The Doctrine of Purgatory in Catholic Biblical Perspective

[Philip James]

baptism does NOT take our sins away ..you are so wrong the Blood read 1 john 1:9 the blood covers are sins.. yet we will sin all the more reason we can approach the throne of Grace . you have took scripture and twisted them into what you want them to say.

Come now, let us set things right, says the LORD: Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow; Though they be crimson red, they may become white as wool


This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,


For I am jealous of you with the jealousy of God, since I betrothed you to one husband to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.


The Blood cleanses us of our sins, it does not just cover them.

Peace be with you!

 

[Taken]

Guess again - especially since you worship a different God than the God of Christianity.

You have already convinced the forum your god is a HUMAN man and your holy father is a HUMAN man.

I am not the one in jeopardy!

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Ezra]

The Blood cleanses us of our sins, it does not just cover them.

i suggest you get a different bible in fact this makes twice once you questioned coming by the cross.then you deny the blood taking away all sins . you could be in serious trouble

 

[Mungo]

i suggest you get a different bible in fact this makes twice once you questioned coming by the cross.then you deny the blood taking away all sins . you could be in serious trouble

I'm puzzled as to why you deny that the blood of Christ cleanses us from sin.
1Jn 1:7
but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (RSV)
Even the KJV says that.
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin (KJV)

 

[epostle]

Which of course cannot be substantiated. There is no such thing as apostolic succession.

then there is no such thing as Colossians 1:25
– Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

Then there is no such thing as 2 Timothy 2:2
– this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

The church goes back to Christ and it is not an organization. It is the body of believers.

Of course the Church is a body of believers, but that does not exclude the organization and development of apostolic authority. Christ is the foundation of the Church, you don't need to remind me. But the Apostles are also the foundation of the Church, Ephesians 2:20, which we call an institution, another word for which you have a different definition. Scripture does not say the body of believers are the foundation of the Church, but you do.

You create an anti-institutional false dichotomy that is not in scripture. NOWHERE does the Bible teach that a body of believers can collectively bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19). I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith, and not some vague "body of believers".

The authority of the elders to excommunicate / anathemize (“deliver to satan”) is not granted to "a body of believers", which contains ordained leadership. 1 Cor. 5:3-5; 16:22; 1 Tim. 1:20; Gal 1:8; Matt 18:17) You muddy the waters with Calvinistic dichotomies.
Peter, the other Apostles and elders, formed an institution in Acts 15, whether you like it or not. They represented "the body of believers". Don't waste your time with dictionaries, lexicons, concordances and commentaries trying to disprove the biblical definition of "institution". Your anti-institution mentality is not in Scripture. You flatly deny the scriptures I gave, by simply changing the meaning of "apostolic succession" into something never meant in the first place.

The 'reformers' unbiblically abolished the office of bishop and priest, so you resort to scriptural gymnastics to defend it, or make empty out-of-context assertions.

You always complain that the Scripture we provide that backs up our claims are out of context, but you never provide your private version of "context". You just declare it.

No, the hallmark of protestantism is to actually base faith and practice on Scripture.

This is sheer nonsense. The hallmark of Protestantism is division, sectarianism and schisms, the very things that the Bible condemns. The very things that Luther and Calvin lamented over. Protestantism fails Paul's test for a Biblical Church. The Council of Jerusalem was infallible, but you reject that or ignore it because it doesn't fit in the man made tradition of a supposedly non-infallible Church!
"base faith and practice on Scripture" my ass. Get off your high horse and face reality. It is an outright lie to assert that Protestantism in its initial appearance, advocated tolerance and freedom of conscience. The evidence presented refutes this notion beyond any reasonable doubt. Catholics and Anabaptists were killed or supressed for doing that very thing.
I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN OVERVIEW
II. PLUNDER AS AN AGENT OF RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION
III. SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF CATHOLICISM
IV. PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP
BIBLIOGRAPHY
That is the consequence of your dogmatic "base faith and practice on Scripture" which violated Scripture at every turn. The average Protestant knows nothing about the Protestant Inquisition, unless they make a study of it.
"base faith and practice on Scripture", what a joke.

Look! The "body of believers" is the church!
That rules out successors of the Apostles!​

 

[reformed1689]

then there is no such thing as Colossians 1:25
– Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

Then there is no such thing as 2 Timothy 2:2
– this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

Of course the Church is a body of believers, but that does not exclude the organization and development of apostolic authority. Christ is the foundation of the Church, you don't need to remind me. But the Apostles are also the foundation of the Church, Ephesians 2:20, which we call an institution, another word for which you have a different definition. Scripture does not say the body of believers are the foundation of the Church, but you do.

You create an anti-institutional false dichotomy that is not in scripture. NOWHERE does the Bible teach that a body of believers can collectively bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19). I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith, and not some vague "body of believers".

The authority of the elders to excommunicate / anathemize (“deliver to satan”) is not granted to "a body of believers", which contains ordained leadership. 1 Cor. 5:3-5; 16:22; 1 Tim. 1:20; Gal 1:8; Matt 18:17) You muddy the waters with Calvinistic dichotomies.
Peter, the other Apostles and elders, formed an institution in Acts 15, whether you like it or not. They represented "the body of believers". Don't waste your time with dictionaries, lexicons, concordances and commentaries trying to disprove the biblical definition of "institution". Your anti-institution mentality is not in Scripture, but you force scripture to say the opposite.

The 'reformers' unbiblically abolished the office of bishop and priest, so you resort to scriptural gymnastics to defend it, or make empty out-of-context assertions.

You always complain that the Scripture we provide that backs up our claims are out of context, but you never provide your private version of "context". You just declare it. This is sheer nonsense. The hallmark of Protestantism is division, sectarianism and schisms, the very things that the Bible condemns. The very things that Luther and Calvin lamented over. Protestantism fails Paul's test for a Biblical Church. The Council of Jerusalem was infallible, but you reject that or ignore it because it doesn't fit in the man made tradition of a supposedly non-infallible Church!
"base faith and practice on Scripture" my ass. Get off your high horse and face reality. It is an outright lie to assert that Protestantism in its initial appearance, advocated tolerance and freedom of conscience. The evidence presented refutes this notion beyond any reasonable doubt. Catholics and Anabaptists were killed or supressed for doing that very thing.
I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN OVERVIEW
II. PLUNDER AS AN AGENT OF RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION
III. SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF CATHOLICISM
IV. PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP
BIBLIOGRAPHY
That is the consequence of your dogmatic "base faith and practice on Scripture" which violated Scripture at every turn.

Yes that is certainly what the false teachers of the Catholic Church believe. I have already explained how the RCC is wrong on this.

 

[epostle]

Louis Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them.
Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation

 

[epostle]

Yes that is certainly what the false teachers of the Catholic Church believe. I have already explained how the RCC is wrong on this.

Then give the post number where you did this, instead of pounding your chest. Then give scripture that refutes the laying on of hands that clearly indicates the passing on of authority that you arrogantly deny. Here are over 25 scripture citations that you must ignore to support your man made tradition. Your accusation of "the false teachers of the Catholic Church" is stupid and absurd.

 

[reformed1689]

Then give the post number where you did this, instead of pounding your chest. Then give scripture that refutes the laying on of hands that clearly indicates the passing on of authority that you arrogantly deny. Here are over 25 scripture citations that you must ignore to support your man made tradition. Your accusation of "the false teachers of the Catholic Church" is stupid and absurd.

No, I don't have to ignore those 25 Scriptures. I just don't accept the false teaching and misinterpretation of the Roman Catholic Church regarding these verses. The only man-made tradition being propped up here is Catholicism.

 

[epostle]

No, I don't have to ignore those 25 Scriptures. I just don't accept the false teaching and misinterpretation of the Roman Catholic Church regarding these verses. The only man-made tradition being propped up here is Catholicism.

But you fail to give the correct interpretation, and offer no evidence of false teaching, you blindly assert it. Anybody can claim anything just by saying it. Worse, you deny/ignore the numerous scriptures in post 1145, and try to bury it with more empty assertions. You cannot be reasoned with.

Yes that is certainly what the false teachers of the Catholic Church believe. I have already explained how the RCC is wrong on this.

I read your web page. All of it. You are a very good Protestant. Everything you say is fully agreeable with Catholic teaching, but you don't seem to be aware of it. Your ill-informed Catholic bashing is inconsistent with your own beliefs. If the Catholic Church is as wrong as you claim, THEN SO ARE YOU.

When was the last time you heard a Catholic bashing prophecy from an acknowledged prophet? In past years, I have been in plenty of spirit filled Protestant churches, heard the most sought after international prophets, and never heard a single prophecy bashing Catholicism. Why is that?

 

[reformed1689]

Worse, you deny/ignore the numerous scriptures in post 1145, and try to bury it with more empty assertions. You cannot be reasoned with.

I didn't ignore anything. This is a strawman.

I read your web page. All of it. You are a very good Protestant. Everything you say is fully agreeable with Catholic teaching, but you don't seem to be aware of it. Your ill-informed Catholic bashing is inconsistent with your own beliefs. If the Catholic Church is as wrong as you claim, THEN SO ARE YOU.

If you have read my entire website, which I doubt, you wouldn't say everything I say is consistent with the RCC. I flat out speak against the RCC on the site.

When was the last time you heard a Catholic bashing prophecy from an acknowledged prophet? In past years, I have been in plenty of spirit filled Protestant churches, heard the most sought after international prophets, and never heard a single prophecy bashing Catholicism. Why is that?

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Which of course cannot be substantiated. There is no such thing as apostolic succession.

The church goes back to Christ and it is not an organization. It is the body of believers.

No, the hallmark of protestantism is to actually base faith and practice on Scripture.

Not only CAN it be substantiated – the Church HAS substantiated it through the centuries - and we have the paper trail to prove it . . .

St. Ignatius was a 1st century Bishop of Antioch. On his way to martyrdom in Rome in the early years of the 2nd century, he wrote SEVEN Letters to SEVEN churches. The Church he describes in his letters is not ANY of the tens of thousands of splintered Protestant sects. They describe the ONE and ONLY Church that Christ and His Apostles established – the Catholic Church:
Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Acts 1:20 shows us the beginning of Apostolic Succession when the apostles gathered to elect a successor to Judas. If there is “no such thing” as Apostolic Successions – WHY was it necessary to replace Judas??
Acts 1:20 tells us that they quoted the prophecy regarding Judas: “Let another take his office.”
The Greek word used here for “office” is “Episkopay” which means BISHORIC.

No – history proves that the hallmark of Protestantism is ecclesiastical divorce and perpetual-splintering, which happens again and again every time somebody is fed up with the sect they are in. All they have to do is break off and start their own sect.

Ecclesiastical divorce – what a mess . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

that is dangerous and worry me you thought

????
Do you ever proofread your posts??

 

[reformed1689]

Not only CAN it be substantiated – the Church HAS substantiated it through the centuries - and we have the paper trail to prove it . . .

St. Ignatius was a 1st century Bishop of Antioch. On his way to martyrdom in Rome in the early years of the 2nd century, he wrote SEVEN Letters to SEVEN churches. The Church he describes in his letters is not ANY of the tens of thousands of splintered Protestant sects. They describe the ONE and ONLY Church that Christ and His Apostles established – the Catholic Church:
Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Acts 1:20 shows us the beginning of Apostolic Succession when the apostles gathered to elect a successor to Judas. If there is “no such thing” as Apostolic Successions – WHY was it necessary to replace Judas??
Acts 1:20 tells us that they quoted the prophecy regarding Judas: “Let another take his office.”
The Greek word used here for “office” is “Episkopay” which means BISHORIC.

No – history proves that the hallmark of Protestantism is ecclesiastical divorce and perpetual-splintering, which happens again and again every time somebody is fed up with the sect they are in. All they have to do is break off and start their own sect.

Ecclesiastical divorce – what a mess . . .

Excactly, more "proof" only through the lens of Catholic false teaching.

 

[Mungo]

I didn't ignore anything. This is a strawman.

This seems to be one of the stock answers from Protestants when they are stumped by the scriptures Catholics produce.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So from a supposed "Implication" Catholic men have "Stretched" what they view as an "Implication" To A "Fact"...

Finally an Admission of HOW the Catholic Teaching of Mary Being SINLESS was conjoured up in the minds of Catholic men, based on their opinion of an Implication

Glory to God,
Taken

As I have educated you several times now – Scripture teaches us both EXPLICITLY and IMPLICITLY.
I even gave you examples of some implicit teachings.

The Trinity is an implicit teaching. In fact – the word “Trinity” is found NOWHERE in Scripture but was coined by the Catholic Church.
Mary’s Immaculate Conception is an implicit teaching of Scripture and an explicit teaching of Sacred Tradition. The implications of her status as “Kecharitomene” are overwhelming and have NOT been properly addressed by YOU or any other Protestant or anti-Catholic here.

So far – your objections to this doctrine have been just that: simple objections with ZERO evidence to refute “Kecharitomene”.

I have given you about a hundred chances to address this – but in your usual cowardly fashion – you are FULL of snarky remarks but pretty empty on facts . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Excactly, more "proof" only through the lens of Catholic false teaching.

Really?
Can you tell which Church Ignatius was describing?

 

[BreadOfLife]

This seems to be one of the stock answers from Protestants when they are stumped by the scriptures Catholics produce.

Yes, another one of his favorites is "Red Herring!"

I don't think he understands what a red herring is . . .

 

[reformed1689]

Really?
Can you tell which Church Ignatius was describing?

Ignatius is not equvalent to Scripture so it doesn't matter.

 

[reformed1689]

I don't think he understands what a red herring is . . .

a statement intended to mislead or distract.