Conversion to Catholicism

"The very existence of purgatory, no matter who does the "purifying," means that Christ did not do it all on the cross."

To add to what Carson said...
If Jesus did it all (in the manner in which you speak) then we wouldn't have to believe and we wouldn't have to repent. All men could continue about there lives and and not even think about Jesus and still be saved. Noone would have to read the Bible or preach it. No, the problem with your thinking is that salvatoin earned for us 2000 years ago has to be applied to our lives today. Thus he left a Church, a bible, and teachers who carry on the oral traditions with regard to what the scriptures intend.

Blessings

 

Larry,

I knew you would respond as you would.

We are discussing how YOU tell US be believe (ie, "This is what purgatory is"). I correct your understading of what WE BELIEVE. You ignore it and change the subject to "It doesn't matter, I don't believe in purgatory and this is why."

It happens every time. I KNOW that you believe that purgatory does not exist. THAT is not the discussion.

YOU said that WE teach that purgatory is a place for US to pay for our sins. YOU have provided no evidence for this, and have not recanted of the misrepresentation.

Now, do you want to go one more round in the circle, or can we end this merri-go-round?

 

By the way, Carson, beautifully explained.

 

Ray,

Anyone who died with unforgiven mortal sin will not enter Heaven (nor purgatory). Anyone who enters purgatory, by necessity, will enter Heaven.

 

I showed you from your own church documents what you are supposed to believe. If you do not believe what your church teaches, then that is a problem you take up with them.

I didn't make it the discussion. I showed from SCripture why purgatory compromises the work of Christ.

I quoted your documents. What else do you want? The fact that you do not believe the documents of your own church is not my fault. And it is not a misrepresentation. I cited them. If the documents are wrong, then they are wrong. But again, that is a problem with your church.

I think the merri go round is you trying to explain away what the Catholic church teaches.

I read very quickly through Carson's attempt at explanation and see that he is simply regurgitating what he has been taught without bothering to look at it in light of Scripture. The "legal fiction" argument is old and tired and long answered. It is unfortunate that you continue down that path. Catholicism long ago left the Bible and Christianity. I know that sounds offensive to you but it is not intended that way. The RCC is not the church that JEsus founded. They left that church when they left the faith on which that church is founded.

The bottom line remains that Catholicism diminishes the saving work of Christ. If there was ever any doubt about what they teach, simply read Carson's post. It is clear.

 

Larry,

The documents you cited say nothing of THE PERSON working off their sins or doing anything for themselves. BUT THAT IS what you asserted.

Deny it all you want; I can't stop you from that. But anyone with two eyes can see the discrepency in your statement and that the documents you quoted say nothing of the sort.

 

Ray,

I have no problem with you calling yourself Doctor, except when it has an air behind it. You are an infant when it comes to Catholicism so my advice is that you don't stick your neck out by saying things that are distorted and in error as if they are fact. That would be a sign of true humility.


"If Peter were the first pope it would have been the reverent duty of the other apostles to honor him with this ecclesiastical title and honor. It is more than evident that in the Gospels, and in all of the epistles and in the Book of Revelation that no one sounded the clarion call to honor Peter in this way."

I suppose that is why, every time the Apostles are asked a question, the group defers to peter for an answer. I supose that is why when the Apostles are listed, Peter is listed first event though we know that Andrew was called before him. I suppose that is why Peter is called first in Matt 10, even though once again Andrew was called first. I suppose that is why Peter is the one who heads the calling of a new Apostle in Acts 1. I suppose that is why the council of Jerusalem falls silent when Peter speaks in Acts 15. I suppose that is why the NT writers choose to write far more about Peter and his interactions with Christ than any other of the twelve. By FAR - 190 times.


"Peter merely calls himself 'an apostle of Jesus Christ' not even 'the apostle of Jesus Christ.' [I Peter 1:1] In II Peter 1:1 the old fisherman calls himself, not the pope of the first council in Jerusalem"

The term Pope had not been used to denote this leadership position much like the Trinity was not used to speak of the Godhead at this time. But there is no question that Peter was recognized as a leader by the evidence I cited above. Of course you will ignore it and say na-na boo boo it is meaningless. Peter quited the council and setled the major issue. Circumcision of the Gentiles. Don't use that worn out stuff about James. It doesn't cut it as his decision was ratified by the rest.

"My wife just lost her brother in death and people are paying for Mass cards/or Masses to be ministered for the deceased. According to Catholic teaching if he had committed a mortal sin or sins, and allegedly went to Purgatory-can he ever get out, or did he go directly to Hell?"

Anyone with unrepented of Mortal Sins goes to Hell ray. They do not go to purgatory. Purgatory is for the saved who still need purification of entry in to heaven. I believe I explained that above quite clearly.

Blessings Dr.

 

GS, You are really struggling here to defend your church. I understand how you feel that way. But read the documents. You are making a distinction without a difference. And as you say, anyone with two eyes can see that. Of course, we must stipulate that those are two eyes not biased to the point of missing the clear teaching.

Being punished for sins is paying for them. The wages (payment) for sin is death. Christ paid for sins once for all times, as Hebrews says. Nothing in the Scripture diminishes the payment of Christ for sins as your church does. Your choice in this matter is simple: Follow your church or follow Christ. There aren't any other options. Christ taught in Scripture that his death paid for sin once and for all. He was punished for our transgressions. There is nothing left, not even purgatory. The choice is clear and simple.

 

CCC 1472

Read it.

 

This assumption only works if you ascribe to OSAS, which only a minority of Non-Catholic Christians do.

"The wages of sin is death" - outside of the grace of Jesus Christ. There is nothing to say that there is not a consequence on our spiritual nature if we sin gravely after our initial salvation. That consequence may not be spiritual death (and cannot be if you ascribe to OSAS), but it leaves the soul in an imperfect state. We know that there will be no "imperfect" states of the soul in heaven.

To believe that God will purify us through fire is a fairly biblical concept. Purgatory is not a place, but a process where one is cleansed of any remaining "impurity" caused by sin as we prepare for heaven. No priest or church official can state how long this will last. I could be so infinitely small in our time its hardly worth sweating over. No one without faith in Jesus Christ can enter heaven or be purified.


Revelation 21:27
1 Cor. 3:15
2 Sam. 12:13-14
Daniel 4:24
Hebrew 12:22-23
Col. 1:24
Rev. 7:13-14
1 Peter 3:19
2 Mac. 12:42-46

 

Brother Adam-

NONE of the scriptures you mentioned says anything about purgatory.

NONE of the scriptures you mentioned says anything about the spurious Catholic teaching that a person must atone for his venial sins after he dies.

And the Maccabees quote isn't scripture so I'll not address that.

 

Pastor Larry,

You wrote, "I read very quickly through Carson's attempt at explanation and see that he is simply regurgitating what he has been taught without bothering to look at it in light of Scripture."

My explanation above was saturated with Scripture and with the philosophical underpinning of the Protestant heresy.

The rest of your post says nothing.

You also wrote, "The "legal fiction" argument is old and tired and long answered. It is unfortunate that you continue down that path."

Instead of providing a rebuttal, you glaze past my argument with a triumphalistic and upturned nose. Instead of cloaking yourself with the facade of a confident and wise defender of the Protestant novelty, I encourage you to stop taxiing along the runway - waving your Protestant flag - and to come up into the air and match my argument.

Scripture equates our justification with our sanctification. The Son's justification is wrought simultaneously with the Spirit's sanctification because (1) We find our justification in becoming sons of God in the only Son of God and (2) Sanctification is the Spirit's work in us to conform us into the image of the only Son of God as sons of God.

 

Hi rbrent,

You wrote, "And the Maccabees quote isn't scripture so I'll not address that."

If 1 & 2 Maccabees are not Scripture, then why were they considered Scripture at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the late 4th century?

Who made you arbitrator of the extent of the canon of Sacred Scripture?

 

I did!

 

Carson Weber wrote:

Hello Carson-
As you already know, Catholics accept the Apocrypha as scripture but Bible Believing Baptists and many Protestants do not!

I accept the 66 canonical books of the Bible.

I am not the arbiter - I am simply following in a long line of Bible Believers from apostolic times, who rejected the authority of the Catholic Church when it showed up during the reign of Constantine

and who would have rejected the authority of the Catholic Church two hundred years earlier IF it had been around then.

I do enjoy your thoughtful posts.

 

Would you have rejected it 10 or 20 years before Constantine became emperor?

 

You asked for scriptures that support it. Those do. You can't prove half of what you say without wild assumptions. In fact you can't prove the Trinity at all using scripture. You can only show scriptures that support it. Of course, we all know how much time that you take to learn.

 

rbrent,

In your post above, you (1) stated what you accept as Scripture, (2) you didn't answer my question, and (3) you made an irrelevant comment.

(1) "I accept the 66 canonical books of the Bible."

There is no need to reassert the obvious. You can say that the 7 disputed texts are Apocryphal until you are blue in the face, but it still doesn't make them Apocryphal.

(2) My question was, "If 1 & 2 Maccabees are not Scripture, then why were they considered Scripture at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the late 4th century?"

(3) "I am simply following in a long line of Bible Believers from apostolic times, who rejected the authority of the Catholic Church when it showed up during the reign of Constantine".

I did not bring up the authority of the Catholic Church.. rather, I asked you why these supposedly "apocryphal" texts were considered to be Scripture in the first recorded canon of the New Testament that matches the one you have today?

Are you a Cafeteria Christian who chooses to reject inspired Old Testament writings as apocryphal just because a couple of men in the sixteenth century decided to chunk them from the Bible?

In rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, you've merely accepted another human authority who has told you what to put in your Bible.. and that authority is 11 centuries younger than the authority you reject.

 

I could quote a lot of Scripture to saturate this post. But if I misintepret it, it means nothing. And that was the problem with your post. The issue is not the number of versee but the quality of the exegesis. Your's was weak so your "saturation" was insufficient.

I have answered your argument in depth many times before you even came on this board. It has been answered by people more eloquent than I. You are supposed to be a seminarian. Do your homework. The forensic nature of justification is clear and necessary to maintain the coherence of the biblical data on justification and salvation.

 

Hi Pastor Larry,

A reoccuring theme in your posts is to avoid the argument altogether. Throughout the rest of this post, you give no evidence for your conclusions. Rather, you go on a tangential tirade, focusing your aim upon the author of this post instead of the subject at hand.

I could quote a lot of Scripture to saturate this post. But if I misintepret it, it means nothing.

Is this why you have not posted anything of substance? You are misinterpreting?

The issue is not the number of versee but the quality of the exegesis. Your's was weak so your "saturation" was insufficient.

You say so, yet you do not demonstrate how.

I have answered your argument in depth many times before you even came on this board.

That is irrelevant.

It has been answered by people more eloquent than I.

Then, present their arguments.

You are supposed to be a seminarian.

I am not a seminarian.

The forensic nature of justification is clear and necessary to maintain the coherence of the biblical data on justification and salvation.

You're merely restating your conclusion, but you haven't presented the necessary syllogism.

I can - as well - state, "The intrinsic nature of justification is clear and necessary to maintain the choherence of the biblical data on justification and salvation."

The mere re-statement of my conclusion does nothing in the way of advancement. It's just a repetition.

Justification and sanctification are two entirely different things.

I agree. Yet, they are simultaneous. Justification is attributed to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and Sanctification is attributed to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.

The problem with your studies is that you are not studying on the basis of the authority of Scripture.

And neither are you.

You are buying into a philosophy and position that has long been discredited by the exegesis of Scripture.

Again, you state your conclusion, but you don't show how this is so. It reminds me of the Wendy's commercial: "Where's the beef?"

The issue is one of authority. You have an authority I don't have.

I absolutely agree. Your authority is Pastor Larry and my authority is the apostolic Church.

You have decided in your mind what the authority is.

And the pot calls the kettle black.

You have decided to submit yourself to the authority of the RCC because your mind has been convinced of it.

And you submit yourself to yourself as the final authority, which nullifies the very virtue of faith altogether.

As immediate, implicit submission of the mind was in the lifetime of the Apostles the only necessary token of faith, there was no room whatever for what is now called private judgment.

This is quite clear from the words of Scripture: "Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13). The word of hearing is received through a human teacher and is believed on the authority of God, who is its first author (cf. Romans 10:17). But, if in the time of the Apostles, faith consisted in submitting to authorized teaching, it does so now; for the essence of things never changes and the foundation of the Church and of our salvation is immovable.

Faith consists in submitting. Private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the text of Scripture to a private examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority because Scripture does not interpret itself; it requires an interpretive lens borne out of one's tradition.

But such trust in one's own light is not faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith. John Henry Newman says "I think I may assume that this virtue, which was exercised by the first Christians, is not known at all amongst Protestants now; or at least if there are instances of it, it is exercised toward those, I mean their teachers and divines, who expressly disclaim that they are objects of it, and exhort their people to judge for themselves ... They are as children tossed to and from and carried along by every gale of doctrine. If they had faith they would not change. They look upon the simple faith of Catholics as if unworthy the dignity of human nature, as slavish and foolish." (Discourses to Mixed Congregations, Faith and Private Judgment).

Where absolute reliance on God's word, proclaimed by his accredited ambassadors, is wanting, i.e. where there is not the virtue of faith, there can be no unity of Church. It stands to reason, and Protestant history confirms it. The "unhappy divisions", not only between sect and sect but within the same sect, have become a byword. They are due to the pride of private intellect, and they can only be healed by humble submission to a Divine authority.

That should not be blamed on the Spirit or the Word. The Spirit working through the word is leading people out of the bondage of the RCC and into the freedom of truth. I hope that you will find that freedom one day by submitting your mind to Scripture.

Scripture tells me to be a Roman Catholic and to live in the freedom of the sons of God, and you expect for me to disobey the Word of God?