Let's discuss purgatory

[JohnDeereFan]

ummmm, do I really have to repeat Matt Black's rebuttal...again?

In XC
-

Well, you could. But since Matt Black's rebuttal is based on a dishonest misrepresentation of my words and attributes claims to me that I never made (nor did DHK), it would probably be better if you addressed what I actually said.

Otherwise, you're rebutting an argument that was never made. I believe they call that a strawman.

Here is what I said about the three judgements spoken of in scripture:

The Bible tells us that there are three judgements: the judgment of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-36), a judgment of believers’ works, often referred to as the “judgment seat [bema] of Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:10), and the Great White Throne Judgment at the end of the millennium (Revelation 20:11-15).

The Great White Throne Judgement is where the wicked are judged and cast into the Lake of Fire.

Notice that there is none of the nonsense Matt Black attributes to me, nor does Matt Black, at any time, attempt to address any of the verses I cited.

Simply put, Matt Black is lying and you are agreeing with his lie, which makes you...well, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that to agree with his lies without actually reading or addressing what I said for yourself just makes you really, really intellectually lazy.

 

[DHK]

Oh I'm sure Jesus can determine who is saved and who isn't. But your interpretation and conclusion just don't hold water, because of the contradiction in your conclusion, which is (if I need to spell it out again): Judgement #2 and Judgement #3 (in yours and DHK's scheme of things) contradict each other. Judgements #1 and #2 do not, but it's your interpretation and conclusion re Judgement #3 that's the problem. In #3, you have - according to you - the nations of the world judged according to whether they've been nice to the Jews or not (the passage from Matthew's gospel doesn't actually mention the Jews but never mind) and if they have, off they go to heaven and if they haven't, down to hell they go. Only one problem: if the 'nice nations' contain unbelievers, then those unbelievers need to go to hell under Judgement #2 - but they can't because under Judgement #3 they have to go to heaven. Conversely, if there are believers in the 'nasty nations', then that's their bad luck - they have to go to hell under Judgement #3. So your (not Jesus' but how you would have Him act according to your interpretation of these Scriptures) whole eschatological soteriology is up the spout.

Matt, when I explained this, I gave a time-line, and plenty of Scripture which backed up my view. Instead of simply saying or rather complaining: I don't believe, why not go back to the original post and tell me why the Scriptures and the time-line that I gave is not correct. Perhaps your objections are not valid for a reason. Go back to my original post, and tell me from the original post where I went wrong. I don't want you general complaints pulled out of the air. Tell me from my original post what Scriptures you don't agree with; what part of the time-line you don't agree with, where exactly you don't agree with. In other words quote me!
Quit your complaining.
The Bible has an interesting verse that you should find out what it means in the KJV.

1 Corinthians 16:13 Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.
--Quit you like men, Matt.

 

[Zenas]

Or the Anglicans! We're sort of Reformed Catholics, and have kept Apostolic Succession (despite what you might read in Apostolicae Curiae!)

You might have kept your Apostolic Succession up until now, but with women being ordained as bishops I have news for you my friend. Your orders won't be valid any more.

 

[Zenas]

What verse is that? [meaning when you trusted Christ you were only forgiven of past sins]

1 John 1:9: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” If all future sins are forgiven at the moment a person is saved, this verse has no meaning and should removed from the Bible for redundancy. If I have a red car, I can’t do anything to make make my car red. It’s already red. If I live at 123 Maple Street, I can’t move to 123 Maple Street because I’m already there. Similarly, if I am already forgiven for committing sin X, I can’t be forgiven for committing sin X.

We all know John was directing his comments to Christians. He wasn’t telling them how to be saved. He was telling them how to have sins forgiven that you commit after you are saved. The eternal security advocates will say this has nothing to do with losing your salvation and gaining it back, but it’s all about restoring fellowship with God. I don’t think that is what it means at all but let’s say it does. The fellowship is being restored by sins being forgiven. Otherwise John was a liar. Of course if it were really about restoring fellowship, I think John would have said so rather than disguising his message in some discourse about sins being forgiven.

Or, JDF, could it be this: that you see two levels of forgiveness in scripture just like you see three judgments? The first being forgiveness that saves, and the second being forgiveness that restores fellowship? So if I am saved and I commit sin X, it has already been wiped out by Level 1 forgiveness but it still should be totally obliterated by Level 2 forgiveness? Is that what you mean?

 

[Zenas]

I'm not sure which is worse: the fact that his church has this attitude or the fact that he's bragging about it.

Not bragging, just telling it like it is. I find it rather amazing that there are Southern Baptist churches who require their members to sign a statement of faith. I know the IMB is requiring missionaries to sign their assent to the BF&M 2000 and that is somewhat controversial. But missionaries are employees of the IMB. If you are going to be giving someone a paycheck, you have a right to expect that they believe and say what you want them to.

Are there any SBC members here whose church requires its members to sign a statement of faith?

 

[lori4dogs]

You might have kept your Apostolic Succession up until now, but with women being ordained as bishops I have news for you my friend. Your orders won't be valid any more.

There are Anglican jurisdictions (especially the continuing ones) which have taken the extra step to insure the validity of their orders by way of having 'Old Catholic' (a denomination) bishops also lay hands at the consecration of their bishops. No women involved in these consecrations.

 

[Zenas]

Wow - you just about described my yacht club - certainly not my church. For a church to not be into doctrine makes it a church that is not Biblical.

Your yacht club raises large sums of money to support missionaries? Your yacht club sends out mission teams that go all over the world? When they go out does the club make them sign a statement of faith?

 

[annsni]

Your yacht club raises large sums of money to support missionaries? Your yacht club sends out mission teams that go all over the world? When they go out does the club make them sign a statement of faith?

The club has many fund-raising events throughout the year for different charities. The do send groups to other yacht clubs or events when necessary. We had a group go this year to help with a charity race elsewhere on Long Island. Other than the statement of faith (however, you DO need to sign a statement when you join the club that has to do with conduct, following the rules and the commitment you will give to the club, so it's similar to signing a statement of faith), it's exactly like your church.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Becoming Orthodox I never had to sign any statement of faith, but we do recite our statement of faith, our Creed every Sunday.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Becoming Orthodox I never had to sign any statement of faith, but we do recite our statement of faith, our Creed every Sunday.

In XC
-

Do you have to wear polo shirts and speak with a Thurston Howell III accent?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Not bragging, just telling it like it is. I find it rather amazing that there are Southern Baptist churches who require their members to sign a statement of faith.

That's sad that you find such a Biblical concept so foreign.

Are there any SBC members here whose church requires its members to sign a statement of faith?

We do. It's part of a rather lengthy covenant that members are expected to adhere to.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

If all future sins are forgiven at the moment a person is saved, this verse has no meaning

Why does it have no meaning?

The eternal security advocates will say this has nothing to do with losing your salvation and gaining it back, but it’s all about restoring fellowship with God.

That's right: restoring fellowship with God, not salvation.

Or, JDF, could it be this: that you see two levels of forgiveness in scripture just like you see three judgments?

It isn't that I see three judgements, it's that the Bible clearly teaches that there are three judgements.

The first being forgiveness that saves, and the second being forgiveness that restores fellowship? So if I am saved and I commit sin X, it has already been wiped out by Level 1 forgiveness but it still should be totally obliterated by Level 2 forgiveness? Is that what you mean?

More or less, yes. Our union with God cannot be broken but our communion with Him can.

 

[DHK]

Or, JDF, could it be this: that you see two levels of forgiveness in scripture just like you see three judgments? The first being forgiveness that saves, and the second being forgiveness that restores fellowship? So if I am saved and I commit sin X, it has already been wiped out by Level 1 forgiveness but it still should be totally obliterated by Level 2 forgiveness? Is that what you mean?

Remember that the Bible does not contradict itself. All Scripture is in harmony with each other. When Jesus commands us: You must be born again, he means it. When one is born again he is born into God's family (see also John 1:12,13). I have a number of children. They are grown; some are married; others not. Whatever their situation in life they will always be my children. Even (God forbid this should ever happen) if one of my children should become a drug addict and live a derelict life, he would still be my child.

In the story of the Prodigal Son, it was not a story of a son coming to his senses and being saved. Rather he was a son getting right with God. He always was a son. Once a son, always a son.
Likewise I will never disown my children. Their genes will never change. There is nothing I can do about it. I can't change the nature of their blood, chromosomes, DNA, etc. They will always and forever be my children.

When one is born again, they will always forever be a child of God. Nothing can ever change that fact.

If one is born once, he will die twice; if one is born twice, he will die once.

Please think seriously about that statement.
That is why Jesus emphasized three times: You must be born again!

 

[Zenas]

Maybe you won't ever disown your children but lots of parents do. I see it every day. A child is disrespectful to a parent, marries someone the parent doesn't like, or whatever reason. The parent simply writes the child out of his will and when the will is read that child is on the outside looking in.

 

[Zenas]

Why does it have no meaning?

See Post #224, 1st paragraph. I can't make it any plainer than that. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

 

[DHK]

Maybe you won't ever disown your children but lots of parents do. I see it every day. A child is disrespectful to a parent, marries someone the parent doesn't like, or whatever reason. The parent simply writes the child out of his will and when the will is read that child is on the outside looking in.

And that is how you liken God? Your picture of God is like a wicked parent that would disown their own children, the kind of parent that breaks the law, and is thrown in jail for child abandonment. Shame on you!!

 

[JohnDeereFan]

See Post #224, 1st paragraph. I can't make it any plainer than that. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

That's just a link back to the original statement which makes the claim that it has no meaning, but doesn't explain why it has no meaning.

So, I repeat the question: why does it have no meaning?

 

[Zenas]

And that is how you liken God? Your picture of God is like a wicked parent that would disown their own children, the kind of parent that breaks the law, and is thrown in jail for child abandonment. Shame on you!!

Negative . . . the kind of parent who provides for his child's every need, whatever those needs may be at any particular stage of maturity. The kind of parent whe brings up his children in the nuture and admonition of God. The kind of parent who would gladly lay down his life for his children but finds that his children have turned out to be ungrateful disrespectful brats. And disowning children like that is not wicked.

 

[Zenas]

That's just a link back to the original statement which makes the claim that it has no meaning, but doesn't explain why it has no meaning.

So, I repeat the question: why does it have no meaning?

If you've already been forgiven for committing sin X, you can't be forgiven for committing sin X. It's like my car which is red. There is nothing I can do to make my car red because it's already red. That is why 1 John 1:9 has no meaning if all future sins are forgiven at the time a person is saved. It would be completely redundant. It only has meaning if there are unforgiven sins. :BangHead:

 

[DHK]

Negative . . . the kind of parent who provides for his child's every need, whatever those needs may be at any particular stage of maturity. The kind of parent whe brings up his children in the nuture and admonition of God. The kind of parent who would gladly lay down his life for his children but finds that his children have turned out to be ungrateful disrespectful brats. And disowning children like that is not wicked.

Yes it is. We are to continue in prayer for those that have gone astray and never disown them no matter how wicked their lives have been. Read the biographies of Hudson Taylor and Adoniram Judson, both of which lived wicked lives. It is unlikely that they would have been converted and gone on to live sacrificial lives as missionaries if they did not have mothers who never gave up, but continued against all odds praying for their "wicked" sons.

I am sorry to say, but your attitude toward parenting seems to be "wicked" in and of itself. You are willing to give up on your own children. That sounds terrible. I know that Christ would never give up on me. He has promised never to leave me nor forsake me no matter what happens.