WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - UPDATED.

[GodsGrace101]

Our "Conscience" is the voice of the spirit man (or woman) inside. Before one is born again, the conscience follows how the child was brought up. It could be a sin generator or it could be a fair guide.

On the other hand, once someone is born again, with a NEW regenerated spirit inside, our conscience IS our Guide: it is how we walk by the Spirit. It is very dangerous for a believer to ignore their conscience. Most of the time, if not all of the time, when someone is disobeying their conscience, it is the Holy spirit, in the Human spirit, trying to get a believer to stop sinning. That is why it is dangerous to disobey the conscience when one is born again.

Maybe.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Yes you do. You LIVE by the maxim. Otherwise you'd have cited at least one scenario in your life that clearly calls for departure from it.

Obviously you find it the ONLY practical way to live - that's why you can't find any clear exceptions.

Over the years I've found a vast discrepancy between these two categories:
(1) What people recognize to be true.
(2) What they will actually acknowledge to be the truth.

I already found a scenario for you.
You just apparently do not accept it.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Yes you do. You LIVE by the maxim. Otherwise you'd have cited at least one scenario in your life that clearly calls for departure from it.

Obviously you find it the ONLY practical way to live - that's why you can't find any clear exceptions.

Over the years I've found a vast discrepancy between these two categories:
(1) What people recognize to be true.
(2) What they will actually acknowledge to be the truth.

What IS the truth?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Sola scriptura is self-defeating. It is like an atheist saying that there is no absolute truth, not realizing that he just gave an absolute truth.

Sola Scriptura states that we should only believe what is in the Bible. There is not one single verse in the Bible that teaches sola scriptura. So, according to sola scriptura, sola scriptura must be rejected.

A lot is not written in the bible...Sola scriptura means that the bible is our SOURCE of authority.

I don't know if you're the member I was speaking to before when I already stated this.

There needs to be a source of authority. Even the Catholic church uses the bible as authority. It ALSO uses Tradition, which would be the teachings of the Early Fathers...this does not detract from the fact that the bible is used for authority.

Pope Francis created quite a stir a few years ago when he stated in an official document that remarried persons could receive communion..if their pastor/priest agreed.

Why? Because he was stating something that Jesus did not agree with. The CC does use the bible for authority on doctrinal decisions.

Not only that, but sola scriptura lacks common sense. The whole New Testament could have easily been written in a month at most. What did apostles and their friends do the rest of the time? Did they sit on the beach of the Red Sea sipping Mai Tais? Absolutely not! They obeyed Christ's command and made disciples! The Apostle Paul's oral teaching was more thorough than his writings. His writings to churches were motivated by dealing with certain problems in the churches. So if Paul was silent in his writings on a certain dogma it was not because he did not believe in it - it was because there was no controversy over it. But when he was at the church teaching them orally, he gave them the ABC's of Christianity. And that was passed from generation to generation. This is what we call oral tradition.

I think everyone on this thread understands what oral tradition is.

Of course the Apostles taught others.
I'd say that the problem is that we would need WRITTEN support of what the Apostles and Early Fathers taught.

Would you agree? Things are not just "passed down orally" for 2,000 years. This would not be acceptable to anyone.

This does not mean that tradition is the inspired Word of God. But if you want to know what a person actually teaches you would go to ones who were closest to them. And those closest to the apostles would be their disciples. This is what we call the early church fathers. You can read their writings at Early Church Fathers - Christian Classics Ethereal Library. This is a non-Catholic, Christian web site! So it has not Catholic bias. But in reading what the early church fathers say that the apostles taught, we would see that the apostles taught Christ in the Eucharist, Mary as the new Eve, apostolic succession, Confession, that one can fall from grace, and salvation by faith AND obedience to God. This shows that the early church, from its inception, was Catholic!

I agree with the above except for a few items:
1. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist was believed at the beginning and is believed to this day by some Protestant churches...for example the Lutheran church. This is DIFFERENT from transubstantiation.

2. The veneration of Mary. I know that Mary was loved back then and is loved today. Catholics have taken this too far, almost declaring her a co-redemtrix and this is not what the Early Fathers meant. This has come about over time. And this is quite different than declaring her the New Eve - which I don't remember reading BTW, but I can accept that. She is also the new ark of the covenant....No problem with me.

3. Confession: I'd be interested in seeing some written support of this claim. Confession was different at the beginning and has changed over hundreds of years.

IMHO, the only reason that you reject some of the Catholic doctrine is because you do not see them in the Bible - but that is an invalid reason because that is based on sola scriptura, a self-defeating belief.

I reject some catholic doctrine because it is NOT biblical. I also believe that the ECFs do not agree with it. Purgatory did not become accepted till hundreds of years after Jesus' death. Some Catholic theologians do not believe it is present in scripture...you can take that or leave it,,,I can't take the time to prove it to you. Some PRIESTS do not believe purgatory exists. You'd have to know them personally.

Also, I reject your premise that Sola Scriptura is self-defeating. I don't even understatnd what you mean by that.

 

[JAL]

I already found a scenario for you.
You just apparently do not accept it.

I think the maxim is a tautology and, as such, devoid of exceptions. What I asked, if you recall, is for a scenario that clearly warrants departure from the maxim. I don't recollect anything from you even close to that.

Remember that we're talking about a deliberate effort to do evil.

How do you know that's the correct decision?
What if you felt that staying home was evil?
Isn't going to church part of keeping God's day holy?

I'm not SDA if that's what you're asking. I currently have zero compunctions in my conscience even if stay home 7 days a week.

Sounds to me like you're talking about ambivalence, when your degree of certainty is split 50% as to what is morally right. The maxim doesn't afford you any help in that scenario, except to imply that, if God is just, He cannot fault you for (proverbially) flipping a coin. Of course, if you have extra time (before the moment of reckoning), it's better to pray for insight as opposed to flipping a coin.

 

[Albion]

Purgatory did not become accepted till hundreds of years after Jesus' death. Some Catholic theologians do not believe it is present in scripture...you can take that or leave it,,,I can't take the time to prove it to you.

I'm thinking that you are right not to go too far into this particular issue, but here's one point that might be added. Catholic defenders of Purgatory, when trying to point to Scripture as having taught about a "Purgatory" can only refer to a few scattered words--fire, punishment, etc.

But the Catholic teaching on Purgatory is so specific and so complicated that to call such "evidence" a Biblical proof of "Purgatory" is like insisting that the Bible teaches about Chevrolets merely because we can find the word "wheel" in there somewhere.

Some PRIESTS do not believe purgatory exists.

It's true that the whole idea of Purgatory is being phased out now that most Catholics don't or won't believe in this remnant of Late Medieval imagery any longer. And that's not just about priests, but several recent popes have given their personal opinions about it which, although still saying there is a Purgatory, have, like the Catechism, completely redefined it.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I think the maxim is a tautology and, as such, devoid of exceptions. What I asked, if you recall, is for a scenario that clearly warrants departure from the maxim. I don't recollect anything from you even close to that.

I had to look up the word tautology and I'm still now sure what it means!

You're saying that everything we do is as a response to our conscience. The scenario I gave you is a valid one and one that gives Christians problems in making the correct decision. The correct decision, BTW, no matter what your conscience tells you, would be to stay home with the sick person.

Remember that we're talking about a deliberate effort to do evil.

Oh. This is not what I understood.
By Maxim what exactly do you mean?
I believed we were speaking about the conscience and I made the statement that it could not always be correct in what it speaks to us.

Why would anyone want to do a deliberate act of evil?

I'm not SDA if that's what you're asking. I currently have zero compunctions in my conscience even if stay home 7 days a week.

I'm not in the habit of inquiring as to denomination and I can't remember what I asked and won't check.
I also am not SDA.

Sounds to me like you're talking about ambivalence, when your degree of certainty is split 50% as to what is morally right. The maxim doesn't afford you any help in that scenario, except to imply that, if God is just, He cannot fault you for (proverbially) flipping a coin. Of course, if you have extra time (before the moment of reckoning), it's better to pray for insight as opposed to flipping a coin.

LOL
Agreed.
And also about praying vs a coin.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I'm thinking that you are right not to go too far into this particular issue, but here's one point that might be added. Catholic defenders of Purgatory, when trying to point to Scripture as having taught about a "Purgatory" can only refer to a few scattered words--fire, punishment, etc.

But the Catholic teaching on Purgatory is so specific and so complicated that to call such "evidence" a Biblical proof of "Purgatory" is like insisting that the Bible teaches about Chevrolets merely because we can find the word "wheel" in there somewhere.


It's true that the whole idea of Purgatory is being phased out now that most Catholics don't or won't believe in this remnant of Late Medieval imagery any longer. And that's not just about priests, but several recent popes have given their personal opinions about it which, although still saying there is a Purgatory, have, like the Catechism, completely redefined it.

Just two comments:
A great passage for purgatory is 1 Cor 3:15 (?), I think it's 15. And it's speaking about Paul and Apollos and the work they are doing. A priest theologian I know that also taught Greek and Hebrew plainly told me that purgatory is nowhere to be found in scripture.

I taught catechism for 6 years and at the year of teaching about sin, preparing for confession, I had to get purgatory in there somewhere. Kids are more afraid of purgatory than hell. Why? Because they feel they'll never "kill anyone" so they'll skip hell, but they know they sin and so would be spending some time in the other place. After they learned about sinning the fear grew. But not my group,,,I taught them about Jesus and how He loves them and I spend about 3 minutes on purgatory and that was it.
There's nothing to fear if we're trusting the Savior.

 

[JAL]

I had to look up the word tautology and I'm still now sure what it means!

You're saying that everything we do is as a response to our conscience. The scenario I gave you is a valid one and one that gives Christians problems in making the correct decision. The correct decision, BTW, no matter what your conscience tells you, would be to stay home with the sick person.

That's not an exception to the maxim. You are following the rule:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

In this case, you're saying that the morally right thing to do is "stay home with the sick person". Right. If you feel certain that such is the morally right thing to do, then do so. Don't ever try to do evil. Continue to follow the maxim, as you've been doing every day.

 

[GodsGrace101]

That's not an exception to the maxim. You are following the rule:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

In this case, you're saying that the morally right thing to do is "stay home with the sick person". Right. If you feel certain that such is the morally right thing to do, then do so. Don't ever try to do evil. Continue to follow the maxim, as you've been doing every day.

OK. I'll drop this right after this post.
Staying home was the right thing to do.
But going to church is also the right thing to do.
Maybe it's more complicated than you believe?

But I understand what you mean:
If I'm CERTAIN action A is evil....we do not do it.
And to use a word like EVIL with a Christian!
A Christian could sin, but I doubt he would do EVIL.
I see a difference, but God is a holy God and to Him any sin is evil.

I believe non-Christian persons are more prone to making a mistake...because their conscience is not well-formed.

I think that's it!

 

[JAL]

OK. I'll drop this right after this post.
Staying home was the right thing to do.
But going to church is also the right thing to do.
Maybe it's more complicated than you believe?

I already addressed that. The problem is that your posts are not consistent. In regard to the stay-home issue, some of your posts are of this tenor:

(1) I feel certain that staying home is right.​

Then you have other posts of this tenor:

(2) I'm in a quandary. My certainty is split 50% as to whether I should stay home to honor my sick spouse, or go to church to honor the Sabbath.​

And then every time I give you an answer, you vacillate again on the tenor!

Maybe it's more complicated than you believe?

Also bear in mind that the maxim doesn't really speak to the future. It speaks to the moment of decision - the moment when you're about to get in your car and drive to church.

But I understand what you mean:
If I'm CERTAIN action A is evil....we do not do it.
And to use a word like EVIL with a Christian!
A Christian could sin, but I doubt he would do EVIL.
I see a difference, but God is a holy God and to Him any sin is evil.

I believe non-Christian persons are more prone to making a mistake...because their conscience is not well-formed.

I think that's it!

All sin is evil. It's just a matter of degrees. Some sin is more evil than other sins. That's why, for example, even in human courts, major crimes carry a higher penalty.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I already addressed that. The problem is that your posts are not consistent. In regard to the stay-home issue, some of your posts are of this tenor:

(1) I feel certain that staying home is right.​

Then you have other posts of this tenor:

(2) I'm in a quandary. My certainty is split 50% as to whether I should stay home to honor my sick spouse, or go to church to honor the Sabbath.​

And then every time I give you an answer, you vacillate again on the tenor!

Also bear in mind that the maxim doesn't really speak to the future. It speaks to the moment of decision - the moment when you're about to get in your car and drive to church.


All sin is evil. It's just a matter of degrees. Some sin is more evil than other sins. That's why, for example, even in human courts, major crimes carry a higher penalty.

OK.
Agreed on all, but I wasn't wavering.
I gave you a scenario of a real problem that is actually encountered by some because they feel torn and are not sure what to do.

I, personally, would not have a problem making that decision on the spot.

I was stating the CORRECT action to take...that's all.
No wavering.

Catch you next time!

 

[packermann]

I'm thinking that you are right not to go too far into this particular issue, but here's one point that might be added. Catholic defenders of Purgatory, when trying to point to Scripture as having taught about a "Purgatory" can only refer to a few scattered words--fire, punishment, etc.

But the Catholic teaching on Purgatory is so specific and so complicated that to call such "evidence" a Biblical proof of "Purgatory" is like insisting that the Bible teaches about Chevrolets merely because we can find the word "wheel" in there somewhere.

So I guess then we should stop believing in the Trinity because the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. All we have are the "wheels" - "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit", interspersed here and there throughout the NT. The Trinity is so specific and so complicated that to call such "evidence" a Biblical proof of "Trinity" is like insisting that the Bible teaches about Chevrolets merely because we can find the word "wheel" in there somewhere.

But there are more than just wheels in the Bible for Purgatory.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
2 Corinthians 5:10

Protestants like to say that Christians will only be judged for the good things they have done - in which they will receive rewards. But here Paul wrote that we, which includes himself, will stand before the judgement seat of Christ and receive recompense for what we all did - whether good or bad! If we will be recompensed for the bad we did, then this must mean that we can we receive some punishment for the bad things we still do after we have turned to Christ.

It's true that the whole idea of Purgatory is being phased out now that most Catholics don't or won't believe in this remnant of Late Medieval imagery any longer. And that's not just about priests, but several recent popes have given their personal opinions about it which, although still saying there is a Purgatory, have, like the Catechism, completely redefined it.

And the whole idea of Purgatory is being phased into Protestant evangelicalism.

Unlike you, I can present evidence of this.

Jerry Walls from the Houston Baptist University wrote a couple of books in favor of it. See Purgatory for Protestants | Commonweal Magazine.

C.S. Lewis taught that Purgatory exists. See C.S. Lewis believed in purgatory, for heaven’s sake.
I believe in purgatory. . Our souls demand purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, ‘It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy’? Should we not reply, ‘With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.’ ‘It may hurt, you know’—‘Even so, sir.
Letters to Malcom - Chiefly On Prayer

Southern Baptist minister Charles Stanley wrote that there is punishment for Christians in the afterlife, although he insists that this is not purgatory:
“Now, imagine standing before God and seeing all you have lived for reduced to ashes. How do you think you would respond? Picture yourself watching saint after saint rewarded for faithfulness and service to the King—and all the time knowing that you had just as many opportunities but did nothing about them. We cannot conceive of the agony and frustration we would feel if we were to undergo such an ordeal; the realization that our unfaithfulness had cost us eternally would be devastating. And so it will be for many believers. Just as those who are found faithful will rejoice, so those who suffer loss will weep. As some are celebrated for their faithfulness, others will gnash their teeth in frustration over their own shortsightedness and greed. We do not know how long this time of rejoicing and sorrow will last. Those whose works are burned will not weep and gnash their teeth for eternity. At some point we know God will comfort those who have suffered loss (see Rev. 21:4) . . . On the other side of the coin, we can rest assured that none of our good deeds will go unnoticed, either.”
Eternal Security

There will temporarily be agony, frustration, and weeping in the afterlife for Christians? This sure sounds like Purgatory, even though Stanley insists it is not. But to me if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck - then it is a duck!

Reformed theologian Michael Horton complained of this tendency in dispensationalist fundamentalism, saying that this is is not much different than Catholic purgatory:

[Protestant fundamentalists] merely managed to move purgatory geographically. No longer is it a place outside of heaven and hell, but it is within the Kingdom of God itself… This has much more in common with medieval dogma than with evangelical Christianity.”
Purgatory in All but Name

 

[GodsGrace101]

So I guess then we should stop believing in the Trinity because the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. All we have are the "wheels" - "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit", interspersed here and there throughout the NT. The Trinity is so specific and so complicated that to call such "evidence" a Biblical proof of "Trinity" is like insisting that the Bible teaches about Chevrolets merely because we can find the word "wheel" in there somewhere.

But there are more than just wheels in the Bible for Purgatory.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
2 Corinthians 5:10

Protestants like to say that Christians will only be judged for the good things they have done - in which they will receive rewards. But here Paul wrote that we, which includes himself, will stand before the judgement seat of Christ and receive recompense for what we all did - whether good or bad! If we will be recompensed for the bad we did, then this must mean that we can we receive some punishment for the bad things we still do after we have turned to Christ.



And the whole idea of Purgatory is being phased into Protestant evangelicalism.

Unlike you, I can present evidence of this.

Jerry Walls from the Houston Baptist University wrote a couple of books in favor of it. See Purgatory for Protestants | Commonweal Magazine.

C.S. Lewis taught that Purgatory exists. See C.S. Lewis believed in purgatory, for heaven’s sake.
I believe in purgatory. . Our souls demand purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, ‘It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy’? Should we not reply, ‘With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.’ ‘It may hurt, you know’—‘Even so, sir.
Letters to Malcom - Chiefly On Prayer

Southern Baptist minister Charles Stanley wrote that there is punishment for Christians in the afterlife, although he insists that this is not purgatory:
“Now, imagine standing before God and seeing all you have lived for reduced to ashes. How do you think you would respond? Picture yourself watching saint after saint rewarded for faithfulness and service to the King—and all the time knowing that you had just as many opportunities but did nothing about them. We cannot conceive of the agony and frustration we would feel if we were to undergo such an ordeal; the realization that our unfaithfulness had cost us eternally would be devastating. And so it will be for many believers. Just as those who are found faithful will rejoice, so those who suffer loss will weep. As some are celebrated for their faithfulness, others will gnash their teeth in frustration over their own shortsightedness and greed. We do not know how long this time of rejoicing and sorrow will last. Those whose works are burned will not weep and gnash their teeth for eternity. At some point we know God will comfort those who have suffered loss (see Rev. 21:4) . . . On the other side of the coin, we can rest assured that none of our good deeds will go unnoticed, either.”
Eternal Security

There will temporarily be agony, frustration, and weeping in the afterlife for Christians? This sure sounds like Purgatory, even though Stanley insists it is not. But to me if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck - then it is a duck!

Reformed theologian Michael Horton complained of this tendency in dispensationalist fundamentalism, saying that this is is not much different than Catholic purgatory:

[Protestant fundamentalists] merely managed to move purgatory geographically. No longer is it a place outside of heaven and hell, but it is within the Kingdom of God itself… This has much more in common with medieval dogma than with evangelical Christianity.”
Purgatory in All but Name

Charles Stanley is a universalist.

We will be judged for our deeds....Christ said we must be born of above....He never had this idea of "being born again" as we do today...the idea is very much abused.

As to purgatory....I'd like to ask you why it's so necessary for you that this be true?
Why battle for this hill?

 

[Albion]

So I guess then we should stop believing in the Trinity because the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible.

That isn't at all what I wrote. I did not say that unless the word Purgatory appears in Scripture, Purgatory must be phony. Would you like to address what I actually was explaining there?

But there are more than just wheels in the Bible for Purgatory.

Okay. I'm listening.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

2 Corinthians 5:10

Absolutely nothing there about any Purgatory. We all know that there will be a judgment after death.

Protestants like to say that Christians will only be judged for the good things they have done - in which they will receive rewards. But here Paul wrote that we, which includes himself, will stand before the judgement seat of Christ and receive recompense for what we all did - whether good or bad!

That doesn't say anything about Purgatory. In addition, being judged on what we have done can have all sorts of ramifications. There is no reason at all to conclude that the following seventeen characteristics of a place invented in the 15th century is exactly what those words means and ONLY can mean.

In addition, if that is all that they could possibly mean,what is your explanation for why no other denomination (except perhaps for the Old Catholics) reach the same conclusion. Not the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Anglicans, none.

I don't find much sympathy for the technique by which some debaters turn so readily to saying something like "But 'Protestants' (usually meaning fundamentalists) think/believe X" instead of the issue at hand being addressed itself.

If we will be recompensed for the bad we did, then this must mean that we can we receive some punishment for the bad things we still do after we have turned to Christ.

Being recompensed for the bad that we have done can mean all sorts of things, the most obvious being hell. And you are merely assuming this part that you added: "after we have turned to Christ."

Shall we return now to the subject of this tread: Sola Scriptura?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

What IS the truth?

Yep good post the answer is here *JOHN 17:17 and JOHN 6:63

God bless

 

[packermann]

Charles Stanley is a universalist.

Stanley is definitely not a universalist. Please provide evidence of this from primary sourses.

Here is a link that shows what he teaches about heaven and hell, and unless people receive Christ they will go to hell.

But hell is very real, and everyone should know what the Bible has to say about it. If you've accepted Jesus as your Savior, you'll be filled with gratitude for God’s incredible mercy. And if you haven’t, you won’t to want to wait another moment to receive the peace of salvation in Christ.
Christian Radio - Free Online Christian Ministry Radio Broadcasts

As to purgatory....I'd like to ask you why it's so necessary for you that this be true?
Why battle for this hill?

[/QUOTE]

Why is it so necessary to believe in hell? Why is it so necessary for us that hell be true? Why battle for that hill? Are we some masochists or sadists? No! We believe in hell because hell is true and in order for people to avoid hell they must first realize that hell is a reality. The same for purgatory. We cannot avoid purgatory if we do not realize it exists.

You cannot avoid the coronavirus if you do not believe that that virus exists. I do not want the coronavirus, hell, and purgatory to exist. But since I am convinced that they do exist, I want to make sure that you, I, my family, my friends, everyone will be able to avoid them. The love of Christ controls me. If I did not love you with the love of Christ then I would not care if you believe in purgatory - you would find out soon enough. But since I do care, I want you and everyone else to be able to avoid them even if it means you hate me for warning you.

 

[packermann]

That isn't at all what I wrote. I did not say that unless the word Purgatory appears in Scripture, Purgatory must be phony. Would you like to address what I actually was explaining there?

And I never said that you said that "purgatory must be phony". That is not at all what I wrote.

Okay. I'm listening.

No, you're not. You keep on ignoring the verse I quoted and my exegesis of it - says that it is only about a judgement after death.

Absolutely nothing there about any Purgatory. We all know that there will be a judgment after death.

You missed my point entirely. Paul wrote "WE must all appear the judgement seat of Christ". So do you believe that all Christians will stand before the judgement seat of Christ? Do you believe that Christians could face some punisment? That is what the verse says. Please read that verse carefully.
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
2 Corinthians 5:10
If we will be judged for the bad things that we do then that means that we Christians could still face some sort of punishment.

That doesn't say anything about Purgatory. In addition, being judged on what we have done can have all sorts of ramifications. There is no reason at all to conclude that the following seventeen characteristics of a place invented in the 15th century is exactly what those words means and ONLY can mean.

This is why I mentioned the Trinity. Trinity is God being three Persons in one essence. Now, there no verse in the Bible that explicitly states that. It talks about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit here and there - but nothing about Persons, that there is only three, and essence. And yet Christian believe in the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity as three Persons in one essence started in A.D. 325. Would you also say that there is no reason at all to conclude that the characteristics of God invented in the 4th century is not exactly what those words in the Bible mean and ONLY can mean?

In addition, if that is all that they could possibly mean,what is your explanation for why no other denomination (except perhaps for the Old Catholics) reach the same conclusion. Not the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Anglicans, none.

At least one Anglican, C.S. Lewis, reached the conclusion that there is a Purgatory.
And if the disagreements between the Orthodox and Catholics is a criteria for the Catholic dogma to be false then the agreements between the Orthodox and Catholics would mean that Catholic dogma is true! Are you willing to accept all doctrines that the Catholics and the Orthodox do agree on? They both agree on salvation not by faith alone, that tradition is a source for truth along with scripture, that the councils (at least before the split) are infallible, apostlic succession, and the veneration of Mary.

I don't find much sympathy for the technique by which some debaters turn so readily to saying something like "But 'Protestants' (usually meaning fundamentalists) think/believe X" instead of the issue at hand being addressed itself.

So YOU can point out that some Catholics no longer believe in Purgatory but I cannot point out that some Protestants believe in Purgatory as a response? I have no sympathy using a double standard.

Being recompensed for the bad that we have done can mean all sorts of things, the most obvious being hell. And you are merely assuming this part that you added: "after we have turned to Christ.

You ignore the context of my quote. I write of the recompense for the bad after I quoted:
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
2 Corinthians 5:10

First, Paul writes that we all will face judgement. Paul includes Christians and even himself of facing judgment.

Second, Paul writes we will be judged for the bad things we have done - so it must be not only how much rewards we get but we must punishment we get.

Third, this punishment is either eternal or temporary. If it is eternal then that would be hell. If it is temporary then it would be purgatory. You seem to select hell. Very well! You believe that Christians could go to hell. That seems a bit harsh to me. I would leave it open that this punishment could be temporary. But have it your way!

Shall we return now to the subject of this tread: Sola Scriptura?

Sure, lets do that now.

 

[Albion]

And I never said that you said that "purgatory must be phony". That is not at all what I wrote.

Exactly what you wrote was "So I guess then we should stop believing in the Trinity because the word 'Trinity' is not in the Bible." Is that not a claim that my position (rejecting Purgatory) rests entirely upon whether this particular term is to be found in Scripture?

You missed my point entirely. Paul wrote "WE must all appear the judgement seat of Christ". So do you believe that all Christians will stand before the judgement seat of Christ?

Yes.

Do you believe that Christians could face some punisment? That is what the verse says.

Yes, I do. The verse still does not refer to any theory of a Purgatory.

Almost all Christians, even including Universalists, believe that we all will face a judgment, perhaps two of them, but only the Medieval imagination of your denomination invented a "Purgatory" to go with it.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
2 Corinthians 5:10
If we will be judged for the bad things that we do then that means that we Christians could still face some sort of punishment.

You said all this before.

And so, back to the subject of Sola Scriptura.

 

[GodsGrace101]

error