contains all that is essential doctrine, not everything that relates to a person's religious life.

Again, I have to ask. Would you be confident to say that the churches I mentioned above would agree 100% with your understanding and belief of what sola scriptura is?

An example of the truth of this point is to be found in John 20:30-31.

Could you be a little more specific on what John's statement in verse 30 suggest to you?

Also, What do you believe is the significance of John using the word "signs" instead of "miracles"?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Albion]

So you're saying that the posters (Major1) understanding of sola scriptura is in error, for he say's it does on post #620. I will re-post his quote below.

I really couldn't say without a lot of researching of the previous posts.

Outside of the Bible? Could you give examples? (of truths that are not found in the Bible)

Certainly. How to split an atom, how to bake a pineapple upside-down cake, what the average temperature is in Alaska, who was first to put a man on the moon. Lots of truths.

Does that include everything pertaining to “faith and practice”? I have to wonder if the poster (major1) would agree.

Of course it doesn't. What language is to be used at Mass isn't included nor is there anything about Limbo or much of what the Church has adopted concerning the procedures that govern weddings, for example.

When you say "we"........ again does that include the Seventh Day Adventist churches, Baptist churches, Lutheran churches, Methodist churches, Presbyterian churches, Pentecostal churches, and non-denominational “Bible” churches?

By "we" I was referring to people who understand what Sola Scriptura means, regardless of their church affiliation.

Okay, say two Protestants from different denominations reads completely different meaning or interpretation of any given passage from the same bible, how would they determine who is in error, and whom is not if it is the bible that has sole authority?

How would two Catholics from different denominations approach Holy Tradition decide which version of Tradition is the right one, and who has sole authority to decide?

It looks to me that you are drifting away from the subject--Sola Scriptura--and trying instead to make whose understanding of Scripture is correct. Those two are entirely separate issues.

Could you be a little more specific on what John's statement in verse 30 suggest to you?

The point there was that the translation I presented to you, from a very well respected version of the Bible, has as its meaning that Faith exhibits itself in a certain way. You, by contrast, wanted for it to make Faith and Good Works be separate issues and both of them be meritorious when it comes to salvation.

 

[Fidelibus]

I really couldn't say without a lot of researching of the previous posts.

Actually, a lot of research is not necessary Albion, all you have to do is go back a few posts on this thread. (post #620) Here, I'll re-post it for you.

However....I would suggest the writings of God as found in the written Word of God as what He said is the only truth.

Now, him being a self proclaimed adherent of Sola Scriptura, and by your very own words back on post # 692, you said:

Sola Scriptura does not "say" that the Bible is the only truth.

So it seems very simple, the two of you, both admitted adherents of Sola Scriptura have completely different beliefs and understanding of what the doctrine Sola Scriptura embodies. So, please explain to an unbeliever of Sola Scriptura like myself, which one of you has it right, and which one of you are wrong? And who or what authority can you turn, to make that determination? The Bible? Not the Bible? Some authority outside of the Bible?

By "we" I was referring to people who understand what Sola Scriptura means, regardless of their church affiliation.

Well, this is an interesting response, for I just showed above where two adherents of Sola Scriptura from different Protestant denominations (pretty sure major1 is not an Anglican) having completely different views of Sola Scriptura. So the question remains, are you 100% confident that the people (the "we" you speak of) of the many different Protestant affiliations have exactly the same understanding of Sola Scriptura that you and your denomination has?

How would two Catholics from different denominations approach Holy Tradition decide which version of Tradition is the right one, and who has sole authority to decide?

As soon as you address the post this reply came from, I will be more then happy to address and correct this post of yours.

It looks to me that you are drifting away from the subject--Sola Scriptura--and trying instead to make whose understanding of Scripture is correct. Those two are entirely separate issues.

You are kidding.... right? I am still trying to figure out which of the Protestant and/or non-denominational “Bible” churches, all adherents to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone) have the same understanding and meaning of Sola Scriptura! It seems to take an act of Congress to get an answer.

Now, as far as trying to understand which of these same churches/sects understanding of Scripture is correct? Well all one has to do is scroll back on any one of the many threads within this Christian forum and see how much disagreements about Scripture there are among the Protestant and non-denominational “Bible only” believers. Again, all adherents of sola scriptura! So no, to a non-believer of the Sola Scriptura doctrine.....they are not two entirely separate issues!

I mean think about it from a non-Sola Scripturist perspective, when we see folks on this forum from one of the many Protestant and and non-denominational “Bible only” churches arguing and disagreeing on any certain passage of Scripture, (all under the supposed guidance of the Holy Spirit no less) it sure fuels our argument that this doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the Bible Alone) is nothing more than a unbiblical, man-made doctrine that has created dis-unity among its believers, and has only been in existence since the Protestant Reformation.

The point there was that the translation I presented to you, from a very well respected version of the Bible, has as its meaning that Faith exhibits itself in a certain way. You, by contrast, wanted for it to make Faith and Good Works be separate issues and both of them be meritorious when it comes to salvation.

You are welcome to your personal opinion, doesn't mean you are right, and didn't answer my question in regards to John 20:30.

" What do you believe is the significance of John using the word "signs" instead of "miracles?"

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Albion]

Actually, a lot of research is not necessary Albion, all you have to do is go back a few posts on this thread. (post #620) Here, I'll re-post it for you.

Now, him being a self proclaimed adherent of Sola Scriptura, and by your very own words back on post # 692, you said:

So it seems very simple, the two of you, both admitted adherents of Sola Scriptura have completely different beliefs and understanding of what the doctrine Sola Scriptura embodies.

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. Second, to do what you are asking, to guess at what a third party meant, is not fair to him. Talk to me, if you wish, about Sola Scriptura and my own beliefs.

So, please explain to an unbeliever of Sola Scriptura like myself, which one of you has it right, and which one of you are wrong?

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

Well, this is an interesting response, for I just showed above where two adherents of Sola Scriptura from different Protestant denominations (pretty sure major1 is not an Anglican) having completely different views of Sola Scriptura.

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

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. There's nothing remarkable about that.

So the question remains, are you 100% confident that the people (the "we" you speak of) of the many different Protestant affiliations have exactly the same understanding of Sola Scriptura that you and your denomination has?

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.

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.

If your idea, then, is that unless everybody has the same understanding of the meaning of Holy Tradition, then Holy Tradition itself must be false and this would be a good place for you to start your questioning.

 

[Swag365]

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.

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.