Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An Argument for Purgatory.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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

    Comment


    • #17
      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?
      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

      Comment


      • #18
        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

        Comment


        • #19
          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.
          That's what
          - She

          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

          Comment


          • #20
            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?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              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

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                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

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                  You have made some claims without evidence and avoided answering the arguments presented.

                  JM
                  I answered your claims.
                  That's what
                  - She

                  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

                  Comment

                  widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                  Working...
                  X