The Doctrine of Purgatory in Catholic Biblical Perspective

[reformed1689]

Clearly it isn't about water baptism, but wouldn't it fit in with the baptism of the Spirit? Spiritual water? A spiritual birth in spiritual water? I suspect we would agree that's the only baptism that actually saves anyone.

Getting dunked in a pool or sprinkled with water can't save the damned, any more than taking a shower can. As Peter points out, "not the removal of dirt from the body"

No, the water in John 3 is talking about physical birth out of the womb.

 

[CovenantPromise]

You didn't answer the question: Are there no good atheist?

Nope not one! The measure by which we are measured is Christ. If they accept Christ then they will be good, Period!

 

[CovenantPromise]

No, the water in John 3 is talking about physical birth out of the womb.

Oboya! You have been drinking the Sardis smack , the smack from those who have the NAME of being alive but are dead "Born Again Christian"the movement, not in truth . Nicodemus was born through the birth canal WHICH ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE. That statement is a fallacy just by Nicodemus' reply to Christ: ""Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. ... So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." Christ is not talking about the amniotic fluid either. That is why Christ said that it was for Him and John to fulfill all righteousness. Water baptism is essential in salvation . Amniotic fluid is not just water:

At first, amniotic fluid consists of water from the mother's body, but gradually, the larger proportion is made up of the baby's urine. It also contains important nutrients, hormones, and antibodies and it helps protect the baby from bumps and injury.
WOW! No wonder why Christ is ticked!

 

[CovenantPromise]

Not sure why you’re bringing up Constantine. He wasn’t a Catholic leader.

Secondly – your claim that “everything” I know about Christ is from Scripture is complete nonsense. Everything I have been taught by His CHURCH, which is an extension if HIM (Acts 9:3-5, Col. 1:18) is what I know about Christ – and a lot of is taught in Scripture – but NOT all.

For example – Infant Baptism is alluded to in Scripture – but we get the specifics from ORAL TRADITION.
Christ told His Apostles at the Last Supper:

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
\But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

ALL Truth is what He guaranteed to the leaders of His Church.
Never ONCE did He say that it would be written down – or did He even TELL them to write it down. Instead – He instructed them to TEACH all nations EVERYTHING He commanded (Matt. 28:19-20).

The Oral Traditions of Christ’s Church do NOT contradict Scripture. Your failure to understand or accept them doesn’t automatically render them “contradictory.”

Finally – YOU are adding to Scripture what is NOT there.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 says that Scripture is profitable for teaching, doctrine, reproof, etc. NOWHERE does it state that Oral Tradition is null and void. That is YOUR addendum to the Word of God – NOT what is written.

No Constantine was not a leader of a church. And not all who are considered to be leaders of the Catholic assembly are. There have been many wolves in sheep's clothing, including the one you have over you today.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Still quoting scripture and what men deduce from the language of the scriptures as I have been saying all along is based on the language -equation from the scriptures. I am not talking about infant baptism and you know it. I am quite clear and I thoroughly understand about infant baptism. I notice everything I say that you cannot win against you throw children in the mix as though I said something against little children. You have done it with just about all our debates. As for leaders of the church, that all depends upon their fidelity to Christ not their loyalty to the precepts of men accepted as tradition. Or traditions they set up which can not be shown to be fact through the scriptures when tested PERIOD!
CP
No kidding!

CP:
John 16:12-15
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.
No kidding. AAAANNNND?
And that Spirit is no hypocrite nor does He contradict the scriptures. You saying it, then believing non -truths does not mean what those verses say.
They are one as God is one as I have said all along. And you quote those from where??? From the scripture's alone. No other book told you that, but other books quote from the scriptures. SOOOO, your point?

I clearly have not said anything against Infant baptism, The Eucharist, the Mother of Christ (Concerning that- I have edified you and many ). And will continue to edify whoever has a doubt about TRUE doctrine, that I have acknowledged from the Catholic assembly and expounded upon with CERTAIN clarity. And what I have revealed is not based on Apocrypha or things called"sacred Traditions " with no basis in the reality of the written word. FOR SURE! So your point?

All the rest you put, is deflection . You hold up the word" children "to shield you as though someone denied them by denying your nonsense. My children are sound. PERIOD!

“Throwing children” at you??
WHAT are you talking about?? You sound unbalanced. Take a few deep breaths and calm down before you post.

I only mentioned Infant Baptism as an example of Oral Tradition. The Early Church Fathers are UNANIMOUS on the fact that this is an APOSTOLIC teaching. Either they’re ALL lying – or YOU need to show that they are wrong.

Also – you keep accusing me of touting Oral Traditions that “contradict” Scripture – but you haven’t named one. It’s usually customary to present an example of the offense that you accusing your opponent of . . .

Finally – the Canon of Scripture itself is a Catholic Tradition. There is NO table of Contents in Scripture. These Books were selected and declared Canonical by the CATHOLIC CHURCH under the guidance of the Holy Spirit – just like Jesus promised in John 16:12-15.

 

[CovenantPromise]

Clearly it isn't about water baptism, but wouldn't it fit in with the baptism of the Spirit? Spiritual water? A spiritual birth in spiritual water? I suspect we would agree that's the only baptism that actually saves anyone.

Getting dunked in a pool or sprinkled with water can't save the damned, any more than taking a shower can. As Peter points out, "not the removal of dirt from the body"

One could only imagine..... NOOOO! John came baptizing and preaching a gospel of repentance . Based on your nonsense, what would he even be needed for? Sorry, not sorry it was for Christ and he to fulfill all righteousness. what does righteousness mean:the quality of being morally right or justifiable. You are unjustified in what you say because it is not in accordance to righteousness that John and Christ performed.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No Constantine was not a leader of a church. And not all who are considered to be leaders of the Catholic assembly are. There have been many wolves in sheep's clothing, including the one you have over you today.

You are obviously anti-Catholic, but why did you mention Constantine??

 

[Marymog]

Oh boy here we go with this nonsense again. John 3 is NOT talking about baptism.

Well, it is 2,000 years of nonsense then because that has been the teaching of Christianity for 2,000 years. Your teaching is 500 years old

What is TRUE nonsense is that just before that statement in John 3 (one must be born of water and Spirit) Jesus is baptized with water and the Spirit was present. Right after that statement the Apostles go out and baptize with water. Sooooo for you to suggest that in the middle of those two events Jesus was talking about something other then water baptism in John 3 is true nonsense.

Bible study Mary

 

[Marymog]

Nope not one! The measure by which we are measured is Christ. If they accept Christ then they will be good, Period!

Really? NO atheist do good works?

I know some atheist and the do more good works then some Christians I know soooooo that blows your theory out of the water!!

Thank you for your time.

 

[CovenantPromise]

“Throwing children” at you??
WHAT are you talking about?? You sound unbalanced. Take a few deep breaths and calm down before you post.

I only mentioned Infant Baptism as an example of Oral Tradition. The Early Church Fathers are UNANIMOUS on the fact that this is an APOSTOLIC teaching. Either they’re ALL lying – or YOU need to show that they are wrong.

Also – you keep accusing me of touting Oral Traditions that “contradict” Scripture – but you haven’t named one. It’s usually customary to present an example of the offense that you accusing your opponent of . . .

Finally – the Canon of Scripture itself is a Catholic Tradition. There is NO table of Contents in Scripture. These Books were selected and declared Canonical by the CATHOLIC CHURCH under the guidance of the Holy Spirit – just like Jesus promised in John 16:12-15.

You have not proven me wrong . You just keep proving me right. As for the assemblies Canons (The 3 major assemblies)they are all biblical , 66, 73 and the 81-88 book Canons. With your Canon I will prove all and with all I will show you are not perfect. The first assembly studied from more than you possess and I can prove that with your own Canon.

 

[reformed1689]

The Early Church Fathers are UNANIMOUS on the fact that this is an APOSTOLIC teaching. Either they’re ALL lying – or YOU need to show that they are wrong.

Or you don't know ECF as well as you think you do. Tertullian advised AGAINST infant baptism.

 

[Marymog]

No, the water in John 3 is talking about physical birth out of the womb.

Once again you have spouted a 500 year teaching of men.

The Bible never describes natural birth as being “born of water.” Jesus describes natural birth as being “born of flesh” (John 3:6).

Maintaining that being born of water is natural birth would make little sense in this passage. CLEARLY Jesus is speaking to people who have already been naturally born. Why would he mention that they need to be born of water, if not to reinforce the importance of baptism?

 

[reformed1689]

Well, it is 2,000 years of nonsense then because that has been the teaching of Christianity for 2,000 years. Your teaching is 500 years old

It wasn't the teaching of Christ or John. That trumps the church. It is idiotic to think that passage is talking about water baptism. It is completely invented by the Catholic church and no basis in reality. Not to mention it doesn't even make since in a literary sense or grammatical context.

 

[reformed1689]

Really? NO atheist do good works?

I know some atheist and the do more good works then some Christians I know soooooo that blows your theory out of the water!!

Thank you for your time.

I believe I said there is no such thing as a good person that is not saved. I never said they can't do good things.

 

[CovenantPromise]

Really? NO atheist do good works?

I know some atheist and the do more good works then some Christians I know soooooo that blows your theory out of the water!!

Thank you for your time.

Why because you said so? How about this, you show me according to the scriptures how an NON- BELIEVER gets into heaven and I will show you after, that anyone who calls his or herself Christian and does not live according to that, does not either.

And you are welcome , my time is valuable.

 

[reformed1689]

The Bible never describes natural birth as being “born of water.” Jesus describes natural birth as being “born of flesh” (John 3:6).

Yes, immediately after using the same construct with water. Is Baptism Part of Salvation?

 

[CovenantPromise]

Yes, immediately after using the same construct with water. Is Baptism Part of Salvation?

Why would anyone read that when it is clear, it completely misses the mark? Read perhaps to be informed about the wacky beliefs out there, in order to point out that it is not sound doctrine maybe. You will gather weeds to it ,to bind in bundles to burn but wheat? Just because you bought it hook line and sinker does not make it true.

 

[reformed1689]

Why would anyone read that when it is clear, it completely misses the mark? Read perhaps to be informed about the wacky beliefs out there, in order to point out that it is not sound doctrine maybe. You will gather weeds to it ,to bind in bundles to burn but wheat? Just because you bought it hook line and sinker does not make it true.

What misses what mark exactly?

 

[Marymog]

It wasn't the teaching of Christ or John. That trumps the church. It is idiotic to think that passage is talking about water baptism. It is completely invented by the Catholic church and no basis in reality. Not to mention it doesn't even make since in a literary sense or grammatical context.

Yup....and your idiotic 500 year teaching invented by men trumps the 2,000 year teaching of the men who lived closest to the time of Christ ....that makes sense

Hmmm....who should I trust? Men that lived in the 1st century or the men that lived in the 16th century? TOUGH DECISION!!

 

[Marymog]

Yes, immediately after using the same construct with water. Is Baptism Part of Salvation?

Wow....that link you provided is pretty solid evidence you are right. I believe you and not the Apostolic Fathers. You have changed my mind.

Is that your website David?