WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - UPDATED.

[packermann]

]
No one hates you....

I was giving a hypothetical. I do not believe that anyone here hates me. I was only saying that I would speak the truth even if you hated me.

If purgatory exists....everyone will be going there since no one is perfect enough to enter into heaven..unless they died a martyr.

Although nobody's perfect, that does not mean that everyone is imperfect equally. So some may be there for only a few days, some for a few years, and some until the return of Christ. So we would be motivated to be as obedient to God as we can. There is a big difference in being just a little disobedient and being very disobedient.

Church teaching is that although no one is perfect, except Jesus and Mary, a person can still heroically pursue excellence to such a great extent that God overlooks any fault that the person may have had and let him immediately into heaven. These people we call saints. For instance, St. Franscis of Assisi once had a dirty, sexual thought and to stop thinking those thoughts he rolled in the cold snow. Now, he was not perfect. He had sinful thoughts, just like any other guy. But he fought those thoughts so hard that he rolled in the snow. St. Benedict three himself in the thorn bushes. And St. Thomas Aquinas once with a torch chased away a prostitute who locked herself in his room. These are examples of heroically pursuing excellence. Of course, a martyr also pursued excellence heroically, too. But you do not have to be a martyr.

If it exists, it does not matter whether or not I believe in it.

That assumes that everyone would go to purgatory, for the same amount of time, and for the same kind of punishment. That would defeat the purpose of purgatory.

Suppose you have a son that broke your neighbors' window. Because you love your son, you would not kick him out of the house or stop loving him (I hope not!). But you would still punish in some way - like making him pay for window or grounding him for a while. But still you love him and let him stay in your house. Now, if you have other children, you would not inflict the same punishment on them. That would not be fair.

Even Protestants believe that when we Christian disobey God he would take us out in the divine woodshed and yet does not disown us. The only difference is that Catholics believe that this divine woodshed could also be in the hereafter before the return of Christ.

I believe that sola scriptura as an authority is imperative because it would clear up matters such as this.

You are kidding, aren't you? There are over 25,000 Protestant denominations in the world. The only doctrine that all these denominations may least give lip service to is some vague notion that Jesus is Lord. Look at the World Council of Christian Churches. It started out as a missionary outreach. All the Protestant Churches got together so that they can agree on doctrine to present it to non-Christians. There whittled down the necessary doctrine to just a vague idea that Jesus is Lord.

Protestant churches cannot even agree in salvation. Are you saved by asking Jesus to be your Lord and Savior or by just asking to be your Savior? And once you are saved, can you ever lose your salvation? And what about tongues? Is speaking in tongues today from God, is just something psychological, or is it of the devil? What about the return of Christ? Is there a secret rapture, then a seven-year tribulation, and then the return of Christ? Put ten different Protestants in a room and you will get different opinions on what the Bible teaches.

I b elieve you're using the magesterum as your authority...

The magisterium is not the inspired Word of God. The magisterum is only the interpreter of the Word of God, and the magisterium is only giving his opinion of the Word of God, which can be wrong. For instance, I disagree with many things that Pope Francis. He is only giving his opiniion, and I as a Catholic am free to disagree with him. However, if the Pope Francis declare something to be ex cathedra, then it is infallible and I am obligated to believe it. But an ex cathedra statement is extremely rare.

Contrast this with the typical Protestant minister. When he gives a sermon, he is not just humbly giving his opinion what the Bible says. He is preaching the Word of God. To disagree with him is to disagree with God! Everything he says in fallible because he is using the Word of God. But he overlooks the fact that it is still his opinion of what the Bible says.

Protestantism did not get rid of the pope. It has made every preacher, ever theologian, his own pope. That is why you have so many Protestant denomination. Each denomination thinks that it is the only one that is looking purely at the Word of God.

 

[GodsGrace101]

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

I'm not really here to speak about Stanley. You mentioned him and I knew him to be a universalist...whether or not he is makes no difference to me.

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

This is the last thing I'll post on Stanley, or speak about him....but here is something he said about hell which sounds different from what you posted:


No problem there, but then they add some form of teaching that seeks to include either all professing Christians regardless of whether they abided in Christ to the end or not, or all humanity. An example of the former is found in Charles Stanley’s Handbook for Christian Living (1996).

Where is this place represented by the “outer darkness” in Jesus’ parables? To be in “outer darkness” is to be in the kingdom of God but outside the circle of men and women whose faithfulness on this earth earned them a special rank or position of authority. (page 126)

This teaching is an attempt to include ‘outer darkness’ as described by our Lord as within the Kingdom of God, but outside of the area where the faithful believers are. In other words he is attempting to include a group of people into God’s Kingdom who did not meet the requirement to be with our Lord.

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.

I was not speaking about hell...I agree with you as far as that goes.

Why warn me about purgatory?

I wouldn't waste any time telling persons about purgatory - which was not doctrine for hundreds of years after Jesus died.

Christian Traditions
Among Christians, the biblical warrant for purgatory is contested. Supporters of the Roman Catholic belief cite biblical passages in which there are intimations of the three major components of purgatory: prayer for the dead, an active interim state between death and resurrection, and a purifying fire after death. These texts yield a consistent notion of purgatory, however, only when viewed from the standpoint of the formal Roman Catholic doctrine, which was defined at the councils of Lyon (1274), Ferrara-Florence (1438–45), and Trent (1545–63) after a prolonged period of development by lay Christians and theologians.



Origins of the doctrine
Advocates of purgatory find support in numerous scriptural and non-scriptural traditions. The well-attested early Christian practice of prayer for the dead, for example, was encouraged by the episode (rejected by Protestants as apocryphal) in which Judas Maccabeus (Jewish leader of the revolt against the tyrant Antiochus IV Epiphanes) makes atonement for the idolatry of his fallen soldiers by providing prayers and a monetary sin offering on their behalf (2 Maccabees 12:41–46), by the Apostle Paul’s prayer for Onesiphorus (2 Timothy 1:18), and by the implication in Matthew 12:32 that there may be forgiveness of sins in the world to come. The parable of Dives and Lazarus in Luke 16:19–26 and the words of Jesus from the cross to the repentant thief in Luke 23:43 are also cited in support of an interim period before the Day of Judgment during which the damned may hope for respite, the blessed preview their reward, and the “mixed” undergo correction. The noncanonical tradition that on Holy Saturday Christ invaded the realm of the dead and liberated Adam and Eve and the biblical patriarchs lends support to the view that there is a temporary realm of imprisonment after death.

Some Christian writers speak of an “intelligent” fire that tortures the damned, tests and purifies the mixed (e.g., 1 Corinthians 3:11–15), and is pleasant to the saints. Analogous ideas are found in rabbinic literature, including the Babylonian Talmud. According to Hebrews 12:29, God himself is “a consuming fire.” Against the view that all humankind will ultimately be saved by passing through a cleansing fire—a doctrine considered sympathetically by the theologians Origen (c. 185–c. 254) and St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–c. 394) and prominent in Zoroastrian eschatology—St. Augustine (354–430) distinguished between the purgatorial fire that burns off stains and the everlasting fire that consumes those who die unrepentant and unreconciled to the church. Pope Gregory I (reigned 590–604) elaborated the doctrine still further, treating the purgatorial fire as an extension beyond the grave of the metaphorical fire of redemptive suffering. While commending the practice of offering masses for the sake of suffering souls, he emphasized, as Augustine did, that the question of salvation or damnation is settled at the moment of death. Only those destined for salvation pass through purgatory.

source: purgatory | Definition & History


Again,,,this is why it's important that doctrine matches scripture....

 

[GodsGrace101]

I was giving a hypothetical. I do not believe that anyone here hates me. I was only saying that I would speak the truth even if you hated me.

I'd almost agree, but if someone hates you, they also won't listen to you...I was witnessing to a young girl once that was so repulsed by it that I just stopped.
Sometimes it's good to just stop.

Although nobody's perfect, that does not mean that everyone is imperfect equally. So some may be there for only a few days, some for a few years, and some until the return of Christ. So we would be motivated to be as obedient to God as we can. There is a big difference in being just a little disobedient and being very disobedient.

First of all, there's no time in the afterlife.
So speaking about days and weeks and years is irrelevant and makes no sense. The priests I know are now saying that it could be a matter of minutes or even seconds. They are shying away from this doctrine. As I said...some don't believe it at all.
I'm not trying to convince you...we're just talking here.

As to being obedient....what does Jesus' sacrifice matter if we have to spend time purging our sins?
Was Jesus not our expiation for sins?
1 John 2:2 Doesn't Jesus extinguish our sins?

And how do the different atonement models make any sense if we have to spend time in purgatory??

Church teaching is that although no one is perfect, except Jesus and Mary, a person can still heroically pursue excellence to such a great extent that God overlooks any fault that the person may have had and let him immediately into heaven. These people we call saints. For instance, St. Franscis of Assisi once had a dirty, sexual thought and to stop thinking those thoughts he rolled in the cold snow. Now, he was not perfect. He had sinful thoughts, just like any other guy. But he fought those thoughts so hard that he rolled in the snow. St. Benedict three himself in the thorn bushes. And St. Thomas Aquinas once with a torch chased away a prostitute who locked herself in his room. These are examples of heroically pursuing excellence. Of course, a martyr also pursued excellence heroically, too. But you do not have to be a martyr.

Mary creates many theological problems. Here's one:

When did Mary become conceived immaculately?
At CONCEPTION?
Was she made immaculate AFTER conception?
Before she was born?
After?

Before she was told she'd be the Mother of Jesus?
If so,,,,was her FREE WILL respected when Gabriel visited her in Luke 1:31?

If her free will was respected, how did God make her be born immaculately?

BTW,,, I love Mary.
I just don't put her in the same category as Jesus.
She is not part of the Trinity.

That assumes that everyone would go to purgatory, for the same amount of time, and for the same kind of punishment. That would defeat the purpose of purgatory.

Suppose you have a son that broke your neighbors' window. Because you love your son, you would not kick him out of the house or stop loving him (I hope not!). But you would still punish in some way - like making him pay for window or grounding him for a while. But still you love him and let him stay in your house. Now, if you have other children, you would not inflict the same punishment on them. That would not be fair.

You must have been speaking to a priest I know....he makes the same argument when we discuss this.
God is not a person...
I really don't care for comparing God to people...sometimes this helps for us to understand Him, and sometimes it sounds silly.
My son may have broken a window...
but no one died to forgive him of this misdeed.

Even Protestants believe that when we Christian disobey God he would take us out in the divine woodshed and yet does not disown us. The only difference is that Catholics believe that this divine woodshed could also be in the hereafter before the return of Christ.

I don't believe in the woodshed either.
When we disobey God, the consequences are natural and we always suffer for it. God needs do nothing.
He created the Natural Law and it always works.

You are kidding, aren't you? There are over 25,000 Protestant denominations in the world. The only doctrine that all these denominations may least give lip service to is some vague notion that Jesus is Lord. Look at the World Council of Christian Churches. It started out as a missionary outreach. All the Protestant Churches got together so that they can agree on doctrine to present it to non-Christians. There whittled down the necessary doctrine to just a vague idea that Jesus is Lord.

Protestant churches cannot even agree in salvation. Are you saved by asking Jesus to be your Lord and Savior or by just asking to be your Savior? And once you are saved, can you ever lose your salvation? And what about tongues? Is speaking in tongues today from God, is just something psychological, or is it of the devil? What about the return of Christ? Is there a secret rapture, then a seven-year tribulation, and then the return of Christ? Put ten different Protestants in a room and you will get different opinions on what the Bible teaches.

I agree and this is very unfortunate.
Denominations have been formed precisely because different theologians understand scripture differently.
I must say, however, that I feel the same happens in the CC, the difference being that it is held together by the hierarchy,,,beginning with the Pope. This might be changing,,,who can know. We'll see when the next Pope is in charge. Things changed after Benedict.

Personally, I don't believe anyone much.
I read....I find out what the ECFs believed, and I study some history. And every message I get from the bible has to be cohesive and be reconciled with all of the N.T.

The magisterium is not the inspired Word of God. The magisterum is only the interpreter of the Word of God, and the magisterium is only giving his opinion of the Word of God, which can be wrong. For instance, I disagree with many things that Pope Francis. He is only giving his opiniion, and I as a Catholic am free to disagree with him. However, if the Pope Francis declare something to be ex cathedra, then it is infallible and I am obligated to believe it. But an ex cathedra statement is extremely rare.

Contrast this with the typical Protestant minister. When he gives a sermon, he is not just humbly giving his opinion what the Bible says. He is preaching the Word of God. To disagree with him is to disagree with God! Everything he says in fallible because he is using the Word of God. But he overlooks the fact that it is still his opinion of what the Bible says.

Protestantism did not get rid of the pope. It has made every preacher, ever theologian, his own pope. That is why you have so many Protestant denomination. Each denomination thinks that it is the only one that is looking purely at the Word of God.

I think you're right!

But please admit that you DO look to the magesterum as your authority.

And how could you be required to believe in a doctrine you do not agree with?

I know the answer from the CCC....I'm looking for a personal answer. I, for instance, was never able to do this.

 

[packermann]

I
First of all, there's no time in the afterlife.

Actually, that is not true. Whenever you have changed, you have time. There is a time before the change, and then there is a time after the change. The only being that is outside of time is God. He never changes. He is everywhere. We ourselves in heaven can at one time be at one place in heaven and at another time at another place in heaven. Since we will always be finite, there is always an opportunity to grow - and so we will still be changing.

As to being obedient....what does Jesus' sacrifice matter if we have to spend time purging our sins?
Was Jesus not our expiation for sins?
1 John 2:2 Doesn't Jesus extinguish our sins?

And how do the different atonement models make any sense if we have to spend time in purgatory??

There is a difference between discipline and eternal punishment. A good father disciplines his son for doing wrong. But does not mean that he banishes him forever from his house. The Bible makes it clear that discipline in this life is done our heavenly Father out of love for us.

"My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.” Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
Hebrews 12:5-11

True, this passage is not discipline in this life. But if discipline in this life does not contradict God's love for us, why should it contradict God's love for us after we die that we should be disciplined temporarily before Christ returns?

Not every Christian have experienced the full discipline from God. Some Christians has had it very rough - especially in third-world countries or in countries where Christian are persecuted. Other Christians have it fairly easy. Purgatory is the great equalizer. A Christian who has had just light discipline will continue with his discipline in the next life in order to share in His holiness. A Christ who went through intense suffering in this life with receive light discipline or even none at all - depending on how much he allowed his present sufferings to change him to more like Christ.

So Purgatory gives comfort to those who suffer in this life. The more suffering we experience no the less we will experience later. God is being very good to those who suffer now.

Mary creates many theological problems. Here's one:

When did Mary become conceived immaculately?
At CONCEPTION?
Was she made immaculate AFTER conception?
Before she was born?
After?

Your question betrays a contradiction. If Mary was conceived immaculately, then it had to have happened at conception. If it had happened after conception then it would not be called the immaculate conception. If it happened at birth, then it would have been called the immaculate birth.

If so,,,,was her FREE WILL respected when Gabriel visited her in Luke 1:31?

Of, course. Mary did not become a robot, any more than Eve was a robot (she was sinless at least before the Fall). So was Adam. So was Lucifer before he freely chose to rebel against God.

Just because she is without a sin nature does not not mean that she could not freely choose to rebel against God. Adam, Eve, and Lucifer had free will and they freely chose to rebel. The unfallen angels had the freedom to rebel but they chose not to. If she had chosen to say "No" to Gabriel then there are two likely scenarios.

One is that God has chosen an alternate plan. Maybe Jesus would have been born of different parents.

The other scenario is that God would then not redeem us. The Son of God would not come down and die for us. We would all go to hell. And why not? God has done nothing to redeem Satan and his demons. God is under no obligation to save us. It could be that since the act of disobedience of our first parents gave us this mess that God has ordained that the obedience of the Second Man and the Last Eve to get us out of it. This is why Mary, to a far less extent than Jesus, is called the Co-Redemptrix. It was her "yes" to the angel that brought God's Son in the world to redeem the us just as Eve's "yes" to the serpent tempted Adam to sin and cause the Fall of the world.

Of course, we must remember that since God is outside of time, He knew what Mary's answer was going to be before she was immaculately conceived.

If her free will was respected, how did God make her be born immaculately?

Again, I do not see your problem. Jesus was also born without sin. Did the Father respect His Son's free will?

I just don't put her in the same category as Jesus.
She is not part of the Trinity.

We Catholics do not place her in the same category as Jesus. As you say that you love Mary, I love Jesus. No, more than that! I am madly in love with Jesus!

I only love Mary because of Jesus and for Jesus. Ever since I have had a devotion to Mary my love for Jesus has grown to the point that I see Him as my Lord of all in all. Getting back to Purgatory. If it turns out that I must go to Purgatory, I cannot wait to go there! Why? Because no matter how much suffering I will go through in Purgatory, I can still constantly pray and contemplate on Jesus! That would be wonderful for me! This world regretfully gives me too many distractions. I often fall short in praying without ceasing. But in Purgatory, I can pray all the time - no worldly distractions. This is why I cannot see me going in hell. In hell, I will be praising God and praying to Him. I do not think that God will let anyone who loves Him like that to be cast eternally in hell.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary is part of the Trinity. Please provide Catholic sources that shows that this what we believe.

You must have been speaking to a priest I know....he makes the same argument when we discuss this.

I doubt it. It is just that we both are sharing what we Catholics really believe, not what some anti-Catholics telling you that we believe (I am not saying that you are an anti-Catholic, but I can tell that anti-Catholics are confusing you).

God is not a person...

Both Catholics and Protestant believe that God is a personal God. We call God a "He", we do not call God an "It". An "It" does not love us or die for us. We do not have a relationship with an "It". We can only experience an "It".

I really don't care for comparing God to people...sometimes this helps for us to understand Him, and sometimes it sounds silly.
My son may have broken a window...
but no one died to forgive him of this misdeed.


I don't believe in the woodshed either.
When we disobey God, the consequences are natural and we always suffer for it. God needs do nothing.
He created the Natural Law and it always works.

Again I quote the Bible:

"My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.” Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
Hebrews 12:5-11

 

[GodsGrace101]

Actually, that is not true. Whenever you have changed, you have time. There is a time before the change, and then there is a time after the change. The only being that is outside of time is God. He never changes. He is everywhere. We ourselves in heaven can at one time be at one place in heaven and at another time at another place in heaven. Since we will always be finite, there is always an opportunity to grow - and so we will still be changing.


There is a difference between discipline and eternal punishment. A good father disciplines his son for doing wrong. But does not mean that he banishes him forever from his house. The Bible makes it clear that discipline in this life is done our heavenly Father out of love for us.

"My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.” Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
Hebrews 12:5-11

True, this passage is not discipline in this life. But if discipline in this life does not contradict God's love for us, why should it contradict God's love for us after we die that we should be disciplined temporarily before Christ returns?

Not every Christian have experienced the full discipline from God. Some Christians has had it very rough - especially in third-world countries or in countries where Christian are persecuted. Other Christians have it fairly easy. Purgatory is the great equalizer. A Christian who has had just light discipline will continue with his discipline in the next life in order to share in His holiness. A Christ who went through intense suffering in this life with receive light discipline or even none at all - depending on how much he allowed his present sufferings to change him to more like Christ.

So Purgatory gives comfort to those who suffer in this life. The more suffering we experience no the less we will experience later. God is being very good to those who suffer now.



Your question betrays a contradiction. If Mary was conceived immaculately, then it had to have happened at conception. If it had happened after conception then it would not be called the immaculate conception. If it happened at birth, then it would have been called the immaculate birth.



Of, course. Mary did not become a robot, any more than Eve was a robot (she was sinless at least before the Fall). So was Adam. So was Lucifer before he freely chose to rebel against God.

Just because she is without a sin nature does not not mean that she could not freely choose to rebel against God. Adam, Eve, and Lucifer had free will and they freely chose to rebel. The unfallen angels had the freedom to rebel but they chose not to. If she had chosen to say "No" to Gabriel then there are two likely scenarios.

One is that God has chosen an alternate plan. Maybe Jesus would have been born of different parents.

The other scenario is that God would then not redeem us. The Son of God would not come down and die for us. We would all go to hell. And why not? God has done nothing to redeem Satan and his demons. God is under no obligation to save us. It could be that since the act of disobedience of our first parents gave us this mess that God has ordained that the obedience of the Second Man and the Last Eve to get us out of it. This is why Mary, to a far less extent than Jesus, is called the Co-Redemptrix. It was her "yes" to the angel that brought God's Son in the world to redeem the us just as Eve's "yes" to the serpent tempted Adam to sin and cause the Fall of the world.

Of course, we must remember that since God is outside of time, He knew what Mary's answer was going to be before she was immaculately conceived.



Again, I do not see your problem. Jesus was also born without sin. Did the Father respect His Son's free will?



We Catholics do not place her in the same category as Jesus. As you say that you love Mary, I love Jesus. No, more than that! I am madly in love with Jesus!

I only love Mary because of Jesus and for Jesus. Ever since I have had a devotion to Mary my love for Jesus has grown to the point that I see Him as my Lord of all in all. Getting back to Purgatory. If it turns out that I must go to Purgatory, I cannot wait to go there! Why? Because no matter how much suffering I will go through in Purgatory, I can still constantly pray and contemplate on Jesus! That would be wonderful for me! This world regretfully gives me too many distractions. I often fall short in praying without ceasing. But in Purgatory, I can pray all the time - no worldly distractions. This is why I cannot see me going in hell. In hell, I will be praising God and praying to Him. I do not think that God will let anyone who loves Him like that to be cast eternally in hell.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary is part of the Trinity. Please provide Catholic sources that shows that this what we believe.



I doubt it. It is just that we both are sharing what we Catholics really believe, not what some anti-Catholics telling you that we believe (I am not saying that you are an anti-Catholic, but I can tell that anti-Catholics are confusing you).



Both Catholics and Protestant believe that God is a personal God. We call God a "He", we do not call God an "It". An "It" does not love us or die for us. We do not have a relationship with an "It". We can only experience an "It".


Again I quote the Bible:

"My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.” Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
Hebrews 12:5-11

This will take some time....
After dinner.

 

[packermann]

I'm not really here to speak about Stanley. You mentioned him and I knew him to be a universalist...whether or not he is makes no difference to me.

Since Stanley is a Protestant it matters little to me. But he is still not a universalist. A universalist is one who believes that everyone will be go to heaven. Stanley does not believe in that.

This is the last thing I'll post on Stanley, or speak about him....but here is something he said about hell which sounds different from what you posted:


No problem there, but then they add some form of teaching that seeks to include either all professing Christians regardless of whether they abided in Christ to the end or not, or all humanity. An example of the former is found in Charles Stanley’s Handbook for Christian Living (1996).

Where is this place represented by the “outer darkness” in Jesus’ parables? To be in “outer darkness” is to be in the kingdom of God but outside the circle of men and women whose faithfulness on this earth earned them a special rank or position of authority. (page 126)

This teaching is an attempt to include ‘outer darkness’ as described by our Lord as within the Kingdom of God, but outside of the area where the faithful believers are. In other words he is attempting to include a group of people into God’s Kingdom who did not meet the requirement to be with our Lord.

This is the point I was making! Stanley's "outer darkness" is purgatory. He would argue that since hell is a lake of fire, and fire emits light, you cannot have outer darkness where there is a lake of fire! Stanley is only says that the "outer darkness" cannot be hell. This quote does not say that there is no lake of fire.

Why warn me about purgatory?

It is to help people to avoid it. It is difficult avoid something that you do not believe exists It is the same reason why we warn people of hell.

I wouldn't waste any time telling persons about purgatory - which was not doctrine for hundreds of years after Jesus died.

Origins of the doctrine
Advocates of purgatory find support in numerous scriptural and non-scriptural traditions. The well-attested early Christian practice of prayer for the dead, for example, was encouraged by the episode (rejected by Protestants as apocryphal) in which Judas Maccabeus (Jewish leader of the revolt against the tyrant Antiochus IV Epiphanes) makes atonement for the idolatry of his fallen soldiers by providing prayers and a monetary sin offering on their behalf (2 Maccabees 12:41–46), by the Apostle Paul’s prayer for Onesiphorus (2 Timothy 1:18), and by the implication in Matthew 12:32 that there may be forgiveness of sins in the world to come. The parable of Dives and Lazarus in Luke 16:19–26 and the words of Jesus from the cross to the repentant thief in Luke 23:43 are also cited in support of an interim period before the Day of Judgment during which the damned may hope for respite, the blessed preview their reward, and the “mixed” undergo correction. The noncanonical tradition that on Holy Saturday Christ invaded the realm of the dead and liberated Adam and Eve and the biblical patriarchs lends support to the view that there is a temporary realm of imprisonment after death.

What you say completely contradicts your source in the origin of this doctrine. You say it was not a doctrine for a hundreds year after Jesus had died. But then your quote says that the prayer for the dead was a "well-attested early Christian practice" , which would mean the time of the New Testament and the time right after it. Not only that but it quotes 2 Timothy 1:18 where Paul prays for the dead Onesiphorus. It is pointless to pray for the dead if the dead is in heaven or hell. Those in heaven do not need our prayers. And those condemned to hell cannot he helped by our prayers. Prayers for the dead can only help the souls in Purgatory - to hasten their entry into heaven.

In Luke 23:43, Jesus says to the good thief "Today you will be with me in Paradise". This Paradise cannot be heaven. Jesus said that this will happen the very day of their deaths. But Jesus did not go immediately heaven. He did not go to heaven until some time after His resurrection. In 1 Peter 3:19-20 says that after His death Jesus preached to the souls in prison, which would be purgatory. Purgatory (also called Sheol) would contain all the Old Testament believers up until His death. He went down there to bring them up into heaven. So when Jesus said "Today you will be with me in Paradise", He must be referring to highest level of Sheol or Purgatory, a place of paradise but not quite heaven.

Again,,,this is why it's important that doctrine matches scripture....

And the doctrine purgatory does! Here is another verse:

If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
1 Corinthians 3:12-13

There can be a Christian who will eventually go to heaven but before he will that he will suffer loss. He will be saved as one going through the flames.

 

[Albion]

This is the point I was making! Stanley's "outer darkness" is purgatory.

It is not Purgatory. It is like Purgatory in a few respects, that's all.

The reason for my bothering to mention this is not because of Stanley but because defenders of Purgatory characteristically claim that if only one or two of the many, many elements that make up the Catholic theory of Purgatory are connected to Scripture or Tradition, then the whole Rube Goldberg contraption that is Purgatory is supposed to be accepted as "proven."

 

[packermann]

It is not Purgatory. It is like Purgatory in a few respects, that's all.

The reason for my bothering to mention this is not because of Stanley but because defenders of Purgatory characteristically claim that if only one or two of the many, many elements that make up the Catholic theory of Purgatory are connected to Scripture or Tradition, then the whole Rube Goldberg contraption that is Purgatory is supposed to be accepted as "proven."

Please list all those many, many elements that differ between Stanley and Catholics on this punishment and suffering that Christians could experience in the afterlife. Since there are so many, you should be able to come up with 10. Or how about at least 5?

 

[packermann]

This will take some time....
After dinner.

Exactly! This is why we will always be time! Only God is outside of time. But when He does with us, He does enter time because we are in time!

 

[Albion]

Please list all those many, many elements that differ between Stanley and Catholics on this punishment and suffering that Christians could experience in the afterlife. Since there are so many, you should be able to come up with 10. Or how about at least 5?

I'm not arguing against Stanley, who isn't someone I follow. My point was not for or against Stanley but I said that the meaning and the workings of Purgatory are very much multi-faced, complicated and interconnected.

When the Roman Catholic church invented Purgatory, the description and the justification for it were spelled out in detail and the many aspects of it were needed in order to make it seem plausible.

When Catholics today, Popes and priests included, try to defend such a Medieval conjecture, they usually attempt to downplay it as much as possible, saying that it's just a quick re-adjustment as one passes on to heaven, or something silly like that. This view has been characterized as making Purgatory into a "celestial washroom."

In a little while, it will be eliminated altogether by the church that invented it, much like Limbo was.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I'm not arguing against Stanley, who isn't someone I follow. My point was not for or against Stanley but I said that the meaning and the workings of Purgatory are very much multi-faced, complicated and interconnected.

When the Roman Catholic church invented Purgatory, the description and the justification for it were spelled out in detail and the many aspects of it were needed in order to make it seem plausible.

When Catholics today, Popes and priests included, try to defend such a Medieval conjecture, they usually attempt to downplay it as much as possible, saying that it's just a quick re-adjustment as one passes on to heaven, or something silly like that. This view has been characterized as making Purgatory into a "celestial washroom."

In a little while, it will be eliminated altogether by the church that invented it, much like Limbo was.

I agree with you except for your last statement.

The CC never TAUGHT limbo.
But it also never CORRECTED the wrong teachings by some which were disseminated throughout the CC and the members.

They left it alone because Augustine's doctrine had been accepted, but it was so distasteful that not even the church that accepted it (the CC) could deal with it.

It denies it to this day.
(that unbaptized infants go to hell).

 

[Albion]

I agree with you except for your last statement.

The CC never TAUGHT limbo.

Yes, of course it did. It was taught in every Catholic school, inquirers' class, and from the pulpit.

The only point to be made, if that is what you are intending, is that when the church decided to ditch Limbo, it justified its "about face" by saying that it had never been made an official dogma. But teach it, she certainly did!

 

[GodsGrace101]

Yes, of course it did. It was taught in every Catholic school, inquirers' class, and from the pulpit.

The only point to be made, if that is what you are intending, is that when the church decided to ditch Limbo, it justified its "about face" by saying that it had never been made an official dogma. But teach it, she certainly did!

I agree.
It was never an official teaching.
I can't remember it being taught in church,,,but I trust you on that.

 

[JSRG]

You are kidding, aren't you? There are over 25,000 Protestant denominations in the world. The only doctrine that all these denominations may least give lip service to is some vague notion that Jesus is Lord. Look at the World Council of Christian Churches. It started out as a missionary outreach. All the Protestant Churches got together so that they can agree on doctrine to present it to non-Christians. There whittled down the necessary doctrine to just a vague idea that Jesus is Lord.

Protestant churches cannot even agree in salvation. Are you saved by asking Jesus to be your Lord and Savior or by just asking to be your Savior? And once you are saved, can you ever lose your salvation? And what about tongues? Is speaking in tongues today from God, is just something psychological, or is it of the devil? What about the return of Christ? Is there a secret rapture, then a seven-year tribulation, and then the return of Christ? Put ten different Protestants in a room and you will get different opinions on what the Bible teaches.

The "25,000" denominations claim (or some number close to it, 30,000 is often also cited) is inaccurate. A Catholic apologist critiques the number here:
33,000 Protestant Denominations? No!

That's not to say the basic underlying argument is wrong regarding there being a lot of Protestant sects who claim different things, but the number is certainly not 25,000.

 

[GodsGrace101]

The "25,000" denominations claim (or some number close to it, 30,000 is often also cited) is inaccurate. A Catholic apologist critiques the number here:
33,000 Protestant Denominations? No!

That's not to say the basic underlying argument is wrong regarding there being a lot of Protestant sects who claim different things, but the number is certainly not 25,000.

Some count denominations beyond what a denomination may really be.

Is an Independent Church a denomination?
The article was too long and I stopped reading it.

Denominational churches split for the big teachings in Christianity and they also split for the smallest nuance.

If you consider the above in the count, then there ARE thousands of "denominations".

All I can say is that Jesus meant for us to be together
Instead we're not. We should respect the Orthodox and Catholic churches for this.
Philippians 2:2

 

[Albion]

That's not to say the basic underlying argument is wrong regarding there being a lot of Protestant sects who claim different things, but the number is certainly not 25,000.

The report which came up with that huge number also said that there are over 300 Roman Catholic denominations--not different rites or different churches that use the word "Catholic" in their names (Old Catholic, for example), but 300+ different Roman Catholic denominations.

If it's a Roman Catholic using the 30,000 (or whatever) figure against Protestants, this usually ends the discussion.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Actually, that is not true. Whenever you have changed, you have time. There is a time before the change, and then there is a time after the change. The only being that is outside of time is God. He never changes. He is everywhere. We ourselves in heaven can at one time be at one place in heaven and at another time at another place in heaven. Since we will always be finite, there is always an opportunity to grow - and so we will still be changing.

What is not true?
The answer should always contain the question.
Anyway, you can believe there's time in the afterlife.
No problem. But even scientists now confirm that time did NOT exist before the Big Bang. God created everything...even time.

There is a difference between discipline and eternal punishment. A good father disciplines his son for doing wrong. But does not mean that he banishes him forever from his house. The Bible makes it clear that discipline in this life is done our heavenly Father out of love for us.

"My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.” Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
Hebrews 12:5-11

True, this passage is not discipline in this life. But if discipline in this life does not contradict God's love for us, why should it contradict God's love for us after we die that we should be disciplined temporarily before Christ returns?

Hebrews 12:5-11 is not for discipline in this life?
In what life is it speaking of discipline?

Not every Christian have experienced the full discipline from God. Some Christians has had it very rough - especially in third-world countries or in countries where Christian are persecuted. Other Christians have it fairly easy. Purgatory is the great equalizer. A Christian who has had just light discipline will continue with his discipline in the next life in order to share in His holiness. A Christ who went through intense suffering in this life with receive light discipline or even none at all - depending on how much he allowed his present sufferings to change him to more like Christ.

I don't believe one has to suffer to be more like Christ.

In fact, sometimes persons leave God BECAUSE they feel He makes them suffer. This is not a pastoral teaching.

So Purgatory gives comfort to those who suffer in this life. The more suffering we experience no the less we will experience later. God is being very good to those who suffer now.

I just have nothing to say except that I don't agree and I hope you don't do much witnessing.

Your question betrays a contradiction. If Mary was conceived immaculately, then it had to have happened at conception. If it had happened after conception then it would not be called the immaculate conception. If it happened at birth, then it would have been called the immaculate birth.

You didn't understand my question about WHY Mary being born immaculately creates a theological problem...but no matter, it's a rather deep thought.

Of, course. Mary did not become a robot, any more than Eve was a robot (she was sinless at least before the Fall). So was Adam. So was Lucifer before he freely chose to rebel against God.

Ditto as above reply. Where did Eve come from??

Just because she is without a sin nature does not not mean that she could not freely choose to rebel against God. Adam, Eve, and Lucifer had free will and they freely chose to rebel. The unfallen angels had the freedom to rebel but they chose not to. If she had chosen to say "No" to Gabriel then there are two likely scenarios.

One is that God has chosen an alternate plan. Maybe Jesus would have been born of different parents.

The other scenario is that God would then not redeem us. The Son of God would not come down and die for us. We would all go to hell. And why not? God has done nothing to redeem Satan and his demons. God is under no obligation to save us. It could be that since the act of disobedience of our first parents gave us this mess that God has ordained that the obedience of the Second Man and the Last Eve to get us out of it. This is why Mary, to a far less extent than Jesus, is called the Co-Redemptrix. It was her "yes" to the angel that brought God's Son in the world to redeem the us just as Eve's "yes" to the serpent tempted Adam to sin and cause the Fall of the world.

Mary as co-redemptrix?
Even the Pope can't agree to this.

Of course, we must remember that since God is outside of time, He knew what Mary's answer was going to be before she was immaculately conceived.

This is possible.

Again, I do not see your problem. Jesus was also born without sin. Did the Father respect His Son's free will?


We Catholics do not place her in the same category as Jesus. As you say that you love Mary, I love Jesus. No, more than that! I am madly in love with Jesus!

I only love Mary because of Jesus and for Jesus. Ever since I have had a devotion to Mary my love for Jesus has grown to the point that I see Him as my Lord of all in all. Getting back to Purgatory. If it turns out that I must go to Purgatory, I cannot wait to go there! Why? Because no matter how much suffering I will go through in Purgatory, I can still constantly pray and contemplate on Jesus! That would be wonderful for me! This world regretfully gives me too many distractions. I often fall short in praying without ceasing. But in Purgatory, I can pray all the time - no worldly distractions. This is why I cannot see me going in hell. In hell, I will be praising God and praying to Him. I do not think that God will let anyone who loves Him like that to be cast eternally in hell.

Some catholic teachers believe that purgatory will just be the terrible knowledge of knowing we are far from God. OR that we could SEE Him but not be near to Him.

No one really knows what it will be like if one exists...which I do not believe so.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary is part of the Trinity. Please provide Catholic sources that shows that this what we believe.

LOL
Do you REALLY think I don't know about the Trinity?
WHERE did I ever say Mary is part of the Trinity?
Gee. I could make up my very own denomination !!

I doubt it. It is just that we both are sharing what we Catholics really believe, not what some anti-Catholics telling you that we believe (I am not saying that you are an anti-Catholic, but I can tell that anti-Catholics are confusing you).

No one can confuse me.

Both Catholics and Protestant believe that God is a personal God. We call God a "He", we do not call God an "It". An "It" does not love us or die for us. We do not have a relationship with an "It". We can only experience an "It".


Again I quote the Bible:

"My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.” Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
Hebrews 12:5-11

Hmmmm.
I don't quite know why you're stating the above.

Well, that didn't take too much time after all!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Indiscriminately conflating the written Word and divine/spoken Word. Ignored.

JAL,

Your many words have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand and NOTHING to do with Sola Scriptura. NOTHING. You simply desire to replace something universally objective with something entirely individual and subjective.

Let me us this example:

You are driving down the road at 50 miles per hour. A policeman stops you and points you to a big sign right next to you that reads: "MAX 35 MPH."

Now.... are you speeding? Well, according to you, you need to seek some divine revelation from God that will tell you "YOU WERE NOT SPEEDING' or "YOU WERE SPEEDING." Problem is: how do you know this is from God? How does the policeman know this? And if this goes to court, how does the judge/jury know this since they heard no such voice of God? And what if every one else the policeman stops gets a different revelation?

The problem with your paradigm (besides being unknowable and radically subjective) is that it simply makes EVERYONE right. Bob says Mustangs are made by Ford and Jim says they are made by Chevrolet - and both are right because both claim God told them that. No arbitration is possible because both look to SELF for confirmation of their view. "I heard God say..... bingo I'm right - end of discussion."

The Rule of Scripture is similar to the Rule of Law. If you and the policeman disagree about the speed limit, BOTH of you - EQUALLY - are subject to that OBJECTIVE, KNOWABLE, big white sign with the black letters and numbers that say "MAX 35 MPH." Your opinion doesn't matter in this dispute.... the cops opinion and feelings don't count in this dispute - BOTH are EQUALLY subject to the LAW - the objective, knowable WORDS of the LAW. And here, that's "MAX 35 MPH.' It don't matter what you claim God said just to you.... it doesn't matter what the cop feels God said just to him.... what matters is that objective, knowable words of the Law on that big sign. Now... yes....there may STILL be debate has to how fast you were going (in theology what EXACTLY is the person teaching) and there will need to be arbitration (it might have to go to court - a court of LAW, not everyone's feelings and experiences) but the Rule is the Law.

You offer no alternative to using Scripture as the Rule. You offer NOTHING more objectively knowable to all than black and white words on a page. You offer NOTHING more Christians in dispute will accept as authoritative than black and white words of God's Scripture. Nothing clearly BETTER than the Bible as the norma normans for the resolution of dsputes in dogma. All you offer is that is a person says God told them this, it thus is true. Ever heard of Joseph Smith? Jim Jones? Ever studied any of the cults? All you offer is a certain way for it to be entirely absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to ever resolve anything.




.

 

[JAL]

JAL,

Your many words...

Huh? What many words are you responding to? You cited one 10-word sentence of me! Where's your response to the 10-point rebuttal of Sola Scriptura at post 28 on this thread? Or the 16-point rebuttal found on another thread?

...have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand and NOTHING to do with Sola Scriptura. NOTHING. You simply desire to replace something universally objective with something entirely individual and subjective.

Um...You're confused. I'm the original author of this thread - the poster spun off this one in hopes her rebuttal of me would be more prominent here. Obviously my comments are relevant, therefore.

Subjective? Yes. The LAST thing men need is to be judged on objective truth. You don't see the injustice of that? Suppose tomorrow you come down with cancer. Even as Paul cried out to God about the painful thorn in his flesh, you likewise cry out to God, "Why?". He responds: "Because you attended university-B. I wanted you to attend university-A. I know you made the best decision you could based on your limited knowledge, but YOU GOT IT WRONG. Therefore YOU ARE IN SIN, IN REBELLION, and have incurred my judgment."

Your model fails to comprehend perfect justice. You then go on to cite imperfect human justice systems as "proof" of your position, as follows:

Let me us this example:

You are driving down the road at 50 miles per hour. A policeman stops you and points you to a big sign right next to you that reads: "MAX 35 MPH."

Now.... are you speeding? Well, according to you, you need to seek some divine revelation from God that will tell you "YOU WERE NOT SPEEDING' or "YOU WERE SPEEDING."

You're indiscriminately mixing disparate issues and contexts. First of all, are we talking about true justice? If so, there is only one criterion of innocence or guilt. I call it the rule of conscience:

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

(Notice this rule doesn't actually mention the word 'conscience' so I don't want to hear any objections about conscience). God will judge you on your fidelity to that rule - anything less would be unjust for reasons already explained (see analogy of university-A and B above).

Yes, like it or not, God will judge you ENTIRELY on your subjective perspective of morality.

Problem is: how do you know this [voice] is from God?

God isn't going to judge me objectively. He's going to judge me on the principle above entitled "the rule of conscience."

How does the policeman know this? And if this goes to court, how does the judge/jury know this since they heard no such voice of God? And what if every one else the policeman stops gets a different revelation?

God will judge them by the same rule. Here's what God ultimately wants. He wants a society ruled by His voice - direct revelation - a universal prophethood. It works like this. God causes us all to feel 100% certain of the truth. At this level, direct revelation transcends subjectivity, it becomes objective due to divine sovereignty. Thus even as prophets KNEW the will of God, in the ideal theocratic society the police officer would KNOW whether you merit punishment for speeding.

Until society achieves that kind of prophethood (not likely, because the church has been moving mostly in the opposite direction - Sola Scriptura - for the last 2000 years), we naturally fall back on human mechanisms of knowledge (such as speed-cameras) as a crutch - and indeed we SHOULD do so, if the rule of conscience so dictates.

The problem with your paradigm (besides being unknowable and radically subjective) is that it simply makes EVERYONE right. Bob says Mustangs are made by Ford and Jim says they are made by Chevrolet - and both are right because both claim God told them that. No arbitration is possible because both look to SELF for confirmation of their view. "I heard God say..... bingo I'm right - end of discussion."

There is no problem with my paradigm. See above for clarification.

The Rule of Scripture is similar to the Rule of Law.

Correct. Both result in imperfect justice and imperfect morality. While potentially valuable as a temporary crutch (see above), this is totally unacceptable teliologically speaking, with 100 billion souls at stake. Prophecy works. You can't claim both, "I believe that the Bible is inerrant", but "prophecy isn't reliable." What you CAN claim is ignorance, that is, "I don't understand under what conditions that prophecy becomes reliable" - in fact your own words betray that sad state of affairs.

If you and the policeman disagree about the speed limit, BOTH of you - EQUALLY - are subject to that OBJECTIVE, KNOWABLE, big white sign with the black letters and numbers that say "MAX 35 MPH."

And what the police officer doesn't know is that your accelator temporarily malfunctioned,or that some unavoidable distraction caused a lapse in your driving. Imperfect justice.

Your opinion doesn't matter in this dispute.... the cops opinion and feelings don't count in this dispute - BOTH are EQUALLY subject to the LAW - the objective, knowable WORDS of the LAW.

Knowable? Not knowable. Subjective interpretations. Only prophecy - only the voice of God - offers the possibility of objectivity. I might remind you that any number of innocent people have spent their whole lives in prison paying for crimes committed by someone else.

You offer no alternative to using Scripture as the Rule

.

You say that because you based your eveluation on one 10-word sentence of mine addressed to someone other than you. You ignored both the contents of this thread and my several other threads, several of which are accessible by links from the current thread.

Ever heard of Joseph Smith? Jim Jones? Ever studied any of the cults?

Sure. And? Is there a point here? Again, God will judge both me and Joseph Smith on ONE RULE (if He is just):


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

Do you feel certain that Joseph Smith was in the right? If so, follow him. Personally, I feel certain that he was in the wrong. K?

And that's how Direct Revelation works. The voice of God causes us to feel certain about what is right. But this process is fallible until we become prophets because, until then, we generally don't hear it at the degree of 100% certainty.

All you offer is a certain way for it to be entirely absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to ever resolve anything.

Clearly, you've confused my position with yours. Exegesis resolves nothing. It culminates in biased, fallible, subjective conclusions irremediably tainted by indoctrination, the sinful nature (viz. pride, greed, etc), and natural human fallibility.

 

[JAL]

deleted.