Hell Is God's Mercy

[Rach1370]

St. John DID say that not everything that Jesus did was written down in Scripture (See John 21:25). So, why did you expect to find it in Scripture when St. John already said that not everything is written down in Scripture.

Hey Selene. I just want to say on this point that it cannot be a good or wise thing to base doctrine, or even just thoughts on what "is not said in scripture".
If we were to follow this through, we could make up just about anything we wanted and claim it had relevance, because we know not 'everything' is in scripture.
If anything else had importance to our beliefs, doctrines, practices, then it would have been in the bible; because the Bible is Gods revelation to us...it has everything we need to have a relationship with Him and to know of His plan for salvation within it.

I know you trust your Church, but surely you must come to a point where you must ask yourself if something is truly from scripture. Because just stepping out and taking for granted that anything taught by your Church (and that goes for us too....any Church) is purely biblical, can lead to trouble. If we are not constantly bringing everything back to Scripture, to God's word, to soon we can find ourselves on that wide path...lost and headed away from God.

I'm not saying to dismiss everything the Catholic Church is teaching you...but I think this is a big one to be wary of. Relying not on scripture means we're relying on man, which is a foolish thing to do.

 

[Rach1370]

Hey Selene...I know this is a conversation you're having with Foreigner, but as it's close to what we're talking about, I'm jumping in, hope thats okay!

It is written in documents found from the first to sixth centuries. For example, the ascension of Mary was written in a document called De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John. in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first.

Again, I'd just have to say that man, and his writings are perhaps not the best thing to base solid beliefs in. How many times have we seen that bias, opinion, deep sin and just plain time can sway what is written. Think about it...even under 100 years later, there are many who believe that the Jewish holocaust didn't even happen.
Granted history can help us flesh out a picture of sorts, give depth and color and such. But for you to say "Mary definitely got taken bodily to heaven" just on the say so of the writings of men, is a little dubious. Granted the Holy Spirit worked through sinful man to write the scriptures; but you must see the difference between God's word, and mans word. Not everything written is inspired by God, and the only way we can tell if something reveled after those days is in fact from God, is to check it against the Scripture...just as the Bereans did. And the fact is, the Bible says nothing of Mary's death. So you may speculate...as did the man who wrote your 'De Obitu"...but it will always be just that...speculation and not fact.

Actually, indulgences started in Judaism. Christianity came from Judaism; therefore, it is not surprising that one should find some of the Jewish legacy in us. Below is a weblink showing that indulgences was a traditional teaching that was carried on by the Apostles. After all, the Apostles were Jewish. Even Jesus Christ was Jewish.

http://www.evangeliz...indulgences.pdf

I would just have to say that as Christians we see the Jewish faith as obsolete. Not to dismiss it, but they've missed the messiah, and they can worship YHWH all they want, but the only way to Him is through Jesus. It's tragic, but my real point is, why, as Christians, would we adopt something that at this point is only rules and 'fine points' that are little more than legalism?

When Pope Pius XII exercised Papal infallibility, no one in the Catholic community protested because that was something they already recognized. All the Catholic faithful knows that the infallible Holy Spirit can use fallible men to teach infallible doctrines on faith and morals. In other words, if the Apostles can transmit all the teachings of faith and morals infallibly through the power of the Holy Spirit, then so can the Pope and the Bishops who were their successors. After all, you do believe that the Apostles transmitted all the teachings correctly and infalibly, do you not?

As I said above, sure the Holy Spirit can use fallible men, and He does, every single day...in lesser purposes. Truly, there is only one Bible, and we are told that anyone who adds to it or takes away from it will be terribly punished. So why are you allowing that anyone since has the same authority as those God caused to write His revelation to us?? Granted you aren't saying that they are writing scripture, but by giving them the same authority you're basically saying they could...that it could be a possibility.
And what would happen if the Pope or a Priest announced that God had given him a new word? Who do you trust? Scripture, which is sure....or man....who we know lies and sins terribly. Even some your Priests, who you are giving this authority to, have shown, tragically, that they are far from deserving of this religious freedom. This is sad, but it does prove that man is fallen, and when is comes to absolute truth, it is ONLY scripture that we can and should turn to.

And again, there was no protest coming from the Catholic faithful when this was declared in 1323. Why? Because all the Pope was declaring was already something that Catholics everywhere have always practiced for thousands of years. In the Bible, as Jesus was in the Last Supper, Jesus took bread and said, "This IS my body." He did not say, "This represents my body." The Greek word used in that passage was "IS", not "represents."

Luke 22:19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.

True, He says this IS my body. But He doesn't go on to say "This will always be my body, do this to me over and over again." The wonderful thing about His sacrifice is that once was enough. To claim that this sacrifice happens, physically, again and again, is basically saying that that once wasn't good enough.

My brother, in the Bible, the parable of Lazarus and the rich man shows that there is something other than Heaven and Hell. Jesus said that Lazarus went to Abraham's bosom. Heaven is never called Abraham's bosom and neither is Hell. When Christ died, he went to the spirits in prison and preached the Gospel to them (See 1 Peter 3:19). Whereever these spirits in prisons are, it is clear that it is not in Heaven nor in Hell.

I agree that before Jesus' sacrifice those who were 'saved' didn't go straight to heaven, that there was a 'waiting place' for them. But consider this: it was not purgatory. Labeled as Paradise, it is described only as wondrous, not as a place to 'work off sins.'
Now, if those 'saved' before Jesus ultimate sacrifice didn't need to 'work off sins', then why on earth do those after it need to?

My brother, this is where you are in error. The word "infallible" does not mean "impeccible." The Pope is infallible just as the Apostles were infallible. Infallibility only applies to matters of faith and morals, and nothing else. The Pope is NOT impeccible just as the Apostles were not impeccible. The Pope is a sinner just as the Apostles were sinners.

According to Dictionary. com infallibility is defined as: . immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church.

http://dictionary.re...owse/infallible

I included the weblink to show the definition of infallibility. Read it carefully. The word "infallibility" does not mean "impeccible" and the word infallibility only applies to matters of faith or morals. It does not apply to politics. Thus, the Pope is not infallible when it comes to matters of politics, but he is infallible in matters of faith and morals. The same thing is true with the Apostles. The Apostles were infallible in matters of faith and morals, which makes their teaching also infallible. If you believe that the Apostles were fallible and prone to error, then what does that say about their teachings of the Christian morals and faith? Do you believe that the morals and faith of Christianity is in error?

So you say the pope isn't "impeccable" which means incapable of sinning. But you say he is infallible - infallible in matters of faith and morals. The problem with this is: to err is human. And yet you say in these matters he never, ever does err. I see two problems with this: as Foreigner said, your popes have been known to err, and, if you say he is beyond erring, then he must be regarded as more than human. I'm sorry, the only person I know who is beyond mistakes, beyond error and worthy of my trust because of it, is Jesus, the God man.

 

[Selene]

Hey Selene. I just want to say on this point that it cannot be a good or wise thing to base doctrine, or even just thoughts on what "is not said in scripture".
If we were to follow this through, we could make up just about anything we wanted and claim it had relevance, because we know not 'everything' is in scripture.
If anything else had importance to our beliefs, doctrines, practices, then it would have been in the bible; because the Bible is Gods revelation to us...it has everything we need to have a relationship with Him and to know of His plan for salvation within it.

I know you trust your Church, but surely you must come to a point where you must ask yourself if something is truly from scripture. Because just stepping out and taking for granted that anything taught by your Church (and that goes for us too....any Church) is purely biblical, can lead to trouble. If we are not constantly bringing everything back to Scripture, to God's word, to soon we can find ourselves on that wide path...lost and headed away from God.

I'm not saying to dismiss everything the Catholic Church is teaching you...but I think this is a big one to be wary of. Relying not on scripture means we're relying on man, which is a foolish thing to do.

Hello Rach,

The thing is...we are not making up anything. As I pointed out, the ascension of Mary was in a document called De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John. It is also mentioned in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The Catholics are not the only ones who believe in the Ascension of Mary. The Orthodox Churches also believe in it, except they call it "Dormition of Mary." In the East, they recognize the Dormition of Mary and in the West, we recognize the Ascension of Mary. They are both the same.

There is nothing in Scripture that says to trust ONLY in Scripture. We believe that the Bible is the word of God and everything in it is the Truth. But the Bible also says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (See 1 Timothy 3:15). So, it is not ONLY the Bible that contains the Truth. The Bible itself even points to the Church as the pillar and foundation of Truth. Why? Because Christ, who is Truth, is the Head of the Church.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[Selene]

Again, I'd just have to say that man, and his writings are perhaps not the best thing to base solid beliefs in. How many times have we seen that bias, opinion, deep sin and just plain time can sway what is written. Think about it...even under 100 years later, there are many who believe that the Jewish holocaust didn't even happen.
Granted history can help us flesh out a picture of sorts, give depth and color and such. But for you to say "Mary definitely got taken bodily to heaven" just on the say so of the writings of men, is a little dubious. Granted the Holy Spirit worked through sinful man to write the scriptures; but you must see the difference between God's word, and mans word. Not everything written is inspired by God, and the only way we can tell if something reveled after those days is in fact from God, is to check it against the Scripture...just as the Bereans did. And the fact is, the Bible says nothing of Mary's death. So you may speculate...as did the man who wrote your 'De Obitu"...but it will always be just that...speculation and not fact.

There are many people today who do not believe that Jesus was God and was ascended into Heaven. So, how do you know that God did not bring Mary into Heaven? Since when is faith supposed to be based on facts?

I would just have to say that as Christians we see the Jewish faith as obsolete. Not to dismiss it, but they've missed the messiah, and they can worship YHWH all they want, but the only way to Him is through Jesus. It's tragic, but my real point is, why, as Christians, would we adopt something that at this point is only rules and 'fine points' that are little more than legalism?

It is tragic that the Jews did not believe that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah. To this day, they are still waiting for the Messiah. However, Jesus and YHWH are still one and the same. We have never separated the Son and the Father. So, even though they do not believe in Jesus Christ, they do believe in the one true God. The Jews and Christians actually worship the same God.

As I said above, sure the Holy Spirit can use fallible men, and He does, every single day...in lesser purposes. Truly, there is only one Bible, and we are told that anyone who adds to it or takes away from it will be terribly punished. So why are you allowing that anyone since has the same authority as those God caused to write His revelation to us?? Granted you aren't saying that they are writing scripture, but by giving them the same authority you're basically saying they could...that it could be a possibility.
And what would happen if the Pope or a Priest announced that God had given him a new word? Who do you trust? Scripture, which is sure....or man....who we know lies and sins terribly. Even some your Priests, who you are giving this authority to, have shown, tragically, that they are far from deserving of this religious freedom. This is sad, but it does prove that man is fallen, and when is comes to absolute truth, it is ONLY scripture that we can and should turn to.

God never stops working with people. Just as He calls people in the past, He continues to call others today to continue preaching the Gospels. The Pope cannot give any new word. The Catholic Church has already declared that there is no new revelation (CCC #66).

True, He says this IS my body. But He doesn't go on to say "This will always be my body, do this to me over and over again." The wonderful thing about His sacrifice is that once was enough. To claim that this sacrifice happens, physically, again and again, is basically saying that that once wasn't good enough.

When we celebrate the Eucharist, we are not sacrificing Christ over and over on the cross. You are correct that He died once on the cross. Christ told us to do this in commemoration of Him. In the Jewish religion, to remember an event is much more than just to recall. The Jews remember the exodus from Egypt as though they themselves were there at that time and place. In the same way, when we do the Eucharist, we are not just recalling the events of the past 2000 years ago. We are actually there 2000 years ago in that time and place, so that the Last Supper becomes real for us just as though we were actually there in time. When Christ died on the cross, His blood reached us because we were there 2000 years ago. This is how His blood reached all of us including those who are not yet born. When we celebrate the Eucharist, the boundaries of time no longer exist for us. This has always been how the Jewish people remembered the Passover. Jesus and the Apostles were Jews, and this is just one of the many Jewish legacies that one would find in us.

I agree that before Jesus' sacrifice those who were 'saved' didn't go straight to heaven, that there was a 'waiting place' for them. But consider this: it was not purgatory. Labeled as Paradise, it is described only as wondrous, not as a place to 'work off sins.'
Now, if those 'saved' before Jesus ultimate sacrifice didn't need to 'work off sins', then why on earth do those after it need to?

If you believe that there is a "waiting place," then why is it difficult to believe that there may be a Purgatory? You already admit that there is a place other than Heaven and Hell. Purgatory does not replace Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Purgatory is God's loving fire cleansing the soul of all sins as the soul gets closer and closer to Heaven.

So you say the pope isn't "impeccable" which means incapable of sinning. But you say he is infallible - infallible in matters of faith and morals. The problem with this is: to err is human. And yet you say in these matters he never, ever does err. I see two problems with this: as Foreigner said, your popes have been known to err, and, if you say he is beyond erring, then he must be regarded as more than human. I'm sorry, the only person I know who is beyond mistakes, beyond error and worthy of my trust because of it, is Jesus, the God man.

My sister, the Apostles were also humans and they did not err in matters of teaching faith and morals. If you truely believe that the Holy Spirit can guide the Apostles who were sinful, fallible men into infallibility in matters of faith and morals, then why is it difficult to believe that the Holy Spirit can also do the same with our Bishops and priests?

In Christ,
Selene

 

[Rach1370]

Hello Rach,

There is nothing in Scripture that says to trust ONLY in Scripture. We believe that the Bible is the word of God and everything in it is the Truth. But the Bible also says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (See 1 Timothy 3:15). So, it is not ONLY the Bible that contains the Truth. The Bible itself even points to the Church as the pillar and foundation of Truth. Why? Because Christ, who is Truth, is the Head of the Church.

You are placing way to much authority upon the "Church". The Church is not a force in and of itself...it should be made up of people who worship God, not an institution.
What happens when wolves within the Church gain the upper hand? What about all the new Church (ecumenical) movements? How many honest Christians have been deceived by their Church, a place of supposed worship and truth?
We know this can happen; witness the letters to the Churches in Revelations. There was some serious problems within them, some even threatening salvation. And please notice that an excuse of 'but the Church told us, so it must be true', would never have stood up. Jesus was going to spit them out of His mouth.

And in regards to your belief that we needn't trust "only" scripture, i would remind you of this verse.

[11] Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
(Acts 17:11 ESV)

Paul makes a big deal of those who check all authority against God's word. It's a good practice to put in ALL your life, and most certainly in Church life as well.

There are many people today who do not believe that Jesus was God and was ascended into Heaven. So, how do you know that God did not bring Mary into Heaven? Since when is faith supposed to be based on facts?

Faith is supposed to be based on God, on His revelation of Himself to us: scripture. The Church is there to help us grow towards Him, to fellowship together and to move the gospel throughout the earth.
Your implication here is that faith can be based on mere speculation and fluff. I'm sorry, this is just dangerous.

It is tragic that the Jews did not believe that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah. To this day, they are still waiting for the Messiah. However, Jesus and YHWH are still one and the same. We have never separated the Son and the Father. So, even though they do not believe in Jesus Christ, they do believe in the one true God. The Jews and Christians actually worship the same God.

Yes, I never implied otherwise! But this is what makes it as tragic as it is....believing in the One True God still won't help them if they dismiss Jesus. We can't deny that Jesus said that He was the only way to the Father. This is one of the reasons that Christians must truly work to spread the gospel!

God never stops working with people. Just as He calls people in the past, He continues to call others today to continue preaching the Gospels. The Pope cannot give any new word. The Catholic Church has already declared that there is no new revelation (CCC #66).

I don't deny that God continues to call people and work through them today; in wondrous and even miraculous ways. But it will never be like the Apostles was. By the very nature that Jesus will never come the same way. These men were called to do amazing things and given amazing gifts to do the things God asked of them. But it all comes from the two absolutely unique task given to them; being eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and ministry, and writing the Scriptures the Church they would start would rely on throughout the ages.
And while its good that the pope cannot give any new word, I'm troubled by your saying 'The Catholic Church has declared...' My sister, it should be 'The Bible declared there would be no additions'. The Bible...the Word of God should always be what we fall back on, not the Church. The Bible can always be trusted....man and the Church, sadly not always.

When we celebrate the Eucharist, we are not sacrificing Christ over and over on the cross. You are correct that He died once on the cross. Christ told us to do this in commemoration of Him. In the Jewish religion, to remember an event is much more than just to recall. The Jews remember the exodus from Egypt as though they themselves were there at that time and place. In the same way, when we do the Eucharist, we are not just recalling the events of the past 2000 years ago. We are actually there 2000 years ago in that time and place, so that the Last Supper becomes real for us just as though we were actually there in time. When Christ died on the cross, His blood reached us because we were there 2000 years ago. This is how His blood reached all of us including those who are not yet born. When we celebrate the Eucharist, the boundaries of time no longer exist for us. This has always been how the Jewish people remembered the Passover. Jesus and the Apostles were Jews, and this is just one of the many Jewish legacies that one would find in us.

Look, I don't think having communion is bad, I think it's a wonderful practice of remembering what Christ has done for us, of again and again remembering the price He paid. Too often Christians loose site of just what Jesus went through when He made that sacrifice for us.
My response to the Eucharist, I suppose, is why believe that it actually becomes His body and blood, when it actually doesn't.
Also, I would say that it isn't us who 'travel through time', but when Jesus died, He was (as God is) in every place, time and circumstance. We needn't put ourselves back then so His sacrifice can apply to us...all we need to do is remember it, love Him and honor Him....because He is here now, and we are covered.

If you believe that there is a "waiting place," then why is it difficult to believe that there may be a Purgatory? You already admit that there is a place other than Heaven and Hell. Purgatory does not replace Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Purgatory is God's loving fire cleansing the soul of all sins as the soul gets closer and closer to Heaven.

I believe there WAS a waiting place. But as you said some time ago, Jesus' death opened the gates of heaven. That waiting place no longer applies...to those of us saved anyway.
And I find purgatory difficult to believe, because, as I've said before, our sins were paid in full, by Christ. There is no getting around it, and while that does not negate our need to live the Christian walk of sanctification; it truly means that all the work was done by Christ on the cross. The end...all done by Him so that there is absolutely nothing we can boast in. Grace does not come with provisos.

My sister, the Apostles were also humans and they did not err in matters of teaching faith and morals. If you truely believe that the Holy Spirit can guide the Apostles who were sinful, fallible men into infallibility in matters of faith and morals, then why is it difficult to believe that the Holy Spirit can also do the same with our Bishops and priests?

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Paul calls Peter out over his error.

[Paul Opposes Peter]
[11] But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. [12] For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. [13] And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. [14] But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
(Galatians 2:11-14 ESV)

And again we see Paul and Barnabas (granted not disciples, but you can't dismiss Paul, as author of most of the NT!) in an un-brotherly argument.

[39] And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus,
(Acts 15:39 ESV)

And I suppose I cannot believe the same in regards to your Priests and Bishops because too often we see just how human and sinful they are. I'm not saying that Protestant ministers are any better...but we aren't pinning the authority you are on them. It gives them way to much license to do what they want...and a sinful person runs with that. A good pastor must be under authority...not only God's, but that of both scripture and their elders.

 

[Selene]

You are placing way to much authority upon the "Church". The Church is not a force in and of itself...it should be made up of people who worship God, not an institution.
What happens when wolves within the Church gain the upper hand? What about all the new Church (ecumenical) movements? How many honest Christians have been deceived by their Church, a place of supposed worship and truth?
We know this can happen; witness the letters to the Churches in Revelations. There was some serious problems within them, some even threatening salvation. And please notice that an excuse of 'but the Church told us, so it must be true', would never have stood up. Jesus was going to spit them out of His mouth.

Hello Rach,

Jesus said that He would be with His Church until the end of the world (Matthew 28:20). In every church, one will always find wolves together with the sheep. This is true for all churches, not just the Catholic Church. The devil will always attack the Christian churches. The parable of the crops and the weeds shows this. There will be weeds growing with the crops, but when harvest comes, the weeds will be gathered together and thrown into the fire. I'm not worried that there are wolves in our Church because Christ is still the Head of the Church, and in time, He will deal with those wolves that the devil has planted in the Church. After all, look at what happened to the Legionaires of Christ. They were a false movement within the Catholic Church, and the Vatican has taken over the entire movement and even condemned the actions of its founder. In time, Christ will weed them out.

And in regards to your belief that we needn't trust "only" scripture, i would remind you of this verse.

[11] Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
(Acts 17:11 ESV)

Paul makes a big deal of those who check all authority against God's word. It's a good practice to put in ALL your life, and most certainly in Church life as well.

My sister, we heed both Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Apostolic Traditions passed down through the Church. In the first place, it was the Church who wrote Sacred Scripture. If one can trust Sacred Scripture that was actually written by the Church, then why is it difficult to trust also the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ?

Faith is supposed to be based on God, on His revelation of Himself to us: scripture. The Church is there to help us grow towards Him, to fellowship together and to move the gospel throughout the earth.
Your implication here is that faith can be based on mere speculation and fluff. I'm sorry, this is just dangerous.

I agree that faith is based on God. But God did founded a Church. He did create a Church, and this Church wrote the Scriptures. He is also the Head of the Church. We know that we can trust the Church because the Bible (which is the word of God) pointed to the Church as being the pillar and foundation of Truth and Christ as her Head. And if we cannot believe what the Bible says about the Church, then what is the point in upholding the Bible as the "word of God?"

Yes, I never implied otherwise! But this is what makes it as tragic as it is....believing in the One True God still won't help them if they dismiss Jesus. We can't deny that Jesus said that He was the only way to the Father. This is one of the reasons that Christians must truly work to spread the gospel!

Jesus is God. So, despite the fact that they do not believe in the Holy Trinity or even in Jesus, Jesus is still God. Jesus said that He is the Way. Yet, God is also the Way because one cannot separate the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are all one and the same. Our Jewish brothers in Israel are ignorant. They have been waiting for the Messiah for eons, and when He finally came, they don't even recognize Him. That is so sad! At any rate, we have something in common with our Jewish brothers. They are waiting for the Messiah to come, and so are we. We are also waiting for the Messiah, but we are waiting for His Second Coming.

I don't deny that God continues to call people and work through them today; in wondrous and even miraculous ways. But it will never be like the Apostles was. By the very nature that Jesus will never come the same way. These men were called to do amazing things and given amazing gifts to do the things God asked of them. But it all comes from the two absolutely unique task given to them; being eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and ministry, and writing the Scriptures the Church they would start would rely on throughout the ages.

My sister, you make the Apostles look as though they were special people. They are not special at all. They are just like us. And what God gave the Apostles, He can give to any disciple who truely follows His Will because this is what He promised.

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father

And while its good that the pope cannot give any new word, I'm troubled by your saying 'The Catholic Church has declared...' My sister, it should be 'The Bible declared there would be no additions'. The Bible...the Word of God should always be what we fall back on, not the Church. The Bible can always be trusted....man and the Church, sadly not always.

The Church that Christ built was not made by man. It was made by God. And Christ made Himself the Head of the Church. If you cannot trust what the Bible says about the Church as being the pillar and foundation of Truth and Christ as her Head, it would be pointless to even believe the Bible.

Look, I don't think having communion is bad, I think it's a wonderful practice of remembering what Christ has done for us, of again and again remembering the price He paid. Too often Christians loose site of just what Jesus went through when He made that sacrifice for us.
My response to the Eucharist, I suppose, is why believe that it actually becomes His body and blood, when it actually doesn't.
Also, I would say that it isn't us who 'travel through time', but when Jesus died, He was (as God is) in every place, time and circumstance. We needn't put ourselves back then so His sacrifice can apply to us...all we need to do is remember it, love Him and honor Him....because He is here now, and we are covered.

We believe that is His body and blood because Scripture says so. Christ was speaking literally when He said, "Those who eat my body will have everlasting life." And His disciples understood that He was speaking literally because all of them left except the Apostles. When Jesus said that He was the vine or He was the gate, everyone knew that He was speaking symbolically. No one left. They only left when He said that they must eat His body. If Jesus was truely speaking symbolically, He would have called back the disciples and explained further. But He did not call them back, and they left because they understood what He was saying.

It is not us who traveled back into time. When we are in communion with God, time does not exist. For you, you only remember it and honor Him. But for us, we were there, so everything becomes real and we see God in person. That is how we were taught, and this is also how the Jewish people were taught about the Passover. For them, the Passover is not just a memory. It was a real event that they personally experienced because they were there.

I believe there WAS a waiting place. But as you said some time ago, Jesus' death opened the gates of heaven. That waiting place no longer applies...to those of us saved anyway.
And I find purgatory difficult to believe, because, as I've said before, our sins were paid in full, by Christ. There is no getting around it, and while that does not negate our need to live the Christian walk of sanctification; it truly means that all the work was done by Christ on the cross. The end...all done by Him so that there is absolutely nothing we can boast in. Grace does not come with provisos.

Are you saying that we are no longer sinners? We are still sinners and still in need of repentance and confessions. His death on the cross gave us redemption. There is a difference between redemption and salvation. Protestants and Catholics have a different viewpoint. Protestants believe that Christ's blood on the cross cleanse us from our sins so that we become white as snow. Catholics hold a different view. We believe that we were born white as snow because we were made in the image of God. What is made in God's image is beautful, pure, and glorious. But when we sin, we covered ourselves with filth. Filthy sin is what covered us so that no one can see the white snow or sparkling diamond that we truely are. Christ's blood on the cross wiped away that filth that covered us so that the snow white underneath it can be seen, and we now sparkle like diamonds. That is what we call "redemption."

Salvation is different. Salvation is a gift from God. We can lose our salvation if we turn away from God and reject Him (See Hebrews 10:26). Jesus' death on the cross also did not make us sinless because we still continue to sin. Because we continue to sin on earth, we still need confessions. In death, any sin that we forgot to confess while still alive on earth will be purged in Purgatory. Any debts that we owe on earth will also be purged in Purgatory. As Jesus said, "Amen, Amen, I say to you, you will not get out of prison until you pay the last penny (See Luke 12:59). In this parable, Jesus encourages us to reconcile with our brother. If we died before we reconcile, Jesus' words are truth. We will not get out until we pay the last penny. Purification is necessary because, as Scripture teaches, nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27) and, while we may die with our mortal sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us;

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Paul calls Peter out over his error.

[Paul Opposes Peter]
[11] But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. [12] For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. [13] And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. [14] But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
(Galatians 2:11-14 ESV)

And again we see Paul and Barnabas (granted not disciples, but you can't dismiss Paul, as author of most of the NT!) in an un-brotherly argument.

[39] And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus,
(Acts 15:39 ESV)

And I suppose I cannot believe the same in regards to your Priests and Bishops because too often we see just how human and sinful they are. I'm not saying that Protestant ministers are any better...but we aren't pinning the authority you are on them. It gives them way to much license to do what they want...and a sinful person runs with that. A good pastor must be under authority...not only God's, but that of both scripture and their elders.

Let us take a closer look at what St. Peter did. Why did St. Peter move away? According to the Bible, he moved away because he did not want to cause a conflict between the Jews and the Gentiles.

Galatians 2:12 For until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.

Here was St. Peter's reason. St. Peter had always been eating with the Gentiles. But when some of James' friends came, he separated himself because he was afraid to cause any kind of conflict between the Gentiles and the circumcised (the Jews). Now, let's take a look at St. Paul's behavior, which ironically is similar as St. Peter's behavior.

Acts 16:2-3 The brothers in Lystra and Iconium spoke highly of him, and Paul wanted him to come along with him. On account of the Jews of that region, Paul had him circumcised, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

As you can see, St. Paul had Timothy circumcised. Why? Because he did not want to cause any conflict between Timothy and the Jews of that region when they pass there. So, like St. Peter, St. Paul also had to keep the peace. St. Paul was the one always preaching that circumcision is not important. Yet, here in the Bible, we see St. Paul having Timothy circumcised simply because he wanted to keep the peace between the Jews and the Gentiles (who were uncircumcised). Both St. Paul and St. Peter were doing the right thing. They are not there to cause any conflict between the Jews and the Gentiles. They are there to try and keep the peace between them. St. Paul was telling St. Peter that he was wrong.....but as it turned out, even St. Paul ended up doing what St. Peter did. And St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles. All the Apostles followed St. Peter's example in trying to keep the peace. Even St. Paul followed St. Peter who was the leader. Keeping the peace is not an error at all. We must all strive to live in peace.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[Selene]

I would also like to add that the disagreement between St. Barnabus and St. Paul showed that the Apostles were normal men like the rest of us. They have disagreements just like all of us. They can sin like all of us. But their teachings of the Christian faith and morals were infallible because it came from the Holy Spirit. Our priests and bishops are the same way. They can have disagreements and they can sin. They are not impeccable. However, the Pope together with the Magisterium, is infallible in the teachings of faith and morals in the same way as the Apostles.

 

[Duckybill]

However, the Pope together with the Magisterium, is infallible in the teachings of faith and morals in the same way as the Apostles.

What Biblical evidence do you have to back this? Are you actually saying the Pope's words are the Words of God?

 

[Selene]

What Biblical evidence do you have to back this? Are you actually saying the Pope's words are the Words of God?

No, I am not saying that the Pope's words are the words of God. I am saying that, like the Apostles, the Pope together with the Magesterium, is infallible when teaching about matters of faith and morals. That means that they cannot err when teaching about faith and morals. Why? Because Christ gave His Church the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit guides the Church in all truths regarding faith and morals.

John 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

John 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost

 

[Duckybill]

I am saying that, like the Apostles, the Pope together with the Magesterium, is infallible when teaching about matters of faith and morals. That means that they cannot err when teaching about faith and morals.

So that's your opinion?

 

[Selene]

So that's your opinion?

No, that is found in Scripture. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to His Church (See John 14:26 and John 20:22). And the Holy Spirit uses sinful, fallible men to proclaim the teachings infallibly and correctly.

 

[Duckybill]

No, that is found in Scripture. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to His Church (See John 14:26 and John 20:22). And the Holy Spirit uses sinful, fallible men to proclaim the teachings infallibly and correctly.

No, I meant this part:

"I am saying that, like the Apostles, the Pope together with the Magesterium, is infallible when teaching about matters of faith and morals. That means that they cannot err when teaching about faith and morals."

 

[aspen]

The crazy thing is - Protestants expect their ministers to speak about the Bible infallibly. Ministers usually give a disclaimer - "Don't trust me, go look it up for yourself", but they are expected to teach acceptable interpretations of the scriptures in accordance with the tradition of their denomination. If someone does go and look up the verse and disagrees with the interpretation, and they confront the pastor and the pastor disagrees with the person's interpretation - the person is free to find another church where "they teach from the Bible" or if the rest of the congregation agrees with the person over the minister, he is considered to be teaching heresy. Ministers are also supposed to speak infallibly about faith and morals - if a Southern Baptist minister gives a sermon supporting abortion, he will be fired on the spot.

The Pope cannot create new doctrine. He can only emphasize parts of doctrine that is already taught by the Church.

Just because you are afraid of the word infallible does not mean it is wrong or out of bounds of Christianity.

 

[Rach1370]

Hey Selene! You know, I think there comes a time where you just have to agree to disagree, or the discussion could go on forever!

Anyway, when it really comes down to it, I love Jesus, you love Jesus, so we're sisters and that's all that matters at the moment!! What is life for but to grow and learn in Christ anyway?!!

 

[Selene]

Hey Selene! You know, I think there comes a time where you just have to agree to disagree, or the discussion could go on forever!

Anyway, when it really comes down to it, I love Jesus, you love Jesus, so we're sisters and that's all that matters at the moment!! What is life for but to grow and learn in Christ anyway?!!

Hi Rach,

Yes, I can see that you truely love Jesus, and that is all that matters. God bless you, my sister!

In Christ,
Selene

 

[TexUs]

Let's look at something in the Bible for a moment.

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.


What do we notice?
1) These people are people in the present Heaven. Their minds are clear. They know what's going on. They have direct access to God. They are no longer subjected to sin- they can see God's will and plan clearer than we can. And yet they still groan for God's judgement.
[font="Georgia][size="3"]2) There is both an act of judgement as well as an act of wrath to be done.[/size][/font]
[font="Georgia][size="3"]3) These people in Heaven are aware of what's going on, they know it's evil, and they know and EXPECT God will judge and avenge it- He simply tells them to rest awhile longer- until the rest of the [/size]martyrs die.[/font]
[font="Georgia][size="3"]
[/size][/font]
[font="Georgia][size="3"]There's no sense of "Hell is Mercy" here at all. People that can think clearer than we can: are groaning for judgement and avengement. These people, who can see God's will clearer than we can, understand the purpose of righteous Judgement and Wrath and understand its purpose in the universe.[/size][/font]

 

[Foreigner]

Very good post, Texus.

You are correct, there is no way possible that hell can be seen as God being mercifcul.


When God says, "Depart from me you cursed ones, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" He is sending that person to hell that is prepared for Satan and his followers. There is not way one can honestly say this is some sort of merciful option for those who die in their sins.


They are going to spend eternity in absolute physical and mental anguish knowing that there will be no end to this pain, tormented by the fact that they are eternally seperated from Jesus, and fully aware that this could been avoided.


There are some here who would say - incorrectly - that that is more mercifcul than being in the presence of a God while under the stain of sin and they would see it as a relief to be sent to hell. The scientific term for that opinion is "hogwash."


Matt 25 show their opinion to be wrong:

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' - Matt. 25:41-45

-- Please note that they are carrying on a back-and-forth conversation with Almighty God while in His presence and don't appear to be in torment or pain, other than the pain of realizing they are about to (literally) get the royal boot.

 

[TexUs]

Back to my post for a moment, you notice the people in Heaven aren't asking "But, why?", but they ask, "But, when?"
They understand the "why". Understanding the "why", they groan for it.

This should give us a hint that God's judgement and wrath on people is good for his plan and is necessary. They GROAN for it. They LONG for it. They just don't sit back and say, "Well, it'll happen some day" (like we generally do). They GROAN for this- they seek the judgement- because it's good and necessary.

One can't argue they GROAN for something evil, seeking evil in Heaven would be totally against the concept of Heaven. They are removed from evil, they are with God, they know his plan (the "why" at least, not the "when"). They aren't groaning for something evil. Thus the only thing they can groan for is good.



Additionally, if Hell is a mercy, why would anyone seek Heaven? If I'm getting mercy either way, why would I seek the harder path?

 

[Mercy777]

Hell, I would like to suggest, is evidence not so much of God's justice - though partly that - but rather of His mercy. One might, in fact, complain that God was cruel if Hell did not exist. I realize that may sound difficult, but if you will follow along, I will attempt to make that case as best I can.

First of all, think of the Israelites' encounter with God on Mt. Sinai, how God revealed Himself in fire, as He did earlier - in some manner or another - with Moses at the burning bush (Ex. 3:2,3). The mountain, we are told in Exodus 19:18, "was covered with smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire" and "the smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace."

Later, while Moses was atop Mt. Sinai (Ex. 33:19-23) he asked God to "show me your glory." God consented, but warned him that "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." So God shielded Moses in a cleft of the rock and also covered him with His hand while He passed by. This passage graphically illustrates Deuteronomy 4:24 and Hebrews 12:29, which say that God "is a consuming fire."

Consider also the Mount of Transfiguration, where the face of our Lord shown like the sun (Mat. 17:2), and Saul's encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascas (Acts 9:3,8), where he was struck down, blinded by a blazing light that physically affected his eyes.

Such passages make me think that it is a very good thing indeed that we now see "but a poor reflection," as Paul writes in I Cor. 13:12. In fact, I can easily understand why someone would not want to see God "face to face," as Paul says later in the same verse.

But this heavenly vision of fire and brilliance doesn't go away. It appears again and again. In Second Thessalonians 1:7 we read that the Lord Jesus will be revealed in "blazing fire" on the Day of Judgement. In 1 Timothy 6:16 Paul writes that God dwells in "unapproachable light." In Revelation 1:16 John writes that he saw the face of Jesus like the sun "shining in its strength." And in Revelation 21:23 he writes that the glory of God illuminates the new Jerusalem. Also, there are angels with faces like the sun and legs like pillars of fire (Rev. 10:1), and in Heaven we find a sea of fire and glass (Rev. 15:2). Then, in Matthew 13:43 the Lord says that "the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father." If mere believers and angels shine like the sun, what dim and insignificant suns they must be when compared with the blazing, glorious sun that is God Himself.

Clearly, for some, this is not an inviting vision. But it is coming. Jesus promised a day of judgement (Matt. 25:31-46).

For those who love the Lord, who are shining as brightly as suns, who have been prepared for this experience by the forgiving grace of Jesus, who wear the proper wedding clothes, that day will be a time of great joy (Matt. 25:210). A wedding feast (Matt. 22:1-13). A meeting with the saints of old (Matt. 8:11, Lk. 16:22). It will be a face-to-face encounter (I Cor. 13:12) with the One whom their hearts have always longed for, and the glory of God will be welcoming and warm and beautiful and loving, like the fresh dawning of a new spring day.

But this same glory will also be revealed to the ungodly, and for these it will be like flames of fire, burning and agonizing (Rev. 20:14-15). The beauty and glory of God which is perfume to believers is, as Paul writes, the stench of death to unbelievers (2 Cor. 2:15-16). The glory of God - blazing like ten thousand suns - will be unendurable to those who are not prepared for His presence.

Perhaps, then, God could simply not reveal himself to the ungodly. But in that case they could go on denying Him for eternity, and God is just and will not permit any lie to endure forever. But He is also merciful, and those who are not prepared to stand directly in His presence, those who do not have on the wedding garments, those who do not love and desire Him, will be cast into the outer darkness (Matt. 8:12). And they will need no urging to go!

Though God's glory is pervasive (Ps. 139:7-8), and though He will no longer let them deceive themselves, He will mercifully shield them from full exposure to Himself, though what exposure they do experience will be to them like a lake of fire (Rev. 21:8).

Then, just as the rich man in Jesus' parable (Lk. 16:23) could look far back toward heaven and see Lazarus, and as, perhaps, those cast out of the wedding hall into the outer darkness could see something of the wedding feast through the windows, so also may those in Hell be able to look back at the saints of God, appearing for all the world like blazing suns, singing and enjoying themselves in the midst of what appears to those in Hell to be a divine inferno. And though they will know well that they could have been there enjoying God's presence, what they see will be as enticing to them as an invitation to join Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the firey furnace (Dan. 3). And seeing this, they will, perhaps, flee even further from heaven.

But suppose a believer from Heaven was to journey to Hell, which - if I understand the parable of Lazarus and the rich man - he could not do (Perhaps because he himself would be blazing so brightly), but if he could, he would feel cold and chilled and would see just the barest hint of light, the distant and filtered glory of God, like a dim star, and he would not understand how that dull glow could cause pain. And he would long to return to the warmth of God's presence.

Finally, if those in Hell were to ask how long it will endure, it seems that it must last as long as God remains glorious.

Romans 9
15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

Romans 11:30
Just as you(Gentiles) who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience,

Romans 11:31
so they(Iraelites) too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you

Titus 3:5
he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,
1 Peter 1:3
[ Praise to God for a Living Hope ] Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1 Peter 2:
9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.


Jude 1:21
keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

Hell has no Mercy!
It would be more merciful to have never been born, than to reject Christ.

Bless you Lord Jesus!

God Bless Aspen,

Mercy

 

[aspen]

Romans 9
15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

Romans 11:30
Just as you(Gentiles) who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience,

Romans 11:31
so they(Iraelites) too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you

Titus 3:5
he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,
1 Peter 1:3
[ Praise to God for a Living Hope ] Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1 Peter 2:
9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.


Jude 1:21
keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

Hell has no Mercy!
It would be more merciful to have never been born, than to reject Christ.

Bless you Lord Jesus!

God Bless Aspen,

Mercy

You seem to be under the impression that I am letting sinners off the hook by downplaying Hell. I am not. Hell is going to be terrible - but it will be a mercy compared to spending eternity in the presence of a Holy God in an unredeemed state.

As far as the martyrs crying out for justice, Hell is also judgment. It is a place for unredeemed souls. It can be a mercy and a judgment.