Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: An Argument for Purgatory.

  1. #11
    tWebber Christianbookworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    8,727
    Amen (Given)
    5053
    Amen (Received)
    1609
    I guess he's claiming that sanctification still occurs after death?
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

  2. #12
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Next to you
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,504
    Amen (Given)
    1395
    Amen (Received)
    3719
    Some Protestants hold to purgatory, such as John Stackhouse and Jerry Walls. I lean against it myself, largely because of the Scripture Obsidian mentioned.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?”
    For it is not wise to ask such questions. - Ecclesiastes 7:10

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Christianbookworm View Post
    I guess he's claiming that sanctification still occurs after death?
    Both sanctification and purgation occur after death. Sanctification occurs by aligning the human will with the divine, to make the human will impeccable. Purgation occurs to satisfy the temporal punishment due to sin as founded in the OT and NT, based upon the nature of the moral act.

    JM

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by KingsGambit View Post
    Some Protestants hold to purgatory, such as John Stackhouse and Jerry Walls. I lean against it myself, largely because of the Scripture Obsidian mentioned.
    Purgatory is not required under the Reformed understanding of justification. Then again the Reformed understanding of justification is full of irresolvable problems. The fact that some Protestants hold to purgatory is further evidence for the problematic nature of Protestantism. The distinct lack of consensus on multiple doctrines within Protestantism is a strong indication as to the error of private interpretation.

    JM

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Obsidian View Post
    The Bible specifically says that glorification happens in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. The Bible is God's word. God doesn't lie. Hence, the Catholic Church is lying to you.
    The bible has much to say about an intermediate state between death and heaven. The RCC is not lying to me. The principle of private interpretation of a text to arrive at doctrine is an error. Protestants deny the authority of the Catholic magisterium to define doctrine, then Protestants do what they deny the RCC has the power to do - define binding doctrine on the faithful. Protestantism then must substitute their own pseudo magisterial authority of the individual, or perhaps of a select number of believers in a denomination to hold to doctrines they think have been revealed as known through a process of private interpretation of a text.

    Then again Protestantism has no authority from the individual believers, or from denominations and has no principle from the bible that teaches private interpretation is the means by which a Christian attains Christian doctrine.

    JM

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Here's where this is broken. Faith through grace is all that is required to attain heaven.
    Your statement is based upon the debunked theory of penal substitution. Some problems with PS are exposed on the Problems with Penal Substitution thread. A sample of problems are given below for your information.

    1a – Jesus has deceived the Father and therefore the Father and Jesus are not God because God cannot be deceived, or sin.

    Or

    1b – Jesus has not deceived the Father and the Father knows Jesus is acting to save sinners by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The Father is then involved in a deception, or a lie, making the Father and Jesus sinners. Therefore penal substitution is blasphemous.

    Then

    1c – The Father and Jesus must also be redeemed by Jesus’ death and resurrection. Yet such is never taught in the scriptures. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.

    2 – The Father sent the son to do a sinful act to deceive the Father into believing we are righteous even though we are not. Therefore penal substitution is blasphemous.

    3 – There is no need for faith, because a substitute is a substitute for all our sins. Yet the scriptures say we need faith to be justified. Therefore penal substitution is inconsistent with biblical faith required for salvation.

    4 – Nobody can go to hell, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin as a substitute. Yet we are taught in Mat 25 that some men will go to hell. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.

    5 – The scriptures nowhere say Jesus was a substitute for our sins. The term propitiate is used, but never substitute. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.

    6 – The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, after the Son has deceived the Father into thinking we are righteous, even though we are sinners. Therefore the Holy Spirit has been sent on a mission by a deceiver and the deceived, to guide the church into the truth of forensic imputation of righteousness, which is itself a deception. Evidently the Holy Spirit is also a deceiver and has been deceived. It’s as though the only real persons that are never redeemed are those divine persons of the Trinity. Therefore penal substitution is idolatrous.

    7 – There is no precedent in the OT for a substitute atoning for a sinner and the sinner having the substitutes righteousness imputed to the sinner, therefore if penal substitution is correct, it is not based upon the OT, so Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he didn’t fulfil the OT. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.

    8 – There is no need for repentance because the substitute has been made and the Father sees all men as righteous. After all faith alone, is alone, which excludes repentance. Therefore penal substitution contradicts the doctrine of faith alone.
    JM

  7. #17
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Next to you
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,504
    Amen (Given)
    1395
    Amen (Received)
    3719
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
    Purgatory is not required under the Reformed understanding of justification. Then again the Reformed understanding of justification is full of irresolvable problems. The fact that some Protestants hold to purgatory is further evidence for the problematic nature of Protestantism. The distinct lack of consensus on multiple doctrines within Protestantism is a strong indication as to the error of private interpretation.

    JM
    To be clear, are you using Reformed and Protestant as synonymous?
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?”
    For it is not wise to ask such questions. - Ecclesiastes 7:10

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by KingsGambit View Post
    To be clear, are you using Reformed and Protestant as synonymous?
    Protestant is a larger category than Reformed. The reformed churches have a line back to the original reformers. Many Protestant denominations do not have such a line, be that according to a form of succession, or with regard to doctrine. Every denomination that claims to be Christian, but does not have apostolic succession, and has doctrines contrary to the RCC is Protestant.

    JM

  9. #19
    Thanks Old Man... Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,532
    Amen (Given)
    6915
    Amen (Received)
    7169
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
    Your statement is based upon the debunked theory of penal substitution. Some problems with PS are exposed on the Problems with Penal Substitution thread. A sample of problems are given below for your information.



    JM

    Look, I'm not wasting my time on yet another one of your lists, because they are fraught with wild unsupported claims and are just plain wrong. Just this list on penal substitution shows your complete ignorance on the purpose and function of the temple and her fulfillment in Christ.


    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals --- Manya the Holy Szin --- The Quintara Marathon ---

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common --- Stephen R. Donaldson ---

  10. #20
    tWebber Obsidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    TN
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,147
    Amen (Given)
    352
    Amen (Received)
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by John Martin
    The bible has much to say about an intermediate state between death and heaven. The RCC is not lying to me. The principle of private interpretation of a text to arrive at doctrine is an error. Protestants deny the authority of the Catholic magisterium to define doctrine, then Protestants do what they deny the RCC has the power to do - define binding doctrine on the faithful. Protestantism then must substitute their own pseudo magisterial authority of the individual, or perhaps of a select number of believers in a denomination to hold to doctrines they think have been revealed as known through a process of private interpretation of a text.

    Then again Protestantism has no authority from the individual believers, or from denominations and has no principle from the bible that teaches private interpretation is the means by which a Christian attains Christian doctrine.
    This is called an ad hominem attack, because you are attacking me and/or my church instead of addressing the Bible-based argument. Are you saying that you are so incapable of basic Bible interpretation that you don't know how to respond, and must simply rely on faith that your Pope is right and that what the Bible seems to say is wrong?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •