An Argument for Purgatory.

[JohnMartin]

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.

JM

[KingsGambit]

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?

[JohnMartin]

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

[Bill the Cat]

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.

[Obsidian]

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?

[JohnMartin]

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.

You have made some claims without evidence and avoided answering the arguments presented.

JM

[JohnMartin]

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?

There was no ad hominem attack by me and you have proposed a false dichotomy between the Pope and the bible.

JM

[Bill the Cat]

You have made some claims without evidence and avoided answering the arguments presented.

JM

I answered your claims.