The Grave Danger of the Catholic-Based "Purgatory" Theory!

[Albion]

Can you point to where purgatory is mentioned in the bible? I can't find it. Also, baptism is an outward sign of our faith, its has no saving power. Universalism states everyone is saved no matter what (a position John Paul II had taken before though whether he considered dogma I'm not sure but he wrote it in one of his books) but, and while I can only speak for myself, we are saved by His grace through faith. In other words, with true faith in Jesus Christ's sufficient sacrifice, our sins are forgiven.

You're right that Purgatory is neither mentioned nor described in the Bible, but I believe you're wrong about some of the rest of that.

Baptism IS indeed connected to forgiveness of one's sins, according to the Bible, so it is an open question as to whether the sacrament/ordinance is only an outward sign of one's faith.

While I personally agree with you about salvation and faith, John Paul said that those who lived upright lives in accordance with their non-Christian religions could be saved through Christ's sacrifce, even if they didn't know him. That's not Universalism which, as you correctly said, means everyone will be saved sooner or later.

 

[Metal Minister]

Baptism IS indeed connected to forgiveness of one's sins, according to the Bible, so it is an open question as to whether the sacrament/ordinance is only an outward sign of one's faith.

We could have that discussion, but that's for another thread.

While I personally agree with you about salvation and faith, John Paul said that those who lived upright lives in accordance with their non-Christian religions could be saved through Christ's sacrifce, even if they didn't know him. That's not Universalism which, as you correctly said, means everyone will be saved sooner or later.

As I said, he never called it dogma, but he gets as close to universalism as he can without actually calling it that.

 

[Tangible]

I just showed Scripture
Where's your Scripture that states 'complete satisfaction'?

Romans 3:21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Either our righteousness is by the law of works or by the law of faith. It is either our own righteousness or Christ's righteousness imputed to us. The first will always completely fail. The second will always completely succeed.

God is just. He makes the guilty pay. And there, hanging on the cross, is the payment - Christ Jesus.

It is finished.

In fact, how does one differentiate OSAS and universalism? Ah yes, getting dunked in water. The Logos of the universe, the grand omnipotent being of all that exists, sends people to Hell for not getting dunked in water_
What a much better theology over Purgatory

Umm. I reject both OSAS and Universalism. Baptism is a means of grace, not a requirement for salvation. (How strange to hear a Roman Catholic arguing against the efficacy of Baptism.)

There is virtually no competency on the Protestant side on this subject. How does one even begin to deny Purgatory when you don't have anything except a claim which collapses on itself?

Perhaps you are addressing someone else here. What would be the claim that collapses?

 

[Albion]

We could have that discussion, but that's for another thread.

I agree, and that's why I didn't elaborate in my previous post.

As I said, he never called it dogma, but he gets as close to universalism as he can without actually calling it that.

You are correct that it was only an unofficial statement by the Pope. But that isn't the point. The point I was trying to make was that it isn't Universalism, although at a glance it looks almost as though it is.

BTW, the Pope's statement found a warm reception among the Catholic rank and file, despite being unofficial. A Gallop survey of religious attitudes held by members of various denominations showed that only 9% of American Catholics believe that belief in Christ as one's savior is necessary for salvation. That was a far lower percentage than for any other major denominational family of faith.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think this would be very difficult to prove from scripture. Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins. Complete satisfaction.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is that he has not only won forgiveness, but paid the legal penalty for our sins. And not just our past sins, but our future sins as well.

Does that mean that we are free to sin? By no means. We are dead to sin and alive in Christ. We should walk as he walked.

And when we sin, and we will sin, God grants us repentance, confession and absolution. In Christ God has forgiven, forgives, and will forgive all our sins.

Well stated.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Nothing that has been posted thus far reconciles what I have posted. Just like everything else, Protestants either make legal fictions, put up illusions of a competent argument (which is usually just the same claim put into different words), or repeatedly affirm that something wrong is right.

The central Protestant doctrine may as well be 'dumb it down until it works'.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I just showed Scripture
Where's your Scripture that states 'complete satisfaction'? In fact, how does one differentiate OSAS and universalism? Ah yes, getting dunked in water. The Logos of the universe, the grand omnipotent being of all that exists, sends people to Hell for not getting dunked in water_
What a much better theology over Purgatory
There is virtually no competency on the Protestant side on this subject. How does one even begin to deny Purgatory when you don't have anything except a claim which collapses on itself?

Just a reminder. Tangible is Lutheran, not Baptist, so getting "dunked in water" doesn't do anything for him in the sense you have implied.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Purgatory is deduced from Scripture the same way the Trinity and loads of other doctrines are. I don't see you denying any of those.
In fact, Martin Luther didn't necessarily deny Purgatory either. Protestants are against Purgatory, simply, because it is a Catholic belief- whether they realize it or not.

I just put up Scripture, and not one single word has been spoken on any of it. It shows that even in forgiveness, satisfaction is still required. I don't know how that is not registering. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the Scripture that shows it that I have posted, don't sit there and continue to repeat the same thing over and over.

Sir, at the risk of accusing you of bearing false witness, I would like to remind you that I responded in full to your scriptures in post #715. Please provide your response to mine in order to continue our discussion.

Here it is, for the third time -

I would like to address your scriptures, most of which you took from their context.


a. Mat 24:13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.

Nobody denies that one of the marks of a Christian is perserverance in the faith. Augustine, in his development of double predestination (a doctrine now denied by the Catholic Church) affirms that the elect will perservere and will do so, not by their own efforts, but by the grace of God.


b. Rom 11:22 See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness. Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

Romans 11 addresses the nation of Israel (God has not rejected His people - vs. 1) and their present state of unbelief. Paul makes it abundantly clear that God will restore national Israel, as evidenced by the verses you quoted.


c. Php 2:12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only but much more now in my absence) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.

13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

How simple to divorce this verse from the following verse which clearly explains who works out our salvation in us. It is God, not us.


d. 1Co 9:27 But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.

The Greek word, adokinos, which is translated as castaway, is only used here and is found nowhere else in the NT. It is best translated as not approved, as many English translations do. It does not connote eternal condemnation, as you would imply.


e.1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened to them in figure: and they are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
1Co 10:12 Wherefore, he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall.

In this passage Paul uses the nation of Israel as an object lesson (them in figure) for the Corinthians to warn the Corinthians to flee from temptation and sin. He does not threaten them with eternal damnation even as Israel did not suffer eternal damnation as a result of their sins in the wilderness.


f. Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 6:5 Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come,
Heb 6:6 And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God and making him a mockery.

9 But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way. 10 For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints. 11 And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, 12 so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

The writer to the Hebrews addresses the current state of the nation of Israel in the verses you quoted. He speaks of "them" and uses the plural consistently, not the singular. He does this to contrast with the believers (beloved) in verse 9 who are encouraged to realize the full assurance of hope.


g.Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins:
Heb 10:27 But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries.

39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.

After delivering the stern warning you quoted, the author then goes on to encourage the saints, ending the chapter with verse 39, which forthrightly states that we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Sir, at the risk of accusing you of bearing false witness, I would like to remind you that I responded in full to your scriptures in post #715. Please provide your response to mine in order to continue our discussion.

My response is that everything you have posted doesn't even respond to what I have presented.
We are forgiven- that is the basis of your argument. That's nice. Doesn't venture on what I posted.

 

[bbbbbbb]

My response is that everything you have posted doesn't even respond to what I have presented.
We are forgiven- that is the basis of your argument. That's nice. Doesn't venture on what I posted.

You posted the verses. I responded to them, explaining them and placing them within their biblical context, showing that they cannot mean what you implied them to mean.

Just don't pretend that nobody has ventured to respond to the verses you posted.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

You posted the verses. I responded to them, explaining them and placing them within their biblical context, showing that they cannot mean what you implied them to mean.

Just don't pretend that nobody has ventured to respond to the verses you posted.

Yeah, and somehow, you forgot what the subject was about

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yeah, and somehow, you forgot what the subject was about

Apparently it was you that must have forgotten what the subject was about because it was you who posted the verses, not myself.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Apparently it was you that must have forgotten what the subject was about because it was you who posted the verses, not myself.

I put up verses in which after forgiveness, God still required satisfaction.

You went on to talk about how God forgave and how we are forgiven and forgiveness is infinite and forgiveness, forgiveness, forgiveness.

It's like the Protestant mind is incapable of thinking any way other then in a legal fiction.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I put up verses in which after forgiveness, God still required satisfaction.

You went on to talk about how God forgave and how we are forgiven and forgiveness is infinite and forgiveness, forgiveness, forgiveness.

It's like the Protestant mind is incapable of thinking any way other then in a legal fiction.

However, you still failed to respond to my comments regarding your proof texts. Am I to conclude that your proof texts do not prove your points after all?

 

[SilenceInMotion]

However, you still failed to respond to my comments regarding your proof texts. Am I to conclude that your proof texts do not prove your points after all?

I'm not going to neglect my points in responding to comments that aren't even relevant to my points.

Protestants tend to relocate an argument so they can straw man it. Happens all the time, because quite frankly, that's all one can do when laboring under legal fiction.
It may sound harsh, but it's the truth. I get tired of the run around.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm not going to neglect my points in responding to comments that aren't even relevant to my points.

Protestants tend to relocate an argument so they can straw man it. Happens all the time, because quite frankly, that's all one can do when laboring under legal fiction.
It may sound harsh, but it's the truth. I get tired of the run around.

Since when has a direct response to proof-texts been a "run around"? I did not redirect any discussion to anything other than the texts you gave.

I sincerely regret that you are either unable or unwilling to address the texts you provided. It seems that you did not want to discuss them at all, but merely wanted to use them to prove your point. Sadly, your point was not proven by them.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Since when has a direct response to proof-texts been a "run around"? I did not redirect any discussion to anything other than the texts you gave.

I sincerely regret that you are either unable or unwilling to address the texts you provided. It seems that you did not want to discuss them at all, but merely wanted to use them to prove your point. Sadly, your point was not proven by them.

You are not going to be dishonest right in my face, trying to put a false image on what has been produced on this thread. You directly responded to my statements, but the response was completely irrelevant.

You know this to be true because I have shown you. So you can go ahead and put your antics away, trying to snake this thread.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You are not going to be dishonest right in my face, trying to put a false image on what has been produced on this thread. You directly responded to my statements, but the response was completely irrelevant.

You know this to be true because I have shown you. So you can go ahead and put your antics away, trying to snake this thread.

Very well. I shall break your verses down in the order you presented them and you can refer me to your direct response.

Here is the first one, with my response -

a. Mat 24:13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.

Nobody denies that one of the marks of a Christian is perserverance in the faith. Augustine, in his development of double predestination (a doctrine now denied by the Catholic Church) affirms that the elect will perservere and will do so, not by their own efforts, but by the grace of God.

 

[Metal Minister]

Very well. I shall break your verses down in the order you presented them and you can refer me to your direct response.

Here is the first one, with my response -

a. Mat 24:13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.

Nobody denies that one of the marks of a Christian is perserverance in the faith. Augustine, in his development of double predestination (a doctrine now denied by the Catholic Church) affirms that the elect will perservere and will do so, not by their own efforts, but by the grace of God.

I've been following this along, and am I to assume that the above verse is considered evidence for purgatory? I'm sorry I've been bouncing from thread to thread, so I may be misunderstanding.

 

[Albion]

I've been following this along, and am I to assume that the above verse is considered evidence for purgatory? I'm sorry I've been bouncing from thread to thread, so I may be misunderstanding.

No, but I'd better let him do the explaining.