Ways to reveal false doctrines

Lorelei: You are a very smart lady. This is exactly why we have fellowship doctrines in our church. The following is taken from my Catechism:

What does God tell us if we find someone who persists in mixing something false with God's word?
Romans 16
17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them

2 Corinthians 6

Do Not Be Yoked With Unbelievers

14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."
17"Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you."

2 Corinthians 7
1Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God

Titus 3
10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

2 John 1
10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

God forbids us to join in fellowship with anyone who mises anything false with God's word
************************************************
Why does God want us to seperate ourselves from anyone who persists in mixing anything false with God's word?
1 John 1
5This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.

2 Corinthians 13
8For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.

Psalm 119
30 I have chosen the way of truth;
I have set my heart on your laws.
31 I hold fast to your statutes, O Lord... 103 How sweet are your words to my taste,
sweeter than honey to my mouth!
104 I gain understanding from your precepts;
therefore I hate every wrong path. 105 Your word is a lamp to my feet
and a light for my path.

God wants us to seperate ourselves because we are his children and love the truth and hate anything false(seperation out of love for the truth of God's word)

2 Timothy 2
17Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus

Galatians 5
9"A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough."

2 Corinthians 11
3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

God wants us to seperate ourselves because that which is false will weaken or destry our faith.(seperation out of love for our own souls)

Revelation 22
18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

2 Timothy 2
16Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.

Titus 1
11They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach--and that for the sake of dishonest gain.

Titus 3
10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

Titus 1
13This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth.

2 Peter 2
1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.

James 5
19My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, 20remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

God wants us to seperate ourselves from those who mis anything false with God's word to warn them of the danger to their souls.(seperation out of love for their souls)

 

Dear Lorelei,

I apologize for the length of this, but it takes the entire article to unstand.

Since you question the priesthood--

Here's an article by James Akin That explains:

The Office of New Testament Priest

In both Old and New Testaments, there are three ranks of priests, which are commonly referred to as the high priests, the ministerial priests, and the universal priests.

At the time of the Exodus the high priest was Aaron (Ex. 31:30), the ministerial priests were his four sons (Ex. 28:21; the sons were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar, the first two of which were killed for abusing their priestly duties), and the universal priests were the people of Israel as a whole (Exodus 19:6).

Prior to this time, there had been neither a high priest nor had God elected all of Israel as universal priests. There was only the ministerial priesthood, which appears to have resided in the firstborn male of each family. The existence of the pre-Aaronic ministerial priesthood is shown in Exodus 19:22 and 24, which differentiate the priests from the people but occur before the establishment in the Aaronic priesthood in Exodus 28. The fact that the ministerial priests were held by the firstborn is suggested (though not proven) by the exchange of the priestly tribe of Levi for the firstborn of Israel in Numbers 3.

In any event, the three-fold model of the priesthood which was in use at the time of Aaron was carried over into the New Testament and thus we find there also a high priest, ministerial priests, and universal priests. In the New Testament age the high priest is Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1), the ministerial priests are Christ's ordained ministers of the gospel (Rom. 15:16), and the universal priests are the entire Christian people (1 Peter. 2:5, 9).

So the Bible clearly states that all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9), as the Catholic Church clearly teaches for all who bother to read its teachings, see Catechism of the Catholic Church 1141-4, 1268, 1305, 1535, 1547, 1591-2 on the common priesthood. But the Bible also said the same thing about the Israelites (Ex. 19:6), yet this did not prevent there from being a separate, ministerial priesthood even before the Law of Moses was given (Ex. 19:22, 24).

Furthermore, since the top, Old Testament office of high priest corresponds to Jesus, the New
Testament high priest, and since the bottom, Old Testament universal priesthood corresponds to the New Testament universal priesthood, the middle, ministerial priesthood in the Old Testament corresponds to a middle, ministerial priesthood in the New Testament.

This priesthood is identical with the office of elder. In fact, the term 'priest' is simply a shortened, English version of the Greek word for 'elder' -- presbuteros -- as any dictionary will confirm. This is any some Old Catholic translations render the word as 'priests' where Protestant Bibles have 'elder.' For example, in the Douay-Rheims Bible (the Catholic equivalent of the King James Version) we read:

'For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are
wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee' (Titus 1:5).

'Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them
pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith
shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall
be forgiven him' (James 5:14-15).

We also see in the New Testament that the functions of the Old Testament elder -- who served in the synagogue -- have been fused with the functions of the Old Testament priest -- whose served in the temple.
We can see the fusion of the two concepts in Romans 15:15-16. In the New International Version of this passage, we read:

'I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty [literally, 'the priestly work'] of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.'

Paul tells us that because he has been given a calling as a professional minister of Christ, he has a priestly work of preaching the gospel so that the Gentiles may be an offering -- a sacrifice to God. This is not something only he has. Every elder in every church has that same 'priestly work' of preaching the gospel. So Paul here conceives of the office of the New Testament minister as a priestly office. Notice that the hearers of the gospel in this passage are not depicted as priests, but as the sacrifice to God. Paul draws a distinction between himself and his work of preaching the gospel, and his readers and their duty of hearing it. It is the minister, not the congregation, who is here pictured as priest.

A second passage revealing the fusion of the offices of Old Testament elder and Old Testament
priest is Revelation 5:8, where we read:

'And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.'

Here we have the twenty-four heavenly elders (presbyteroi) depicted as offering incense to God in bowls, just as the Old Testament priests did with their own gold incense bowls (Num. 7:84-86).
It is especially important to note that this was a function only priests could perform, as indicated a few chapters later, in Numbers 16, which records the story of Korah's rebellion.

This story concerns precisely the issue which is before us today: Whether the fact that all believers are priests means that there is no ministerial priesthood. Korah said it does mean that, and he gathered a rebellion against Moses and Aaron to usurp the priesthood from them. Numbers 16 says:

'Now Korah . . . and Dathan and Abiram . . . took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; and they assembled
themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said . . . 'You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?' When
Moses heard it, he fell on his face; and he said . . . 'In the morning the LORD will show who is his, and who is holy . . . Do this: take censers . . . put fire in them and put
incense upon them before the LORD tomorrow, and the man whom the LORD chooses shall be the holy one. You have gone too far, sons of Levi! . . . s it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of
Israel . . . would you seek the priesthood also? Therefore it is against the LORD that you and all your company have gathered together; what is Aaron that you murmur against him?'' (Num. 16:1-11).

After this you can guess what happened. The men loaded up their censers and tried to offer incense before the Lord, but God caused the earth to open its mouth and swallow up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, then he caused fire to come out of the Tabernacle and swallow up the two hundred and fifty men offering incense, showing that they were not to be priests, not the ones to offer incense, even though God had said that in one sense the whole congregation were priests.

Thus, in the Old Testament God was willing to kill people that are not priests who offer incense to him. So when we see the elders (presbyteroi) doing so in his heavenly temple, we must infer that they are priests. A fusion of the office of elder and priest has taken place.

Scripture takes the distinction between clergy and laity very seriously. Both Old and New Testaments warn people against assuming an office to which they have not been ordained. For example, I direct your attention to Jude 11, a verse most people gloss over when they read the book. That verse discusses various wicked Church leaders and states,

'Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake
of gain to Balaam's error, and perish in Korah's rebellion.'

It is therefore possible for people, even in the New Testament, to perish in Korah's rebellion by usurping the office of the priesthood.

And notice that it is not only those who actually perform the priestly duties that are subject to death, but those who follow those that have usurped priestly duties. God also killed those lay people who merely supported Korah and his pseudo-priests. Moses also had to intercede to keep God from killing those in the congregation who merely supported Korah, even though they did not themselves offer incense. Later, when the people grumbled after Korah was dead, Moses again had to intervene to stop God from killing them all, but almost 15,000 of them died anyway for being followers of Korah.

It is against this sin that the book of Jude warns us, because the same thing can happen in the New Testament age. We cannot confine the warning against Korah's rebellion to the Old Testament age. Jude tells us it was going on in his day as well. Just as Korah, Dathan, and Abiram came along and said, 'Hey, in Exodus 19 God said we are all priests, so we don't need a ministerial priesthood; we can do that ourselves!' today people come along and say, 'Hey, in 1st Peter God said we are all priests, so we don't need a ministerial priesthood; we can do that ourselves!'

Finally, we can see the fusion of the offices of elder and priest in the fact that the church is a combination of the Old Testament synagogue (where the teaching occurred) and the Old Testament temple (where the sacrifice occurred). The New Testament church incorporates both of these elements, with the liturgy of the word (teaching) and the liturgy of the Eucharist (sacrifice), which has been the structure of Christian worship since the first century.

This brings us to the principle sacrifice of the New Testament priesthood, which is the Eucharist or Lord's Supper. To see the sacrificial dimension to the Lord's Supper, note first that it is the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament Passover feast, in which the sacrificed paschal lamb was consumed (1 Cor. 5:7-8). The New Testament Eucharist, like the Old Testament Passover, is thus a sacrificial meal.

The sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist is even built into its visible structure in a way that was not the case with the Passover meal. Jesus first says that the bread is his body and then that the wine is his blood. Whether this is literally or symbolically true is a question beyond the scope of our present discussion. What I want to point out is that the bread and the wine, the body and blood, are separate. The sacrament thus shows his body and blood in a state of separation from each other, in a state of sacrifice. The famous Protestant scholar Joachim Jeremias points this out in his book, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, which Protestant scholars have come to regard as the definitive work on this subject. He states,

'[W]hen Jesus speaks of 'his flesh' and 'his blood' . . . [h]e is applying to himself terms
from the language of sacrifice . . . Each of the two nouns presupposes a slaying that has separated flesh and blood. In other words: Jesus speaks of himself as a sacrifice [p. 222].

By displaying the body and blood in a state of separation, the elements display a sacrificial
character. This is true regardless of whether Christ is literally present in the sacrament or whether he is only symbolically present. Even if he is only symbolically present, then the Eucharist symbolizes a sacrifice. It is a symbolic sacrifice. Because elders have the duty of performing the sacraments, they have the duty of performing this sacrifice, again indicating the priestly character of their office.

Further confirmation is found in the words Jesus used to instruct his ministers to perform it. His
statement, 'Do this in remembrance of me,' may also be translated, 'Offer this as my memorial sacrifice' -- a fact Protestant preachers never mention when they talk about this passage. But it has a most important bearing on our discussion, because by telling the apostles to offer his memorial sacrifice, Jesus clearly ordained them as his priests.

In Greek, these words are Totou poiete eis tan emen anamnesin. They are usually translated into English as 'Do this in remembrance of me,' but this does not do full justice to the words.

First of all, the word poiein or 'do' has sacrificial overtones. This can be seen by examining the way it is used in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. As Protestant theologian D. M. Baillie says in his book The Theology of the Sacraments,

'There is no doubt that this verb is used frequently in the LXX in a cult or sacrificial sense. Gore says there are from 60 to 80 instances.'

He then goes on to give examples. For instance, Exodus 29:38:

'This is that which you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar: two lambs . . . '

Here the verb poiein should clearly be translated as 'offer,' as all the Protestant translations of this passage have it. The King James, the Revised Standard, and the New International Version all render it as 'offer.'

Jesus' word anamnesis, usually translated 'remembrance,' also has sacrificial overtones. For example, in the NIV of Hebrews 10:3 we read,

'But those sacrifices are an annual reminder [anamnesis] of sins.'

The word for 'reminder' in this passage is anamnesis. The passage thus tells us that these sacrifices are an annual anamnesis, an annual memorial offering, on behalf of the sins of the people. In fact, all of the occurrences of this word in the Protestant Bible, both in New Testament and the Greek Old Testament, occur in a sacrificial context.

An anamnesis of a memorial offering which one brings before God to prompt his remembrance. The thought is the same as when the Psalmist urges God to remember him, or the congregation, or Mount Zion, or how the enemy scoffs, or how God's servant has been mistreated. The idea of a memorial offering is to present the gift to God and prompt him to take action. For example, in the NIV of Numbers 10:10 we read,

'Also at your times of rejoicing . . . you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial [LXX, anamnesis] for you before your God.'

Joachim Jeremias admits this in his book. While liberal Protestant scholarship tried to interpret the Lord's Supper as a pagan memorial meal which merely commemorated a loved one, Jeremias saw through this and recognized the Palestinian background for the Lord's Supper and its offering of the elements to God to prompt his remembrance of Jesus and what he did.

Jeremias states,

'[T]he command for repetition [of the Lord's Supper] may be translated: 'This do, that
God may remember me.' How is this to be understood? Here an old Passover prayer is illuminating. On Passover evening a prayer is inserted into the third benediction of the grace after the meal, a prayer which asks God to remember the Messiah. . . . In this very common prayer, which is also used on other festival days, God is petitioned at every Passover concerning 'the remembrance of the Messiah'' (Jeremias, 252).

So Jesus' command to the disciples to 'do this in memory' of him was a command to present the elements to God as an anamnesis, as a memorial sacrifice to bring to God's mind the work that Jesus did on the cross for us.

Of course, Jesus does not die again in this sacrifice (Heb. 9:26), but death is not an essential part of a sacrifice. The essence of a sacrifice is the idea of presenting a gift to the deity. This gift may or may not be presented to God by killing it. There are numerous sacrifices in the Bible in which the gift is not killed. In fact, there is a class of sacrifices, known as 'wave offerings' in which the gift is 'waved' before God to present it to him. In wave offerings it is not at all required for the gift to be destroyed. For example, if you read Numbers 8:11-21, you will see that the entire tribe of Levi was waved before God as a wave offering to consecrate them as ministers at the Tabernacle. So God's ministers present themselves as a wave offering to God.

If you read Romans 12:1, you find out that we present ourselves to God as wave offerings, for Paul tells us to offer our bodies to him as a living sacrifice. It is in this manner that the resurrected Jesus presents himself to God, as a wave offering, a living sacrifice, a living memorial that God may remember what he did on the cross and bestow upon us the graces of salvation.

By his intercessory ministry in heaven, Christ continually presents to God what he did on the cross, he continually brings it before God as a memorial offering of what he did in the past, so that we might receive God's grace.

This is true regardless of whether Jesus is actually or only symbolically present in the elements. I recognized this fact even when I was still a Protestant: Regardless of the doctrine of the Real Presence, the sacrament of communion is a sacrifice, just as the early Church said it was, and just as the Christian Church throughout the ages has understood it. We thus see the function of the temple -- offering of sacrifice -- being brought together with the function of the synagogue -- teaching the people -- into the New Testament church. Those who preside over the church thus incorporate both the functions of the Old Testament priest and the Old Testament elder.

Thus in the Christian liturgy that has come down to us from the first century, the church first celebrates the Liturgy of the Word (synagogue service) followed by the Liturgy of the Eucharist(temple service.)

Copyright (c) 1996 by James Akin. All Rights Reserved.

Hope this clarifies what Catholics believe.

God bless you,
Juan Diego

[ March 17, 2002, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Juan Diego ]

 

I already understand why Catholics believe it. Why they believe it is not the issue and I don't need you to explain it to me.

I understand that in this thread I haven't given specific reasons why I believe your doctrines are false, but that is because that is not the topic of this thread. The purpose of this thread was not to discuss the specific differences (as that is done in many other threads), but rather, to ask you why we have to sugarcoat our beliefs just because you have decided to come to a Baptist Board.

Simply stating you are following false doctrine would be tacky, but that is not what we are doing. We give the scriptural references, we explain why we believe it, we show you how they are false, and what the right way is.

You don't agree, that is fine, but stop telling us we have to word our beliefs this way or that way. That is exactly what I am talking about. You come to see us on our board and then tell us how we are supposed to talk in front of you. This is how you should title your thread. Sorry, if you don't like what we believe, but we won't stop believing it just because you are here. We won't stop speaking it or preaching it. We shouldn't have to or be expected to. That is my point.

You say this because you don't believe that the Catholics preach another gospel. You think they believe in the Christ that the Bible teaches, but sadly they do not.

The Bible clearly says:

Doesn't sound very loving, but it is the Word of God.

Thank you for revealing how real love should be worded. My view comes from statements that were made by the Catholics who insisted to be able to come to this board.

When you "defend" yourself, you are trying to show us that "you" are right, and therefore we are "wrong". It all comes out the same.

Either way, I have no problem with you coming here to debate with us, my problem comes when people start crying when they hear the very beliefs that they have come to "defend". You knew we believed it, don't get upset when we say so.

~Lorelei</font>[/QUOTE]You quote scripture here that seems to relate to the topic, but in fact does not related at all. This is prooftexting. The scriptures you quote do not at all apply to a "church" or body, but were intended by John for individual reflection and self-evaluation, not for one Christian to apply to others.

I find this literalist approach all over this board, where one person quotes scripture out of context and applies it to something that is not even alluded to in the passage, or even in the book, from which it is quoted. And I see others giving a hearty "amen" to a passage that is quoted, then they themselves quote that same passage in a contradictory way somewhere else, and get a chorus of hearty "amens" in support. Any skeptic who saw the way the Bible is used here would be absolutely confirmed in their belief that the Bible is hopelessly entangled in contradiction and is impossible to understand. I don't believe that is the case, but that is the way that fundamentalists use it. I had fourteen years of training in how to use the scripture to prove your presupposed point (as opposed to reading it and studying it and discerning what it really means and then following that teaching) in a fundamental Baptist church and two fundamentalist Bible colleges.

I think the original authors and readers of the Bible would be appalled at the way we chop it up into little prooftext soundbites to make our points, based on false divisions called chapters and verses which were not even in the original text. I am certain Paul, John, and the other writers never dreamed that someday Christians would be pulling out disconnected portions of their writing and building doctrines on those false connections or using them to criticize other believers whose experience and teaching in the faith have led them to a different application of the scripture.

Dr. Hendricks, at Dallas Theological Seminary, teaches a course in Basic interpretation of the Bible in which he basically uses two major principles of interpretation:

1. The primary audience is the original audience(those to whom the books were written and addressed specifically) and is the only audience to which a literal application can apply.

2. Single verses or passages are meaningless unless they are considered in their context. They must apply to their context and cannot be taken out of that context and given another meaning.

The approach taken by many Baptists on this board (and some Lutherans as well) toward Catholics is not consistent with the way scripture teaches us to handle this kind of exchange. Perhaps a good study of I Peter (the whole book, not just a few select verses) would help us all. You do not have "right doctrine" on your side if you attempt to win an argument but fail to use gentleness and respect toward your adversary in the process. One of Peter's main themes in his first epistle was for believers, who were living among pagans, to live and conduct themselves in such a way so that their character could not be maligned by their critics. How much more should two or three groups of Christians, who have disagreements with each other, should treat each other with gentleness and respect, something which is sorely lacking in this thread and on this board?

[ March 17, 2002, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: kwob02 ]

 

"You quote scripture here that seems to relate to the topic, but in fact does not related at all. This is prooftexting. The scriptures you quote do not at all apply to a "church" or body, but were intended by John for individual reflection and self-evaluation, not for one Christian to apply to others.

I find this literalist approach all over this board, where one person quotes scripture out of context and applies it to something that is not even alluded to in the passage, or even in the book, from which it is quoted. And I see others giving a hearty "amen" to a passage that is quoted, then they themselves quote that same passage in a contradictory way somewhere else, and get a chorus of hearty "amens" in support. Any skeptic who saw the way the Bible is used here would be absolutely confirmed in their belief that the Bible is hopelessly entangled in contradiction and is impossible to understand. I don't believe that is the case, but that is the way that fundamentalists use it. I had fourteen years of training in how to use the scripture to prove your presupposed point (as opposed to reading it and studying it and discerning what it really means and then following that teaching) in a fundamental Baptist church and two fundamentalist Bible colleges."

This is because the caholic church no longer beleives that the Bible is inerrant. This is because the Catholic church believes that custom and litergy are just as athoritative as scripture.

 

During the first 400 years of Christianity the early Christians spent much of their time in the Catacombs. What do you think they were doing down there? Studying their Bibles?

Just wondering,
Juan Diego

 

It's great that you've grounded this with supporting evidence.

Here's one: "Pigs can fly." As sarcastic as this is, according to your logic, I can say it and it must be true, regardless of having anything to back it up.

I'm willing to take your statements seriously when you provide evidence from within the Church that supports said views.

 

Listening goes a long way, Tulpje.

"To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communinion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand, every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin." Catechism, para. 1472

Think of it like this. If you smoke, and you decide to quit...you're making a choice to clean up your life. Is quitting smoking easy? Is it without varying degrees of suffering? Does it not cause anxiety and stress? Is not not incredibly difficult for the person to quit? Yes, it is. Now, is this anxiety, stress, etc from God? Quitting smoking is something that is in God's favor, surely, so why would God have you suffer to do something to make your body more a temple for the Holy Spirit?

You are assuming that life is peaches and cream and that we don't have to suffer for the betterment of our souls. Giving up things, earthly attachments, is painful. We are attached to SO MANY things in our earthly lives that we can't take to heaven. And you know as well as I, that when we get to Heaven, those things are gone. They are their right up until death, and gone in Heaven. How do they disappear? We have the same souls on earth that we have in Heaven. Do these attractions and fixations miraculously disappear as we enter Heaven? Well golly jeepers...that's purgatory.

It is your OWN view that purgatory is wrath. The Catholic Church expressively states that it is not only a grace (read paragraph 1473), that it is done unto us (it is not works; purgatory is done TO/FOR us), that it is a STATE, not a place (para. 1472, above), and more.

Now, you can continue to speak of it as bitter suffering (even though their is equal amount of joy as their is pain in suffering, and it is impossible to be bitter, because you can't sin outside of life on earth), and talk about how attrocious it is, but you only think that because you refuse to look at what the Church teaches about it.

Now, reject it all you want. I'm not here to make you believe anything. However, you are deliberately twisting Church teaching to fit your own agenda. If you keep it up, would you like it that I twist Lutheran doctrine and cause you all kinds of grief, making you look things up and provide evidence? I can do it, but I won't. Let's be friends, and read what the other has to say and listen, not ignore.

 

Grace:
Are you as holy as God is?
God says: "Be ye holy for I am holy." (1Pet.1:16)

Can an unholy person stand before a holy God?
Can an unrighteous person stand before a righteous God?
God says: There is none righteous, no, not one." (Rom. 3:10).

How do you propose to enter into Heaven? Will purgatory work for you, seeing that it is not even mentioned in the Bible? Is that God's way of becoming "righteous," so that you are able to stand before his presence?

Rom.3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
I am justified FREELY by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. There is no purgatory here. There are no works here. There is just a simple free justification given to me by His grace, freely bestowed upon me.

Verse 26: What is the righteousness of Jesus? He gives righteousness to those whom he justifies or to those who believe. I am made just and righteous when I believe on Jesus for the forgiveness of my sins. He clothes me with His righteousness, so that, when He looks down from Heaven He no longer sees the sinful me that I am, but rather the righteousness of Jesus Christ that I am clothed in. With that righteousness I will enter Heaven, and with none other. In that sense only I am as righteous as God, and therefore am able to stand before a holy God. Are you as holy as God is? Are you able to stand before his presence?
DHK

 

It is right in your catechism that the Scripture and tradition are placed on equal levels. Of course, that is only theoretical since Scripture is authoritatively interpreted only by the magisterium and the tradition. If you knew your catechism you would know this. Of course, my suspicion is that you do know and were hoping that the person who wrote this wouldn't know and would back off and let your feet out of the fire.

 

Pastor Larry,

It was said that Catholics believe that the "Bible is no longer inerrant." Where is that in the Catechism?

It was also said that "custom and litergy" are placed at this level, not tradition.

Cutom and litUrgy are not the same thing as Sacred Tradition, so what are you chastising me for? Neither of those statements are true statements, that the person whom I quoted had stated.

 

Lorelei,

I better not ever see you post slightly off topic again. Furthermore, you cannot quote anything outside of the Bible itself. No protestant apologists for you! And only rely on yourself and your interpretation of Scripture, as no one wants to read anything else!

Practice what you preach, or don't preach it. That was a very inciteful article on an issue that you have previously attacked, and the way in which you treat it goes a long way in showing how unwilling you are to listen to others.

 

Lorelei,

That entire post was obviously sarcasm, and you know it.

And to judge my actions and apply them to all of Catholicism (as you did in your last line of your post), is making you better than me...how?

 

Lorelei,

I don't dislike you in the least. I dislike how you ask Catholics for answers to your questions, and then immediately burden them with the requirement of mountains of proof. Basically you say that you are right, and the Catholics have to prove you wrong, rather than the Catholics merely proving their point. If they can't prove it to you, they are wrong. That's not how open debate works. It's circular arguing that never ends, which is why so many threads in here get closed. When you refuse to read an article that someone posted that will help explain things, you are not showing your willingness to understand our side of the debate; you're simply rejecting it from the get-go.

No one is asking you to conform to our ideas. Instead, they're asking you to, on occasion, take us for our word. Listen and not judge, or else no one is going to have an enjoyable time here.

 

It's great that you've grounded this with supporting evidence.

Here's one: "Pigs can fly." As sarcastic as this is, according to your logic, I can say it and it must be true, regardless of having anything to back it up.

I'm willing to take your statements seriously when you provide evidence from within the Church that supports said views.</font>[/QUOTE]Grace Saves-I am sorry, but I fail to see a reason for your apparent hostility toward me.

Moderators-there has been so much talk recently concerning trolls. Is there any way of weeding them out? I think that they are the ones that come not to learn but to convert or argue doctrine. Is that so? It is the same in the discussion with the athiests. They are not here seeking Christ but to argue our beliefs. The arguments get so fierce!

I know that I am not a Baptist, but I think that I am closer to you doctrinally than some here, and furthermore I truly appreciate a lot of the posts I have seen from the Baptists including(but not limited to) Adam, Lorelei and Joy. I consider them brothers and sisters in Christ. Although, I am sure that there are some issues that seperate us.

 

I just noticed that there has been no response to my post. I would like to add that I indeed gather all my iformation from a Catholic website. I truly don't appreciate being called names etc. Like lorelei, I am truly offended for the way I have been treated for simply stating the truth.

 

In response to Tulpje,

I'm highly disappointed. Look at what I was quoting you from. You said that Catholics don't believe that Bible is inerrant. You lied, and the Catholic Church does not teach this. Which is worse...me being upset about you lying about my church, or you trying to get rid of me because I don't appreciate you lying.

Furthermore, if you would read, I answered the question about God's "wrath" already. Since you said "no one bothered to answer it," you either have me on ignore, or you just want to pretend like it is an unanswerable question. On this page, look at the second post from the top. I responded to your question.