Let's discuss purgatory

Your probably right. I am close to shaking the dust off my feet.

 

1. The statement says that ONLY "venial" sins are atoned for "purged" by the "punishment" of purgatory. So that means if you die with MORTAL sin - you go to hell NOT purgatory.

(Hint - skipping Sunday Mass is a mortal sin. So the fact that Kennedy is being denied mass could be a problem for him as it turns out.)

2. Purgatory is NOT mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

3. There is also no Bible example of praying to the dead NOR even of praying for the wellbeing of the DEAD - while in their state of DEATH.

This is a good example of a "tradition of man" that invalidates the Word of God.

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

 

1. I know of no "we ontologically must have the mind of Christ" in all of scripture. Not even in 1 Cor 2.

2. Sanctification is a process that occurs all during the Christian life.

a. There is no "magic line of sanctification" that scripture says "you must attain to before you die".

b. There is no "additional sanctification" that scripture says is "taking place among the dead".

Thus the collapse of PART of the argument for purgatory.

The OTHER part of that RC-Sanctification-in-Purgatory argument falls apart when we look at Purgatory's flip-side -- "Indulgences".

Indulgences are obtained for the dead based on a number of fictions invented as additions to the Bible.

1. The idea of a "spiritual bank of sufferings" -- where sinners who "sufferred more than they owed" have their excess sufferings placed into "the bank" as well as the sinless Christ having all of his "excess sufferings" placed there. Clearly He did not "owe what He sufferred for His OWN sins".

2. The RCC has a "check writing role" giving it the right to "write checks" against that spiritual bank of suffering.

3. Christ has the role of "endorsing the check" and since the RCC cannot ensure that Christ WILL endorse every plenary indulgence check the church writes -- the RC members are encouraged to earn multiple plenary indulgences for the SAME loved one.

4. It is considered a loving and Christian thing to be concerned about your dead loved one and do whatever you can to GET THEM OUT of purgatory.

Now think about that for a minute -- if Purgatory is defined as "Sanctification that fits one for heaven" - then "getting them out before their time" would leave them UNFIT for HEAVEN FOREVER!

IF on the other hand Purgatory is nothing more than "punishment" -- then "getting them out" is pure and loving thing to do.

If on the other hand BOTH the substitutionary payment for punishment of venial sins AND the Sanctification necessary for heaven - for a loved one can BOTH happen the INSTANT they die (via some on-the-spot plenary indulgence) -- THEN Purgatory itself is a completely pointless exercise - serving no other purpose than dark-ages papal fund-rusing for superstitious illiterate masses.

Which finally gets to the point and it illustrates the danger of abandoing Acts 17:11 - "Sola Scriptura" doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Those who disagree with your beliefs are anti-Christian (you mean not Christians) and now are considered swine. It is inconceivable to you that we could love Jesus as much as you do.

We just don't agree with your interpretations of God's word. Most of you don't agree with each other for very long. Whats the newest doctrine? Milineal Exclusion? And your churches continue to divide and split and fight over 'Doctrinal Soundness'. Give me a break.

 

No, those who disagree with the word of God and are only here to mock it are anti-Christians.

No, I mean anti-Christian. There's a difference.

Actually, it was Jesus who said "do not cast pearls before swine".

The issue isn't whether or not you believe you love Jesus. Mormons say they love Jesus. JWs say they love Jesus. Oneness Pentecostals say they love Jesus. And yet, none of them are Christians.

Whether you claim to love Jesus or not (and how can you say you love Him, yet not love His word?), the fact remains that you demonstrate by your doctrine that you don't know Him.

Right. You don't agree with the Christian interpretation of God's word. I thought we already established that.

They do? Do you have any examples of this?

 

Alas, there's also iron intending to shapen other iron, but refusing to allow itself to be sharpened. I'm all for iron sharpening iron as scripture references, but one must allow oneself to be shapened as well.

To their credit, it seems whenever institutions such as the Catholic Church move forward, we often claim that such moving forward is a sign of their error. So we can't have it both ways. If moving forward is iron sharpening iron, then we need to apply that acknowlegement consistently (somethign Baptists aren't always known for).

 

And I am sure ROman Catholics never disagree with each other, or popes, or priests, :laugh::laugh::laugh:

C'mon lori, stop playing games and get the meatier stuff.

 

It was in Jesus' bible, the Septuagint. It was in the bible for 1100 years before being cut out. It is even in the original King James bible.

 

You do realize all the little presuppositions in your statements right?

 

'They do? Do you have any examples of this?'

C'mon, there is a Baptist church in our area that has split three times. Baptist churches are notorius for splitting. You know it, we all know it.

 

And I'm not talking about this Baptist church planting new churches. They have split 3 times, as the pastor puts it, 'over doctrinal matters'.

 

The Jews made use of it long before the Christian Era, and in the time of Christ it was acknowledged as the legitimate text, and was employed in Palestine even by the rabbis. The Apostles and Evangelists used it also and borrowed Old Testament citations from it, especially in regard to the prophecies. The Fathers and the other ecclesiastical writers of the early Church used it.

 

There is still a presupposition in this statement, even if it can be wholly substantiated. The position you have to defend is that "it" is Scripture equal to that of the Law, the Prophets, Psalms, and the NT.

 

Are you saying Roman Catholics never disagree with each other, that popes have always agreed, and there is never any disagreement among its priests?

 

Translations: "Of course I don't have any examples".