Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Scriptural evidence for your position would be nice....Says you.
It may seem "obvious" to you that you "just believe the Bible" and others "believe the traditions of men"; that's not so obvious to others for whom precisely the opposite is maintained. You're the one following human traditions and rejecting biblical, normative Christian teaching--such as the baptism of infants, the liturgy, the Eucharist, confession, etc.
-CryptoLutheran
Your posts do speak for themselves: Why do you ask for something that you are not even willing to consider? Is it more fun to make others defend their position instead of you having to defend your own?Scriptural evidence for your position would be nice....
"Man" was a common general statement. That linguistic trend lasted for centuries. And yes, being as Our Lord referred to being baptized in that chapter, I believe it's safe to say that He was in fact referring to baptism.John 3:5 has been referred to for baptizing infants.
John 3:5 says "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,"
John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. KJV
The scripture plainly says except a MAN.
The scripture is referring to a MAN, not an infant.
That is not a reference to baptism either!
You're denying that an otherwise saved person's works are being judged in that passage?This statement was made attempting to justify "purgatory".
"You don't believe that man needs to be purged of sin after death? You don't agree with 1 Corinthians 3:15?"
1 Cor 3:15 says this.
"If any man's work shall be burned"
Notice what the verse said.
1 Cor 3:15
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. KJV
The verse spoke of "man's work".
The verse did not speak of the man himself.
The verse spoke of "man's work".
Not even close to affirming purgatory.
Not even.
I'm not sure if you're referring to my comment as you didn't quote whatever inspired your posts. Even so...
"Man" was a common general statement. That linguistic trend lasted for centuries. And yes, being as Our Lord referred to being baptized in that chapter, I believe it's safe to say that He was in fact referring to baptism.
The word translated "man" in Jn 3:5 is NT:5100.
It is used 547 times in the NT and is translated a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all), certain (thing), divers, he (every) man, one (X thing), ought, partly, some (man, -body, -thing, -what), (+that no-) thing, what (-soever), wherewith, whom [-soever], whose ([-soever]).
The Greek word is "tis" (tis); an enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object:
KJV - a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all), certain (thing), divers, he (every) man, one (X thing), ought, partly, some (man, -body, -thing, -what), (+that no-) thing, what (-soever), wherewith, whom [-soever], whose ([-soever]).
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
When Jesus said "man" he meant what he said and said what he meant. Man.
If he had meant infant, baby, little one, he knew very well how to express what he meant.
You're denying that an otherwise saved person's works are being judged in that passage?
...I do not deny that it is a saved person's works that are being judged.
That is the point.
Works are being judged.
The eternal state of the man is not being judged but the works.
...
That is precisely what purgatory is. Sounds like we agree.
Actually, what I think is obvious is you do not understand what purgatory is or the function it is supposed to serve. 1 Corinthians 3:15 is what the Church teaches purgatory is and does.It is evident that what I said did not soak in.
Consider that judging a man and judging his works are not the same.
Anything that cannot be solidly supported with Scripture should be regarded as "the traditions of men", and even those within Traditionalist churches should insist on this. Unfortunately "Holy Tradition" has generally trumped Scripture and become more authoritative. The veracity of the Christian faith is not in jeopardy in the least, since the essential beliefs of Christians are summarized in the creeds and confessions (for those who are Traditionalists).To attack them as traditions of men is to cast doubt on the veracity of the Christian faith as a whole.
Actually, what I think is obvious is you do not understand what purgatory is or the function it is supposed to serve. 1 Corinthians 3:15 is what the Church teaches purgatory is and does.
Let's see if this verse teaches Purgatory or something else: If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.Actually, what I think is obvious is you do not understand what purgatory is or the function it is supposed to serve. 1 Corinthians 3:15 is what the Church teaches purgatory is and does.
Anything that cannot be solidly supported with Scripture should be regarded as "the traditions of men", and even those within Traditionalist churches should insist on this. Unfortunately "Holy Tradition" has generally trumped Scripture and become more authoritative. The veracity of the Christian faith is not in jeopardy in the least, since the essential beliefs of Christians are summarized in the creeds and confessions (for those who are Traditionalists).
Rubbish. Paul made it very clear that he was entitled to get money from those he taught. He also made it clear why he chose not to. It has absolutely nothing to do with that passage. The tribe of priests were given goods by other tribes for the services they performed. Once again we see the biblical foundation of paying those who teach.
Purgatory does not judge people; it purifies them. It judges their works.Purgatory being something that does not exist.
1 Corinthians 3:15 judges works not people.
Agreed, that is purgatory, you're absolutely right.The works are burned not people.
Nonsense, you're doing great.It takes a big stretch to weave a purgatory from that scripture
We should stick with authoritative sources so here are passages taken directly from the Catechism:The concept of purgatory is totally different. Quoting from the New Advent Encyclopedia (Catholic)
Catechism of the Catholic Church said:The punishments of sin
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84
If a person's work is burned, it is worthless unto God's kingdom. It's still a work though and, considering it was burned, it therefore relates to the stain of sin. That is what he is being purified from.Catechism of the Catholic Church said:III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY
1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
I ignored it because, no offense, you made a real mess of the quotation of my post with your comments mixed in. It's too big a pain in the neck for me to quote the message and fix it for you. If you quote my post properly and then include your comments outside the quotation, I'll be happy to respond.you missed or ignored my post on infant baptism
Guess we should all quit posting here; CF is not in the Bible.Anything that cannot be solidly supported with Scripture should be regarded as "the traditions of men", and even those within Traditionalist churches should insist on this. Unfortunately "Holy Tradition" has generally trumped Scripture and become more authoritative. The veracity of the Christian faith is not in jeopardy in the least, since the essential beliefs of Christians are summarized in the creeds and confessions (for those who are Traditionalists).
Rubbish. Paul made it very clear that he was entitled to get money from those he taught. He also made it clear why he chose not to. It has absolutely nothing to do with that passage. The tribe of priests were given goods by other tribes for the services they performed. Once again we see the biblical foundation of paying those who teach.
Please read what is said rather than what you would like to have been said or what you imagine was said.
Guess we should all quit posting here; CF is not in the Bible.
Guess we should all quit posting here; CF is not in the Bible.
Nor is the word "Bible" in the Bible; perhaps we'd better stop reading it.
Note by the way, this is literally a reductio ad absurdum, however, to a certain point I feel it is a valid, perhaps somewhat expressionist, satire, of the extreme view of nuda scriptura.
Maybe call them the law and the prophets, the scriptures or the apostles writings (the epistles)
Like sticking the Father, Son and Holy Ghost under the word trinity
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?