The Doctrine of Purgatory in Catholic Biblical Perspective

[reformed1689]

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

Do you mean to say you have an apostolic father who says that it is baptism? Care to point to the text?

 

[reformed1689]

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?

Yes, it is my website, but I'm sure you already knew that. And yes, the evidence is solid despite your sarcasm.

 

[Marymog]

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.

No, not because I said so. Logic says so!!

This discussion isn't about non-believers getting into heaven kiddo. It is about good works. Atheist do good works; just like Christians.

The only difference is Christian's are REQUIRED to do good works because faith without works is dead. Atheist aren't required to do good works.....they just do them because they are good people.

 

[CovenantPromise]

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

I am anti- lie. If you support lies you are anti-Christian!

 

[Marymog]

Do you mean to say you have an apostolic father who says that it is baptism? Care to point to the text?

I can see where I implied that so let me be clear:

Jesus taught the Apostles. The Apostles taught the Apostolic Fathers. The Apostolic fathers taught the Church Fathers. If you care to take the time you should read what the Church Fathers had to say and then you will know the Truth.

 

[Marymog]

Yes, it is my website, but I'm sure you already knew that. And yes, the evidence is solid despite your sarcasm.

Fascinating.....you quote yourself to prove yourself right!!!

 

[Marymog]

Yes, it is my website, but I'm sure you already knew that. And yes, the evidence is solid despite your sarcasm.

If anything on your website contradicts the Apostolic Fathers....whom should I believe? You or them?

Curious Mary

BTW....I didn't KNOW it was your website...I presumed it. I'm sure it takes a lot of your time and WORK!

 

[Marymog]

Do you mean to say you have an apostolic father who says that it is baptism? Care to point to the text?

How about we do this David. You present to me the earliest teaching from the church that John 3:5 does NOT mean baptism with water and I will produce for you the earliest teaching that it does mean water? Maybe we will both learn something!

Deal?

 

[reformed1689]

How about we do this David. You present to me the earliest teaching from the church that John 3:5 does NOT mean baptism with water and I will produce for you the earliest teaching that it does mean water? Maybe we will both learn something!

Deal?

Sure. Jesus speaking to Nicodemus.

 

[reformed1689]

If anything on your website contradicts the Apostolic Fathers....whom should I believe? You or them?

Only if my website contradicts Scripture.

 

[CovenantPromise]

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.

Is water baptism invented by the Body or given to the body as doctrine to be taught as essential? For that matter please tell me what is not essential taught by Christ and His elect Jew? You tell me something not essential and I will show you a wolf in sheep's clothing. Oh and let me cover Paul, when he teaches- the suggestion of abstaining from marriage and about marriage, (that one may be more essential to one person than the other consider circumstances and personal choice),his suggestion is still an essential teaching. Because both are in service to God. They are essential teachings in choice because there are no other options in Christianity (FORNICATION , ADULTERY etc...) he is teaching essentials. Baptism is essential for both married and those abstaining from. So again please show me a non-essential of Christ's teachings?

 

[reformed1689]

Fascinating.....you quote yourself to prove yourself right!!!

No, I linked my site so I didn't have to write something I have already written.

 

[reformed1689]

I can see where I implied that so let me be clear:

Jesus taught the Apostles. The Apostles taught the Apostolic Fathers. The Apostolic fathers taught the Church Fathers. If you care to take the time you should read what the Church Fathers had to say and then you will know the Truth.

And Paul even said while he was alive the church started going astray and teaching incorrect doctrine. So Sorry, don't trust oral tradition. I trust the Scriptures.

 

[reformed1689]

Is water baptism invented by the Body or given to the body as doctrine to be taught as essential? For that matter please tell me what is not essential taught by Christ and His elect Jew? You tell me something not essential and I will show you a wolf in sheep's clothing. Oh and let me cover Paul, when he teaches- the suggestion of abstaining from marriage and about marriage, (that one may be more essential to one person than the other consider circumstances and personal choice),his suggestion is still an essential teaching. Because both are in service to God. They are essential teachings in choice because there are no other options in Christianity (FORNICATION , ADULTERY etc...) he is teaching essentials. Baptism is essential for both married and those abstaining from. So again please show me a non-essential of Christ's teachings?

I never said baptism wasn't essential. I said baptism is not required for salvation and that John 3 is not discussing baptism.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am anti- lie. If you support lies you are anti-Christian!

No, you're anti-Catholic.

You referred to Catholic teachings as: “Bunk”, “False, so called sacred traditions” and “precepts of men”.
You referred to Catholic leaders as “Wolves”.
You referred to ME as: “Apostate”.
Yup – I’d say that makes you an anti-Catholic.

You also stated that I am “spewed out of the Lord’s mouth.”
I would NEVER even dare say that about an atheist because I cannot judge a person’s soul – only GOD can.

We are to judge a person’s DEEDS – their fruits (Matt. 7:15-20). We are NOT to judge their SOULS.
When you DO this - the Scriptures say that YOU will be judged by the same measuring rod by which you judge others (Matt. 7:2).

Finally, until you can prove the false, 16th century man-made precept of Sola Scriptura - you don't have a leg to stand on . . .

 

[reformed1689]

Finally, until you can prove the false, 16th century man-made precept of Sola Scriptura - you don't have a leg to stand on . . .

Of course you would actually need to prove that the teachings you subscribe to carefully, faithfully, and accurately came from the Apostles themselves over the last 2,000 years. I don't think you can meet that burden of proof.

 

[BreadOfLife]

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

Shows how little you know.

Tertullian wasn’t against Infant Baptism. He simply advised that people wait.

For that matter – Tertullian ALSO said that UNMARRIED ADULTS shouldn’t get baptized, as a matter of prudence, because they’re more prone to temptation. Because of this - he thought that everyone should delay Baptism.

These views were due to his eventual fall into the Montanist Heresy, which believed, among other things that sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven.

Gee – no WONDER he advised against most people being baptized . . .

 

[shnarkle]

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

Isn't that the same interpretation as Nicodemus? Doesn't he say the same thing?

That line of reasoning doesn't seem to make sense to me because if being born physically was necessary, then the entire host of heaven, not to mention the Father and the Spirit wouldn't qualify.

There's another problem which is that Nicodemus is already there. He's already been born in the flesh. He doesn't need to check that off the list. In fact, no one has to check that off their list of the things to do to be saved.

It would be like driving up to someone, and asking directions only to have them point out that you will need a car.

The context also seems to indicate that he's talking about the spirit because those things that are flesh are flesh while the spirit is spiritual, and verse 8 is especially focused on the Spirit alone.

Then there's the figure Hendiadys which is a pervasive figure of speech used throughout scripture. A spiritual birth with spiritual water is essential while pointing out that one must be born physically is completely redundant.

 

[shnarkle]

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.

I'm not denying the purpose of water baptism. I'm pointing out that this particular passage has nothing to do with water baptism, but "spiritual water", i.e. a spiritual birth. Why else would he use the idea of being born? Because a baby does nothing to be born. The mother does everything. The mother gives birth. However, the word can also be used of the father, e.g. "begotten". The father begets spiritual children.

Again, one need look no further than the next few verses to see that there it has nothing to do with water baptism, but a spiritual birth.

It has no more to do with water baptism than what he says in chapter 7, verses 38,39 do.

 

[CovenantPromise]

No, you're anti-Catholic.

You referred to Catholic teachings as: “Bunk”, “False, so called sacred traditions” and “precepts of men”.
You referred to Catholic leaders as “Wolves”.
You referred to ME as: “Apostate”.
Yup – I’d say that makes you an anti-Catholic.

You also stated that I am “spewed out of the Lord’s mouth.”
I would NEVER even dare say that about an atheist because I cannot judge a person’s soul – only GOD can.

We are to judge a person’s DEEDS – their fruits (Matt. 7:15-20). We are NOT to judge their SOULS.
When you DO this - the Scriptures say that YOU will be judged by the same measuring rod by which you judge others (Matt. 7:2).

Finally, until you can prove the false, 16th century man-made precept of Sola Scriptura - you don't have a leg to stand on . . .

Yup if being against any false doctrine makes me anti Catholic then I AM SOOOO ANTI CATHOLIC. And if you are against complete TRUTH then you are soooo ANTI CHRIST, lukewarm, hypocrite who is spewed out . I guess we know what we are dealing with in one another . I AM SOUND you are NOT, I am PURE you are defiled. I AM PRESENTED AS A VIRGIN you a WHORE. And I am the unblemished BRIDE and you are just a wanna be! And God has revealed that you are a counterfeit , knock- off without an authentic stamp of approval. You are now revealed to be just words of honor given in lip service but your heart is far from Him. Such is the way of the world and those of it. Che sara sara!

You have no clue of what is going on. God is Good!