Praying For Purgatory?

[Paddington]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1305414' date='Jun 29 2007, 01:38 PM']I need Protestant grounds for an INFALLIBLE canon, and remember, we have to be able to KNOW it is infallible.[/quote]

Lord Philip, I wrote this not necessarily to you. Just used your question as a launch-pad. After I wrote my comments, I noticed that you posted a full month ago. Sorry?

I'll say a little on part 1, the Protestant grounds for an infallible canon. Part 2 is asking too much as faith is involved just as in Catholicism.

A Protestant needs 2 things to build the shape of their argument to trust Scripture without submitting to the Pope:
1. Belief that the Incarnation sounds transcendentally correct enough to be seen as a lesson from the Spirit.
2. Belief that the 4 Gospels (and to a lesser extent Acts) are historically reliable. And that they are a framework that matches the key ideas in the rest of Scripture forming "an organic whole."

Catholics agree with those 2 things.

In the 4 Gospels, Christ believes in the OT. So a Protestant does too.
In the 4 Gospels, Christ teaches and commissions the Apostles who write the rest of the NT. Those close with the Apostles write a few of the books. So a Protestant accepts them.

Confronted with the claims of Catholicism, a Protestant has to sincerely doubt just one doctrine to fall back on (or be forced to) a Protestant basis (or to consider Eastern Orthodoxy.)

Can a Protestant believe that there are practical problems with their basis? Yes, even if many won't admit that.

I'm not asserting a thing about dogma, just giving some food for thought. I've been trying to stay out of these discussions for my own reasons. If there is one thing that I would like to say (without accusing ANYBODY IN PARTICULAR. Not Lord Philip. Not anybody.).....it is that when I listen to many Catholic apologetics statements, I wonder if in-between the words, the Catholic really is saying, "how dare THEY believe in Jesus!" I don't think that would be Catholic to say that as Protestantism, generally speaking, is actually "better than nothing" according to the Church. I could be wrong for the suspicion and we all know Protestants can say some crazy stuff. Perhaps they sometimes mean to say, "how dare THEY believe in Jesus!" It's all unfortunate.

[adt6247]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1341208' date='Jul 26 2007, 06:58 AM']In the 4 Gospels, Christ believes in the OT. So a Protestant does too.[/quote]
That's inadequate. Why do protestants reject the deuterocanon, when evidence suggests Matthew quotes from the Septuigint, including one or more books that aren't in the protestant bibles?

[quote name='Paddington' post='1341208' date='Jul 26 2007, 06:58 AM']In the 4 Gospels, Christ teaches and commissions the Apostles who write the rest of the NT. Those close with the Apostles write a few of the books. So a Protestant accepts them.[/quote]
Second, why are other writings of the apostles not a part of scripture, then? Why is 3 Corinthians not in the bible? Why not Paul's epistle to the Lacedonians? Why not the Letter of Peter to Philip? Why not the Epistle of Barnabas?

The bottom line is that an infallible authority must be responsible for assembling the canon of scripture in order for that canon to be infallible.

[Paddington]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1341424' date='Jul 26 2007, 03:46 PM']That's inadequate. Why do protestants reject the deuterocanon, when evidence suggests Matthew quotes from the Septuigint, including one or more books that aren't in the protestant bibles?
Second, why are other writings of the apostles not a part of scripture, then? Why is 3 Corinthians not in the bible? Why not Paul's epistle to the Lacedonians? Why not the Letter of Peter to Philip? Why not the Epistle of Barnabas?

The bottom line is that an infallible authority must be responsible for assembling the canon of scripture in order for that canon to be infallible.[/quote]

The bottom line to me is that I don't think you guys are perfect either.

[reyb]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1304728' date='Jun 28 2007, 07:46 PM'][url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp[/url]

The fact that this was handed down to us, by the Church Fathers, across 2000 years, speaks for itself.[/quote]
[indent]This is root of the problem. You have a church father who go beyond the scripture. [/indent]
[indent]I have a question: Suppose there is really a purgatory (a place of - whatever place it is according to your definition of purgatory). Again, let us assume there is really a purgatory, What is the sense of 'assurance of Salvation'? [/indent]

Edited August 2, 2007 by reyb

[Budge]

[quote]It just seems to me that purgatory makes the cross look like that it was something that didnt necessarily have to be done ???[/quote]

and youre correct.

Either the blood of Christ is fully cleansing or it is not and needs a backup from Purgatory.
[quote]5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and [b]washed us from our sins in his own blood,
[/b][/quote]

Question I ask Catholics all the time...

Why dont you believe the Blood of Christ is sufficient to wash your sins away?

[Paddington]

Budge, purgatory isn't to cleanse from damning sins. St. Paul was told he must suffer too at his conversion. Suffering before glory for the believer is a strong theme in the NT. It doesn't mean Christ's sacrifice didn't work. It makes more sense to say that the suffering is [i]from[/i] Christ's sacrifice.

[Paddington]

Budge, have you considered this?


Protestants almost never believe in purgatory, but generally believe in a "traumatizing" experience before the judgement seat of Christ that is required before entering glory.

Catholics believe in purgatory that is a "traumatizing" experience coming from the judgement seat of Christ that is (almost always) required before entering glory. They also pretty much fall short of knowing what is involved in purgatory.

The overlap is striking to me.

[XIX]

[quote name='Budge' post='1347118' date='Aug 2 2007, 09:20 AM']and youre correct.

Either the blood of Christ is fully cleansing or it is not and needs a backup from Purgatory.
Question I ask Catholics all the time...

Why dont you believe the Blood of Christ is sufficient to wash your sins away?[/quote]
Why do you assume what you are trying to prove?

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Budge' post='1347118' date='Aug 2 2007, 10:20 AM']and youre correct.

Either the blood of Christ is fully cleansing or it is not and needs a backup from Purgatory.
Question I ask Catholics all the time...

Why dont you believe the Blood of Christ is sufficient to wash your sins away?[/quote]

Catholics realize (and always have) that Christ paid all that off in one fell swoop almost two thousand years ago. No more payment of the [i]eternal[/i] debt of our sins is needed. In fact, no more payment of the [i]eternal[/i] debt of our sins is possible.

Christ's merits on the cross were superabundant, that is, more than enough to cover the debt of our sins. Catholics realize this, and always have. St. Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic and one of the greatest thinkers in history said, “By suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above. And therefore Christ's Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 Jn. 2:2: 'He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world'" (Summa Theologiae 3:48:2). This teaching has been and to this day still is a common teaching of Catholics.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church even says: “The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the ‘New Adam’ who, because he ‘became obedient unto death, even death on a cross,’ makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam” (CCC 411).

The Blood of Christ is sufficient to wash our sins away. He redeemed us. He has saved us from eternal punishment. If we are in a state of grace then there is no hell for us. There is still temporal punishment though. One must be perfect to enter Heaven. Not all are perfect upon dying (most are not). So, there must be a waiting place where one can be purified and made perfect so as to enter heaven.

Budge, purgatory is so eaisly defended with Scripture. There are so many verses to defend it, and many of them have already been given. You usually demand that someone refute the one or two verses that you always give against the Church. I think it is only proper in a "debate" thread that you actually read and try to refute the other side. If you can't... that says something. Why don't you read the verses given so far and tell the good people that took their time to post them for you what you think of each verse. Right now your ignoring them, and it is a bit rude and does nothing for your position in the debate.

In Jesus and Mary,
Marie

[reyb]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1347140' date='Aug 2 2007, 10:48 AM']Budge, purgatory isn't to cleanse from damning sins. [b][color="#0000FF"]St. Paul was told he must suffer too at his conversion[/color][/b]. Suffering before glory for the believer is a strong theme in the NT. It doesn't mean Christ's sacrifice didn't work. [b][color="#0000FF"]It makes more sense to say that the suffering is [i]from[/i] Christ's sacrifice[/color].[/b][/quote]

[indent]It is written in Acts 9:15-16

15[color="#FF0000"] But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16[b] I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."[/b] [/color]NIV[/indent]


[indent]This 'suffering' (in the above verse) is what you called 'suffering in purgatory'?[/indent]

[Budge]

[quote]Protestants almost never believe in purgatory, but generally believe in a "traumatizing" experience before the judgement seat of Christ that is required before entering glory.[/quote]

So God our loving father seeks to [b]TRAUMATIZE [/b]us?

what kind of god do you folks believe in. Sounds like an abusive dad.

Anyhow the idea of temporal punishment for sins, your sins are "cleansed" supposely but you still have to PAY yourself for them in some capacity is spitting on God's grace, Im sorry.

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='Budge' post='1349424' date='Aug 4 2007, 08:45 AM']So God our loving father seeks to [b]TRAUMATIZE[/b]us?

what kind of god do you folks believe in. Sounds like an abusive dad.[/quote]

It's the Jack Chick style protestants that have the claim of a traumatizing experience.

[Budge]

Where?

Jack Chick like me believes when he dies God will be welcoming us home with open arms in total love.

the only ones that are going to feel "trauma" are those who are not God's children.

[kateri05]

how do you reconcile this with the fact that St. Paul speaks about purification through FIRE and that the New Testament specifically talks about how only the perfectly just can see God face to face?

how?

[Paddington]

Budge,

I put quotes around the word traumatizing. Throw me a bone.

Paddington