Books Outside the Bible

[Mayflower]

Sooooo, WHAT makes you think the person ISN'T dead and being judged??
Are you really this dense - or is it just an act??

Statements like this really leave out the love of Christ. Are they really necessary? Can you stick with just defending your sides without bringing claws out? Your points are lost in your tone of "voice." I have seen it with so many. It has gotten better, but I am not a debater and usually stay out of this forum. I still think debates can be done without "yo momma"

 

[BobRyan]

Just WHAT do YOU think "The DAY" is referring to, Einstein??
Hint: The DAY of the LORD (Judgement Day).

In the case of the future day of judgment (Which is not what this is about) - that day was future to the life of Paul - you would need to change your doctrine into something about the person NOT going to purgatory until the future judgment. -- the ever winding ever twisting false doctrine of purgatory story telling ..

 

[farouk]

I think I'm putting this aside for now. I lost what y'all were talking about a long time ago.

Threads have the habit of waxing lyrically away from the OP, right? ...

 

[BobRyan]

Heb. 11:35 – Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sonsdescribed in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Heb 11
35 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;

The mother receives back her son from the dead in the case of Elisha who brought her son back to life in 2 Kings 4. Has nothing to do with 2Macc 7 and has nothing to do with purgatory.

Tortured NOT ACCEPTING release but dying for their witness - faithful until death. The RCC saw a lot of that in the dark ages.

Less fiction... more Bible please.

35 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;

The mother receives back her son from the dead in the case of Elisha who brought her son back to life in 2 Kings 4. Has nothing to do with 2Macc 7 and has nothing to do with purgatory.

Less fiction... more Bible please.

First of all - NOBODY mentioned Purgatory at ALL in relation to this example.

How odd then having you couple it with your reference to 1 Cor 3

Heb. 11:35
Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection.

1 Macc. 7:1-41
It also happened that seven brothers with their mother were arrested and tortured with whips and scourges by the king to force them to eat pork in violation of God’s law.a
...

A great many stories abound about people who were tortured. This was never questioned. Your wild imagination that the only people tortured are in 1 Macc 7 and this can be the only thing that Hebrews 11 reference - is not even a serious argument.

Please be serious.

Less emotionalism - more serious response please.

 

[epostle]

JESUS and the DEUTEROCANON​

Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 – Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 – lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 – Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 – what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 – Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 – the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 – the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 – sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 – Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 – Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 – Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 – Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 – the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 – let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 – if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 – Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 – description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 – Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 – Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 – Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 – the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 – Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 – Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 – all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 – who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 – Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.

Luke 1:52 – Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 – Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 – the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 – Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 – Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 – all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 – who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 – Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.

See 47 more couplets here, plus ECF quotes.

The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 – 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

 

[epostle]

His WORK burned - but HE is never said to be burned.
His WORK burned - but HE is not said to be DEAD while it happens
READ your Bible, son . . .


More examples of what we do NOT find in 1 Cor 3 -

The punishments of sin

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgement, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offences can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

The RCC has the PERSON burned by fire - as PUNISHMENT for sin... 1 Cor 3 says nothing at all about that. They just "make that up"

================= another detail "not in 1 Cor 3" -

In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37, no. 3) speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, "gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita" (P.L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and he adds "that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life" (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. "Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur", and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; "Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta". How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops "to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification',
and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion" (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio").

More vapid emotionalism? really? that is all you have ???

Please be serious
Not sure if you can be trusted at this point in your over-the-top emotional state to quote a simple Bible text.

But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

The WORK is what is burned.
The MAN is never said to be dead.
The MAN is never said to be burned while dead.
The MAN is never said to be burned .. only his work/teaching/doctrine... hay, stubble, straw (details matter)
The "day" - vs "the night" - in the day it is revealed if the work is fluff or not. Hay, wood, stubble or gold. For each man's doctrine is teaching built on the foundation - which is Christ.

The is about evangelists - their WORK is their teaching and that teaching is built on the foundation of Christ. It has nothing to do with being dead and then "punished" as the RCC says about purgatory.
au
The point remains.

Details matter no matter how emotional you get in response to them.


If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved,* but only as through fire.

Just WHAT do YOU think "The DAY" is referring to, Einstein??
Hint: The DAY of the LORD (Judgement Day).

Sooooo, WHAT makes you think the person ISN'T dead and being judged??
Are you really this dense - or is it just an act??

[/QUOTE]
Your point is a denial of final purification, and you dance around what Paul teaches. You quote him, but don't get it.

Your system cannot reconcile God's justice and mercy. No chance of final purification would put most of us in hell. That makes God a monster. The reformers invented "Justification by Faith Alone" to get rid of the teaching of purgatory because it was politically expedient. Being "covered" is not in the Bible, it's a man made paint job.

.

 

[Jun2u]

First of all – I NEVERmentioned Jude. I showed you that the “Armor of God” Paul describes in Heb. 6:13-17 is taken from Wis. 5:17-20.

I ALSO showed you that the story of the mother and her sons that Heb. 11:35 talks about is taken from 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

You are correct that you never mentioned Jude, I did!

I guess you never did understand that I was making a distinction between what Enoch prophesied and what he uttered became part of the Bible. Whereas, Wis. 5:17-20 and 2 Macc. 7:1-42 CANNOT BE FOUND anywhere in the Bible.

These are Biblical FACTS that you cannot refute.

But I can and did! Wis. 5:17-20 and 2 Macc. 7:1-42 CANNOT BE FOUND anywhere in the Bible which is God’s inspired Book!!! Show me where they are found!

To God Be The Glory

 

[Jun2u]

The one glaring problem with your scenario is that you WEREN’T saved before the foundations of the world – and that’s NOTwhat Rev. 13:8 says. It says that the Lambs Book of Life was written before the foundations of the World. Those names are NOT guaranteed to remain there forever. Rev. 3:5 states that you name can be BLOTTED OUT.

Revelation 13:8 reads:
[And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him] all the unsaved that is that remain on earth [whose names are not written in the book of life] their names were never written in the book of life [of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world] of the Lamb (Jesus) slain before the foundation of the world.

But what does verse 9 reads? “If any man have an ear, let him hear.”

I bracketed and underlined some words for clarification so you may see how the verse is interpreted without twisting the meaning as you did above. If you are still confused let me know and I will further expound the meaning for you.

As concerning Revelation 3:5, [He that overcometh] if we are in Jesus we will also overcome (John 16:33), [the same shall be clothed in white raiment] same as Jesus’ robe of righteousness (Isaiah 61:10) [and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life] NOT as you stated above that a believer’s name can be blotted out!

Note verse 6 how God drives home the point again by saying, he that hath an ear let him hear…

Can you hear? Do you even know how to understand and read the Scripture?

Secondly – YOU were never given the title of “Kecharitomene.”
The ONLY person in ALL of Scripture described in this manner is Mary (Luke 1:28).

I guess you have never read, Job 7:17; 15:14
17) What is man, that thou shoudest magnify him? and that thou shoudest set thine heart upon him?
14) What is man that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Also read, Psalms 6:4; 144:3; Ecclesiastes 6:11; Hebrews 2:6; Luke 1:47; 11:27-28; Acts 10:14.

Finally – Purgatory isn’t a “false” teaching – but a Scriptural one (2 Macc. 42-46, Matt. 5:25-26, 1 Cor. 3:12-15, Matt. 18:32-35, Luke 12:58-59).

I beg to differ. But the scripture verses above DOES NOT speak of purgatory. The word “prison” is not a synonym for purgatory.

Anyway – NOWHERE does the Church teach that ALL people go through a state of final Purgation so your claim is a LIE...

I must confess the above is the first I can agree with you, however, your church teaches that only the Catholics go to final purgation, therefore, my claim is true. Not only that, a Catholic will never say he will go to heaven upon death!

To God Be The Glory

 

[Prayer Warrior]

A little advice for you @Mayflower . . .
Before you take ANYTHING Steve Gregg has to say seriously - listen to this debate between him and Catholic apologist Tim Staples., who obliterates his positions on various topics, point-by-point.

Roman Catholicism Debate - Steve Gregg vs Tim Staples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7LOtI0oGgg

Ha ha ha! Of course your opinion is the absolute truth!

 

[bbyrd009]

Statements like this really leave out the love of Christ. Are they really necessary? Can you stick with just defending your sides without bringing claws out? Your points are lost in your tone of "voice." I have seen it with so many. It has gotten better, but I am not a debater and usually stay out of this forum. I still think debates can be done without "yo momma"

determinists just have a diff definition of 'you got served' i guess

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Romanist [Catholic] Doctrine of Authoritative Tradition Disproved by Internal Contradictions (Brian Schwertley)

The Roman Catholic Church says that the oral traditions from Christ and the apostles reside with the pope and bishops throughout history. These traditions are supposed to be inspired, infallible and fully authoritative. Romanists are supposed to accept and submit to these traditions and must even interpret the Bible so that it harmonizes with the traditions. Trent’s formula for submission to the papal church reads: “I shall never accept nor interpret it [the sacred Scriptures] otherwise than in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers”. If the authoritative traditions within the Roman Catholic Church were truly of divine origin and inspired we could expect them to be totally unified in the doctrinal teachings and church practices. After all, the perfect consent of all the various parts of the Bible, the fact that it contains no internal contradictions and is fully directed to the same and, is an excellent evidencefor the Scriptures’ own inspiration and perfection. Unlike the Bible, an examination of the authoritative traditions reveals a whole host of blatant contradictions. For example, the Council of Trent placed the apocrypha in the canon of Scripture while Jerome (who gave the church the Latin Vulgate translation) rejected Sirach, Judith, and Tobit as uninspired man-made documents.17 Further, if the church officials (the pope and bishops) had a special direction and access by the Holy Spirit to the oral traditions, then why do we encounter the church endorsing opposing doctrines in different generations? Hodge writes,

It is an undeniable fact of history that Arianism prevailed for years both in the East and West; that it received the sanction of the vast majority of the bishops, of provincial and ecumenical councils, and of the Bishop of Rome. It is no less certain that in the Latin Church, Augustinianism, including all the characteristic doctrines of what is now called Calvinism, was declared to be the true faith by council after council, provincial and general, and by bishops and popes. Soon, however, Augustinianism lost its ascendancy. For seven or eight centuries no one form of doctrine concerning sin, grace, and predestination prevailed in the Latin Church. Augustinianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and Mysticism (equally irreconcilable with both), were in constant conflict; and that, too, on questions on which the Church had already pronounced its judgment. It was not until the beginning of the sixteenth century that the Council of Trent, after long conflict within itself, gave its sanction to a modified form of Semi-Pelagianism.18​

Regarding the church fathers; Loraine Boettner notes that the Romanist idea of unanimous consent is a myth:

They [the church fathers] contradict each other, and even contradict themselves as they change their minds and affirm what they previously had denied. Augustine, the greatest of the fathers, in his later life wrote a special book in which he set forth his Retractions.
--Some of the fathers of the second century held that Christ would return shortly and that he would personally reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years. But two of the best-known scholars of the early church, Origen (185-254) and Augustine (354-430) wrote against that view.
--The early fathers condemned the use of images in worship, while later ones approve such use.
--The early church almost unanimously advocated the reading and free use of the Scriptures, while later ones restricted such reading and use.
--Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome and the greatest of the early bishops, denounced the assumption of the title of Universal Bishop as anti-Christian. But late Popes even to the present have been very insistent of using that and similar titles which assert universal authority.
Where, then, is the universal tradition and unanimous consent of the fathers to papal doctrine?19
​

According to the Roman Catholic concept of an authoritative tradition, the laity must submit to the magisterium, the church fathers and the pope, especially when he makes official statements on doctrine or ethics. Note, once again however, how the papal church has abandoned and then completely changed important doctrinal positions once held as binding by the church hierarchy.
--An excellent example of a major church reversal regards pictures of Jesus. There was a time when the bishops, popes and church fathers condemned pictures of Christ as idolatrous. Both Pope Gregory III (elected731) and Pope Constantine V (elected 740), who ruled the church for nearly sixty years, condemned the use of pictures of the Savior as heretical.

In A.D. 754 a major church council with over 338 bishops in attendance condemned all religious representations of our Lord. The council of Constantinople decreed: “If any person shall divide human nature, united to the Person of God the Word; and, having it only in the imagination of his mind, shall therefore, attempt to paint the same in an Image; let him be holden as accursed. If any person shall divide Christ, being but one, into two persons; placing on the one side the Son of God, and on the other side the son of Mary; neither doth confess the continual union that is made; and by that reason doth paint in an Image of the son of Mary, as subsisting by himself; let him be accursed. If any person shall paint in an Image the human nature, being deified by the uniting thereof to God the Word; separating the same as it were from the Godhead assumpted and deified; let him be holden as accursed.” Regarding this council Philip Schaff writes, “The counsel, appealing to the second commandment and other Scripture passagesdenouncing idolatry (Rom. 1:23, 25; John 4:24), and opinions of the Fathers (Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, etc.), condemned and forbade the public and private worship of sacred images on pain of deposition and excommunication.... It denounced all religious representations by painter or sculptor as presumptuous, pagan and idolatrous. Those who make pictures of the Savior, who is God as well as man in one inseparable person, either limit the incomprehensible Godhead to the bounds of created flesh, or confound his two natures like Eutyches, or separate them, like Nestorius, or deny his Godhead, like Arius; and those whoworship such a picture are guilty of the same heresy and blasphemy.”20

Thus, in the middle of the eighth century we find the Pope and the magisterium unequivocally condemning the religious use of images. Furthermore, the church council appeals to the writings of many church fathers as support for their decision. Yet, look at what the supposed unchanging church teaches today. The Council of Trent writes, “The images of Christand the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and to be kept, especially in Churches, and due honor and veneration are to be given them” (25th sess. [1563]). “The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which prescribes idolatry” (CCC para. 2132 [1994]).

Note, once again that the supreme authority in the Roman Catholic Church is neither Scripture nor tradition but what the pope’s and bishops’ opinion is at any given point in time.
--At one point in time we encounter popes and bishops in conjunction with earlier church fathers condemning the use of pictures and statues of Christ. (This view is in harmony with the teaching of Scripture, see Ex. 20:4-5; Ac. 10:25-26; Rev. 19:10.)
--At another point in time the Pope and bishops officially sanction the adoration (i.e., the worship) of statues and pictures.
Given the history of how the “authoritative” traditions in the Roman Catholic church have evolved and even completely reversed, one must either admit that the church’s authoritative traditions have nothing to do with the inspired oral teaching of Jesus and the apostles or, that the oral tradition contains propositions that are simultaneously true and false.

_______________
17 Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 2:45.
18 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:124.
19 Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism, 78-79.
20 Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eudmans, 1987 [1910]), 4:457-458.

(to be continued)

 

[Prayer Warrior]

(Continued--Brian Schwertley article)

Hodge notes that the supposed common consent of the fathers “...is a Procrustean bed which may be extended or shortened at pleasure. In every Catena Patrum prepared to prove this consent in certain doctrines, it will be found that two or more writers in a century are cited as evincing the unanimous opinion of that century, while double or fourfold the number, of equally important writers, belonging to the same period, on the other side, are passed over in silence. There is no rule to guide in the application of this test, and no uniformity in the manner of itsuse.”21 If the use of the fathers by the papal church is completely arbitrary and the writings of the fathers are a large pool of conflicting theological interpretations that can be selectively used to support one preferred theological view among many, then obviously one cannot appeal to the fathers as evidence of an inspired, fixed, unchanging oral tradition. Tradition in the papal church really means the present consensus among the church hierarchy of what the faith ought to be. This reality (as noted) is a form of theological relativism.

Another key linchpin of the Roman Catholic Church’s concept of a continuing authoritative tradition is the concept of papal infallibility. The papal church teaches that the pope is infallible when he speaks on matters of doctrine.22 An examination of papal statements and decisions throughout history reveals that (just as in the case of the Magisterium) there are hundreds of explicit contradictions among authoritative papal doctrinal statements. Ralph Woodrow merely scratches the surface on this topic:

--Pope Honorious I, after his death, was denounced as a heretic by the Sixth Council in the year 680. Pope Leo confirmed his condemnation. Now if Popes are infallible, how could one condemn the other?​

--Pope Vigilius, after condemning certain books, removed his condemnation, afterward condemned them again and then retracted his condemnation, then condemned again! Where is infallibility here?​

--Dueling was authorized by Pope Eugenius III (1145-53). But later Pope Julius II (1509) and Pope Pius IV (1506) forbade it.​

--In the eleventh century there were three rival popes at the same time, all of which were deposed by the council convened by the emperor Henry III. Later in the same century, Clement III was opposed by Victor III and afterwards by Urban II. How could popes be infallible when they opposed one another?​

--Then came the “great schism” in 1378 that lasted for fifty years. Italians elected Urban VI and the French cardinals chose Clement VII. The popes cursed each other year after year until a council deposed both and elected another!​

--Pope Sixtus V had a version of the Bible prepared which he declared to be authentic. Two years later Pope Clement VIII declared that it was full of errors and ordered that another be made!​

--Pope Gregory I repudiated the title of “universal bishop” as being “profane, superstitious, haughty, and invented by the first apostate” (Epistola 5:20-7:33). Yet through the centuries, other popes have claimed the title. How then can we say that popes are infallible in defining doctrine, if the directly contradict one another?​

--Pope Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid, but Pope Pius VII (1800- 1823) condemned them as invalid.​

--Pope Eugene IV (1431-1447) condemned Joan of Arc to be burned at the stake as a witch. Later, another pope, Benedict IV, declared her to be a “saint.”

Could this be papal infallibility? How could all popes be infallible when a number of popes themselves denied such a teaching? Vigilinus, Innocent III, Clement IV, Gregory XI, Hadrian IV, and Paul IV all rejected the doctrine of papal infallibility. Could an infallible pope be infallible and not know it? Such inconsistency! 23
​

Once again the idea of a deposit of inspired oral tradition that resides with the church hierarchy has been shown to be erroneous. The theological direction of the Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with oral tradition and everything to do with the personal opinions of the pope and bishops. If the next pope is a liberal then the church will change a number of their old traditions and practices regarding the priesthood, homosexuality, birth control and so on. If the next pope isa conservative then the church’s shift toward modernism will be slowed but not stopped. Oncesola Scriptura (i.e., the Scripture alone) is abandoned for a nebulous flexible concept of tradition that is really controlled by sinful men, there is no stopping the papal church’s drift towardmodernism and humanism.24 The Roman Catholic Church is built on shifting sand instead of the solid rock of the Bible.

___________________
21 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:126.
22The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when as supremepastor and teacher of all the faithful....he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals (CCC para. 891). “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff” (Trent, canon333, Sec. 3). “The Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church” (CCC para. 882).
23 Ralph Woodrow, Babylon Mystery Religion (Riverside, CA: R.W. Ev. Ass., 1966), 102-103.
24 ‘[G]iven Rome’s view of itself as a living organism in its capacity as the ‘depository of tradition,’ there can neverbe a codification of or limitation placed upon the content of this tradition. As Charles Elliot states: ‘So far as we are aware, there is no publication which contains a summary of what the Church believes under the head of tradition.’As a result, because tradition is free to aver doctrines which are the very antithesis of Scripture teaching while yet claiming divine authority, becoming thereby bad tradition as recent history will verify (see the papal dogmas of the immaculate conception in 1854, papal infallibility in 1870, and the assumption of Mary in 1950), the church is leftvulnerable to every kind of innovation. Moreover, Rome’s teaching on tradition impiously implies, sinceProtestantism self-consciously rejects one of the two ‘indispensable media of divine revelation,’ that Protestantismcannot possibly be the church of Christ, when in fact it is Rome with its dogmatic deliverances from the Council ofTrent to the present day that is perverting Christian truth by its traditions of men.” (Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998], 85-86).

 

[Marymog]

My point is that I can disagree with Protestant doctrine without being kicked out of all christendom. To give an example, I was a member of a Presbyterian church, and I completely disagreed with one of the main points of Calvinism. The pastor and I had several discussions about this in which I openly (and intensely, but respectfully) disagreed with him. I also openly disagreed with one of the elders of the church about this. There was never a hint that I would be kicked out of that local church, much less "excommunicated."

On the other hand, a Catholic cannot disagree (at least, openly) with the dogma of the Catholic Church without being excommunicated--excluded from the sacraments that Catholics believe are essential for salvation.

Thank you PW.

There were a lot of people in Geneva that disagreed with John Calvin and his teachings. They were excommunicated or killed for it. Glad neither happened to you.

Since Calvin, your pastor nor the elder of your church could discern the truth of those "main points" of scripture why didn't you just start your own church since YOU were able to discern the truth? If you did start your own church and someone disagreed with you on doctrine/scripture, what would you do with that person?

The Catholic Church does not kick anyone "out of all christendom". The Catholic Church simply follows scripture: if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. The excommunicated can still become a Protestant and practice whatever whim of doctrine they choose. And there are a lot to choose from....HOWEVER.....They just can't be a member of The Church until they repent.

Should The Church apologize for following scripture? Or should the Presbyterian church be held accountable for NOT following scripture?

Curious Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

His WORK burned - but HE is never said to be burned.
His WORK burned - but HE is not said to be DEAD while it happens
More examples of what we do NOT find in 1 Cor 3 -
The punishments of sin
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.
1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgement, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offences can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.
The RCC has the PERSON burned by fire - as PUNISHMENT for sin... 1 Cor 3 says nothing at all about that. They just "make that up"
================= another detail "not in 1 Cor 3" -
In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37, no. 3) speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, "gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita" (P.L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and he adds "that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life" (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. "Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur", and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; "Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta". How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops "to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification',
and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion" (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio").
But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

The WORK is what is burned.
The MAN is never said to be dead.
The MAN is never said to be burned while dead.
The MAN is never said to be burned .. only his work/teaching/doctrine... hay, stubble, straw (details matter)
The "day" - vs "the night" - in the day it is revealed if the work is fluff or not. Hay, wood, stubble or gold. For each man's doctrine is teaching built on the foundation - which is Christ.

The is about evangelists - their WORK is their teaching and that teaching is built on the foundation of Christ. It has nothing to do with being dead and then "punished" as the RCC says about purgatory.
Details matter no matter how emotional you get in response to them.
If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved,* but only as through fire.

Ummmmm, first of all – there are SEVERAL passages that speak of forgiving sins AFTER death. I know this is a foreign idea to you – but Catholics read the Scriptures in CONTEXT - not just with the rest of a paragraph – but with similar passages.

1 Cor. 3:12-15 isn’t the ONLY passage that speaks of purgation and forgiveness after death – it’s just one of the best at describing the process.

There are MANY verses that describe God handing out his justice as a Refiner. A refiner is someone who takes the raw material for metal and actually gets the gold and silver and iron from that material - and he does it with FIRE. We see in Mal. 3:3, Jer. 6:27-30, Ezek. 22:18, Psalm 119:119, Psalm 37:20, Zech. 13:9, Isa 48:10, where God is the Refiner who burns away the impurities to get to the precious metal.

Additionally, Matt. 12:32 states, “whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”, which indicates that there IS purification and forgiveness after death for some. Matt. 18:32-35 and Luke 12:58-59 are additional verses that support this doctrine.

Matt. 18:32-35
His master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you your entire debt because you begged me to.

Should you not have had pity on your fellow servant, as I had pity on you?’
Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers until he should pay back the whole debt.
So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart.”

Luke 12:58-59
If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate, make an effort to settle the matter on the way; otherwise your opponent will turn you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the constable, and the constable throw you into prison.
I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.”

Finally – the “DAY” being spoken of in 1 Cor. 3:13 is the DAY OF THE LORD (Judgement Day).

Even highly-respected Protestant sources that deny that this is about Purgatory DISAGREE with you about your interpretation about “The Day” spoken of here. They ALL agree that “The Day”refers to JUDGMENT Day:
- Barnes’s Commentary
- Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
- RC Sproul (Ligonier Ministries)
- John MacArthur (GTY Ministries)
- James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries)

Even your OWN don’t hold to your perversions . . .

 

[BobRyan]

1 Cor 3

His WORK burned - but HE is never said to be burned.
His WORK burned - but HE is not said to be DEAD while it happens
READ your Bible, son . . .

More examples of what we do NOT find in 1 Cor 3 -

The punishments of sin

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgement, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offences can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

The RCC has the PERSON burned by fire - as PUNISHMENT for sin... 1 Cor 3 says nothing at all about that. They just "make that up"

================= another detail "not in 1 Cor 3" -

In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37, no. 3) speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, "gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita" (P.L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and he adds "that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life" (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. "Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur", and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; "Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta". How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops "to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification',
and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion" (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio").

Look - I've pretty much established that you're about the most dishonest poster on this board. Some of the others take a break from their lies - but not YOU.

More vapid emotionalism? really? that is all you have ???

Please be serious.

Here is the text of 1 Cor 3:10:15.

Not sure if you can be trusted at this point in your over-the-top emotional state to quote a simple Bible text.

But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

The WORK is what is burned.
The MAN is never said to be dead.
The MAN is never said to be burned while dead.
The MAN is never said to be burned .. only his work/teaching/doctrine... hay, stubble, straw (details matter)
The "day" - vs "the night" - in the day it is revealed if the work is fluff or not. Hay, wood, stubble or gold. For each man's doctrine is teaching built on the foundation - which is Christ.

The is about evangelists - their WORK is their teaching and that teaching is built on the foundation of Christ. It has nothing to do with being dead and then "punished" as the RCC says about purgatory.

The point remains.

Details matter no matter how emotional you get in response to them.


If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved,* but only as through fire.

Just WHAT do YOU think "The DAY" is referring to, Einstein??
Hint: The DAY of the LORD (Judgement Day).

Sooooo, WHAT makes you think the person ISN'T dead and being judged??
Are you really this dense - or is it just an act??[/QUOTE]

Ummmmm, first of all – there are SEVERAL passages that speak of forgiving sins AFTER death.

That is a rabbit trail. Purgatory is not about a way to get forgiveness of sins after death - it is about paying off your own debt of venial sin. It is about an imaginary spiritual bank of torment and suffering with credit paid in by dead saints - and then the RCC having some sort of "check" that it can write against that bank of surplus suffering to be applied to your case.

I know this is a foreign idea to you – but Catholics read the Scriptures in CONTEXT -

I have to admit - the idea that Catholics are reading scripture "in context" is a foreign idea to me. I was not aware of that. Do you have proof?

1 Cor. 3:12-15 isn’t the ONLY passage that speaks of purgation and forgiveness after death – it’s just one of the best at describing the process.

1 Cor 3 does not mention death in the entire chapter. Try something that is factual.

There are MANY verses that describe God handing out his justice as a Refiner. A refiner is someone who takes the raw material for metal and actually gets the gold and silver and iron from that material - and he does it with FIRE.

But not refining anyone after a person has died. How is it that the salient point of your own argument keeps "missing your attention" as it goes missing in the texts you select??

This same "key detail" keeps getting skipped in your responses

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

Additionally, Matt. 12:32 states, “whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”, which indicates that there IS purification and forgiveness after death for some.

The text says "NOT FORGIVEN" and you insert "IS FORGIVEN" in the age to come.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

Matt. 18:32-35 and Luke 12:58-59 are additional verses that support this doctrine.

None of them mention the death of the person or someone getting forgiveness after they die.

Details matter.

While it is true that toss the person into the torturer's prison - the lake of fire, the wages of sin, the judgment that casts into fiery hell -- occurs in after the "first death" and after the second resurrection of Rev 20... it is not true that we see there "forgiveness".

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ha ha ha! Of course your opinion is the absolute truth!

It's not opinion it's FACT.
Have you actually listenend to the Staples vs. Gregg Debates??
I was embarrassed for Gregg . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

1 Cor 3
His WORK burned - but HE is never said to be burned.
His WORK burned - but HE is not said to be DEAD while it happens
READ your Bible, son . . .

More examples of what we do NOT find in 1 Cor 3 -

The punishments of sin

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgement, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offences can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

The RCC has the PERSON burned by fire - as PUNISHMENT for sin... 1 Cor 3 says nothing at all about that. They just "make that up"

================= another detail "not in 1 Cor 3" -

In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37, no. 3) speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, "gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita" (P.L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and he adds "that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life" (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. "Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur", and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; "Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta". How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops "to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification',
and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion" (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio").



More vapid emotionalism? really? that is all you have ???

Please be serious.

Not sure if you can be trusted at this point in your over-the-top emotional state to quote a simple Bible text.

But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

The WORK is what is burned.
The MAN is never said to be dead.
The MAN is never said to be burned while dead.
The MAN is never said to be burned .. only his work/teaching/doctrine... hay, stubble, straw (details matter)
The "day" - vs "the night" - in the day it is revealed if the work is fluff or not. Hay, wood, stubble or gold. For each man's doctrine is teaching built on the foundation - which is Christ.
The is about evangelists - their WORK is their teaching and that teaching is built on the foundation of Christ. It has nothing to do with being dead and then "punished" as the RCC says about purgatory.
The point remains.
Details matter no matter how emotional you get in response to them.

If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved,* but only as through fire.
That is a rabbit trail. Purgatory is not about a way to get forgiveness of sins after death - it is about paying off your own debt of venial sin. It is about an imaginary spiritual bank of torment and suffering with credit paid in by dead saints - and then the RCC having some sort of "check" that it can write against that bank of surplus suffering to be applied to your case.

I have to admit - the idea that Catholics are reading scripture "in context" is a foreign idea to me. I was not aware of that. Do you have proof?
1 Cor 3 does not mention death in the entire chapter. Try something that is factual.
But not refining anyone after a person has died. How is it that the salient point of your own argument keeps "missing your attention" as it goes missing in the texts you select??
This same "key detail" keeps getting skipped in your responses
Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??
The text says "NOT FORGIVEN" and you insert "IS FORGIVEN" in the age to come.
Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??
None of them mention the death of the person or someone getting forgiveness after they die.
Details matter.
While it is true that toss the person into the torturer's prison - the lake of fire, the wages of sin, the judgment that casts into fiery hell -- occurs in after the "first death" and after the second resurrection of Rev 20... it is not true that we see there "forgiveness".

Interesting how ALL of your denials resound like the clanging nonsense of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other pseudo-Christian sects.

THEY say, “There is no Trinity because we don’t see that in Scripture!”
YOU say, “There is NO evidence to show that those being spoken of in 1 Cor. 3:12-15 are dead!”.

“The DAY” being spoken of here shows us that they have DIED and are being judged.
Do you believe that only LIVING people will be judged?? Hebrews 12:1 states explicitly that it is appointed for ALL to DIE once and after this the judgement.
READ your Bible . . .

As for the “Fire” spoken of in 1 Cor. 3:12-15 – YOU keep stating that the person doesn’t suffer. Verse 15 says that he DOES suffer.

YOU keep stating that the person is NOT burned.
Verse 15 says that he is saved – but only as THROUGH FIRE . . .
Ever walked THROUGH fire?? It HURTS.

Your denials of the other verses I presented are equally-desperate. Because they implicitly teach that there is forgiveness for some sins AFTER death. And before you knock implicit Scriptural teaching – that’s how we get the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Finally – your moronic insistence that this is ONLY talking about evangelists is SQUASHED by the verses themselves.
Paul writes, “If ANY man” – not “Any evangelist”.

Your fanciful inventions fall FLAT in the face of Scriptural evidence . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Revelation 13:8 reads:
[And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him] all the unsaved that is that remain on earth [whose names are not written in the book of life] their names were never written in the book of life [of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world] of the Lamb (Jesus) slain before the foundation of the world.

But what does verse 9 reads? “If any man have an ear, let him hear.”

I bracketed and underlined some words for clarification so you may see how the verse is interpreted without twisting the meaning as you did above. If you are still confused let me know and I will further expound the meaning for you.

As concerning Revelation 3:5, [He that overcometh] if we are in Jesus we will also overcome (John 16:33), [the same shall be clothed in white raiment] same as Jesus’ robe of righteousness (Isaiah 61:10) [and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life] NOT as you stated above that a believer’s name can be blotted out!

Note verse 6 how God drives home the point again by saying, he that hath an ear let him hear…
Can you hear? Do you even know how to understand and read the Scripture?

The fact REMAINS that the Bible NEVER says that you or ANYBODY ELSE was saved before the foundations of the world.

Jesus’s sacrifice is ETERNAL – but WE aren’t eternal.
For US – Jesus died at a specific point in time because we are BOUND by time – He is NOT.

I guess you have never read, Job 7:17; 15:14
17) What is man, that thou shoudest magnify him? and that thou shoudest set thine heart upon him?
14) What is man that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Also read, Psalms 6:4; 144:3; Ecclesiastes 6:11; Hebrews 2:6; Luke 1:47; 11:27-28; Acts 10:14.

Sooooo, what’s your point??
NONE of these verses uses the term “Kecharitomene”.

ONLY Mary is given this title in ALL of Scripture.

I beg to differ. But the scripture verses above DOES NOT speak of purgatory. The word “prison” is not a synonym for purgatory.

This is what we Christians call "Implicit" Scriptural reference.
Just like the IMPLICIT teaching on the Trinity and the Incarnation, which are BASIC tenets of Christianity.

I must confess the above is the first I can agree with you, however, your church teaches that only the Catholics go to final purgation, therefore, my claim is true. Not only that, a Catholic will never say he will go to heaven upon death!
To God Be The Glory

WRONG.
EVERYBODY in need of Final Purgation will undergo this process.

As for saying that you WILL go to heaven upon death is very presumptuous.
Even Paul didn’t make this claim. He said:
1 Cor. 4:4
For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.

We Catholics have a moral certitude of salvation and understand that it is something that requires our cooperation with God’s grace to the end.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Thank you PW.

There were a lot of people in Geneva that disagreed with John Calvin and his teachings. They were excommunicated or killed for it. Glad neither happened to you.

Since Calvin, your pastor nor the elder of your church could discern the truth of those "main points" of scripture why didn't you just start your own church since YOU were able to discern the truth? If you did start your own church and someone disagreed with you on doctrine/scripture, what would you do with that person?

The Catholic Church does not kick anyone "out of all christendom". The Catholic Church simply follows scripture: if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. The excommunicated can still become a Protestant and practice whatever whim of doctrine they choose. And there are a lot to choose from....HOWEVER.....They just can't be a member of The Church until they repent.

Should The Church apologize for following scripture? Or should the Presbyterian church be held accountable for NOT following scripture?

Curious Mary

You're welcome, Mary! I'd like to address a few of your points.

First, I never said that Calvin, my pastor nor the elder of my church "couldn't discern the truth of those 'main points' of scripture." I don't believe that. Twisting someone's words is a form of deception. This should concern you.

If people were killed for disagreeing with Calvin, that was WRONG! Nothing in the New Testament says that Christians should be killed for disagreeing with a church leader or the leader of a denomination.

As far as denominational doctrine is concerned, I'll explain this one more time. Calvin, my pastor, and the elder of my church were emphasizing one side of SCRIPTURAL doctrine. They didn't make up the scriptural doctrine of predestination. (Paul talks about it in Romans 8 and other verses.) They stressed that aspect of doctrine over free will, which is also a SCRIPTURAL doctrine (John 3:16 and other verses). I believe that when it comes to salvation, Jesus chooses us AND we choose Him (by grace though faith).

These doctrines (predestination and free will) seem to contradict one another, but they represent a dichotomy, which is a SEEMING "contradiction." Both doctrines are true (i.e. both clearly taught in the Bible), but they are different aspects of the truth. Truth cannot contradict itself, so, to the human mind, it may seem that both can't be true at the same time. But they are....

This is why we need the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth (John 16:13). We are not to make up our own doctrine (as the Catholic Church has done) just based on what makes sense to the human mind. We HAVE to stick with the Bible, period! Every teacher WILL be held accountable for what he/she teaches--as to whether they teach the truth. In fact, James 3:1 says that teachers will be judged more harshly.

Let's be clear about this, the Catholic Church doesn't simply follow scripture. They follow the unwritten "traditions" and whatever the pope says ex cathedra (among other sources). If you've been reading the article I've been posting, you can see that popes throughout the history of the church have contradicted themselves and other popes. This has happened MANY times for hundreds of years. It's clear that the Catholic Church is the one that makes up doctrine and follows the whims of men!

Your last point is purely disingenuous! The Catholic Church teaches that they are the only true church, right? I've read the Catholic writings on this and have quoted some of them on this thread. To be excommunicated is to be prevented from participating in the sacraments that the Catholic Church deems necessary for salvation (and going to heaven), right? So, if someone is excommunicated from the Catholic Church, how can they get to heaven? I would really be interested in hearing your answer to this question.

 

[BobRyan]

1 Cor 3

His WORK burned - but HE is never said to be burned.
His WORK burned - but HE is not said to be DEAD while it happens
READ your Bible, son . . .

More examples of what we do NOT find in 1 Cor 3 -

The punishments of sin

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgement, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offences can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

The RCC has the PERSON burned by fire - as PUNISHMENT for sin... 1 Cor 3 says nothing at all about that. They just "make that up"

================= another detail "not in 1 Cor 3" -

In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37, no. 3) speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, "gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita" (P.L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and he adds "that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life" (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. "Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur", and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; "Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta". How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops "to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification',
and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion" (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio").
...

1 Cor. 3:12-15 isn’t the ONLY passage that speaks of purgation and forgiveness after death – it’s just one of the best at describing the process.

1 Cor 3 does not mention death in the entire chapter. Try something that is factual.

There are MANY verses that describe God handing out his justice as a Refiner. A refiner is someone who takes the raw material for metal and actually gets the gold and silver and iron from that material - and he does it with FIRE.

But not refining anyone after a person has died. How is it that the salient point of your own argument keeps "missing your attention" as it goes missing in the texts you select??

This same "key detail" keeps getting skipped in your responses

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

Additionally, Matt. 12:32 states, “whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”, which indicates that there IS purification and forgiveness after death for some.

The text says "NOT FORGIVEN" and you insert "IS FORGIVEN" in the age to come.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??