-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Purgatory question
- Thread starter Mike G
- Start date
GraceSaves
New Member
You believe it does, but I have given sufficient evidence that purgatory does not diminish the saving work of Christ, because purgatory is a state in which Christ brings us into his glorious heavenly vision. We do nothing, it is done unto us. There would be no purgatory if Christ had not died for our sins. It is but one part of our saving redemption.
Sorry to be so late to the party.
In skimming through the posts, I could not find scripture references for purgatory. This would seem to be a fairly significant omission. The NT clearly, strongly, and frequently proclaims the full forgiveness of sins and imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. If there were a post-life but pre-heaven system of final purification, doesn't it seem that Paul would have included it somewhere? Maybe Peter or John?
GS, you asked earlier about the forgiveness of all sins, past, present, and future then asserted that this logically required universalism.
God chose the elect before the foundation of the world. He knew us before we were conceived. In His omniscience, He knows our future including our sins. While our finite minds have great difficulty with this concept, God is fully capable of forgiving all of our sins that we have yet to choose to commit because He already knows about them.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
DHK wrote, "The doctrinne of purgatory takes away from the doctrine of salvation."
The doctrine of purgatory emphasizes that when Christ "saves" us from our sin, he really does save us, not merely in sentimental thought, but in actual reality. I do stop sinning. I'm purged of my sin. I'm made righteous by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.
If this is considered a subtraction from the work of salvation, then I believe that a serious reconsideration of what "salvation" means is in order. This should include a revision of the Scriptures.
God bless,
Carson
The doctrine of purgatory emphasizes that when Christ "saves" us from our sin, he really does save us, not merely in sentimental thought, but in actual reality. I do stop sinning. I'm purged of my sin. I'm made righteous by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.
If this is considered a subtraction from the work of salvation, then I believe that a serious reconsideration of what "salvation" means is in order. This should include a revision of the Scriptures.
God bless,
Carson
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Scott,
You wrote, "I could not find scripture references for purgatory. This would seem to be a fairly significant omission."
In my reading of Scripture, I nowhere find references to Christians carrying editions of the NT with them or resorting to them as their sole and final authority in matters of Christian doctrine concerning faith and morality.
This seems to be a fairly significant omission for Christianity that bases its doctrine, life, and worship upon personal interpretation of only the written portion of God's Word, wherein each Christian becomes his/her own bishop/apostle.
I also find no reference to "Trinity" in Scripture. Nowhere is the doctrine of the Trinity explicated for us in the Bible; this seems to be a fairly significant omission if this teaching remains one of the two central pillars of the Christian religion. Oneness Penecostals have caught on to this fact.
Perhaps our premises should remain identical with those exemplified in the NT Scriptures if we wish not to err.
God bless,
Carson
You wrote, "I could not find scripture references for purgatory. This would seem to be a fairly significant omission."
In my reading of Scripture, I nowhere find references to Christians carrying editions of the NT with them or resorting to them as their sole and final authority in matters of Christian doctrine concerning faith and morality.
This seems to be a fairly significant omission for Christianity that bases its doctrine, life, and worship upon personal interpretation of only the written portion of God's Word, wherein each Christian becomes his/her own bishop/apostle.
I also find no reference to "Trinity" in Scripture. Nowhere is the doctrine of the Trinity explicated for us in the Bible; this seems to be a fairly significant omission if this teaching remains one of the two central pillars of the Christian religion. Oneness Penecostals have caught on to this fact.
Perhaps our premises should remain identical with those exemplified in the NT Scriptures if we wish not to err.
God bless,
Carson
Since I am new here, I started with the first post by Mike G......Hello, Mike:
Our sin does not affect only us...it affects MANY. Furthermore, you can kill someone and receive forgiveness...but what happens if ten years later, you kill someone again? Did you not truely repent the first time? I'm sure you did, but sinful nature doesn't leave us because our sins are forgiven. We still have that earthly fixation. THAT is what is purged in purgatory.
I know there are many replies to your post but I do not believe in purgatory. To me, there is the simple cleansing by Jesus, for all that accept Him as their Lord and Savior. Yes we are still sinful because of our inherited nature from Adam and Eve. We will never be sinless until we reach Heaven. This means that none of us can say we will never sin again. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we all sin in some way almost daily. The good news is that by accepting Christ, we were forgiven for past, present and FUTURE sins as He knew we would all sin again. That is why He died for us! Forgivness through a Priest is meaningless......forgivness is a "one on one" with Jesus. And this act is really a repentance since we are not held guilty of sin after accepting Jesus. Hence purgatory means nothing as it doesn't exist. There is NO need for it.
As hard is it is for me to believe, but I do, Bundy, the serial killer, was visited daily by a Minister for the last 3 months of his earthly life and according to this well known Minister, he accpted Christ in a TRUE way and was Heaven bound. I often wondered about the many women he killed and came to the conclusion that this happens as we go through life and they/we should be ready for anything, meaning to accept Christ.
I would venture to say that 75% or more that died during the 911 assalt, were not Christians and their fate was sealed forever by NOT being ready. I hope to get some replies to my reply.....
God Bless.............Alex
[ March 22, 2002, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]
Our sin does not affect only us...it affects MANY. Furthermore, you can kill someone and receive forgiveness...but what happens if ten years later, you kill someone again? Did you not truely repent the first time? I'm sure you did, but sinful nature doesn't leave us because our sins are forgiven. We still have that earthly fixation. THAT is what is purged in purgatory.
I know there are many replies to your post but I do not believe in purgatory. To me, there is the simple cleansing by Jesus, for all that accept Him as their Lord and Savior. Yes we are still sinful because of our inherited nature from Adam and Eve. We will never be sinless until we reach Heaven. This means that none of us can say we will never sin again. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we all sin in some way almost daily. The good news is that by accepting Christ, we were forgiven for past, present and FUTURE sins as He knew we would all sin again. That is why He died for us! Forgivness through a Priest is meaningless......forgivness is a "one on one" with Jesus. And this act is really a repentance since we are not held guilty of sin after accepting Jesus. Hence purgatory means nothing as it doesn't exist. There is NO need for it.
As hard is it is for me to believe, but I do, Bundy, the serial killer, was visited daily by a Minister for the last 3 months of his earthly life and according to this well known Minister, he accpted Christ in a TRUE way and was Heaven bound. I often wondered about the many women he killed and came to the conclusion that this happens as we go through life and they/we should be ready for anything, meaning to accept Christ.
I would venture to say that 75% or more that died during the 911 assalt, were not Christians and their fate was sealed forever by NOT being ready. I hope to get some replies to my reply.....
God Bless.............Alex
[ March 22, 2002, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Alex,
You wrote, "We will never be sinless until we reach Heaven. This means that none of can say we will never sin again. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we all sin in some way almost daily. The good news is that by accepting Christ, we were forgiven for past, present and FUTURE sin as He knew we would all sin again. That is why He died for us!"
Paul wrote, "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22).
Paul wrote near the end of his life, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day" (2 Tim. 4:7-8).
But earlier in life, even Paul did not claim an infallible assurance, either of his present justification or of his remaining in grace in the future. Concerning his present state, he wrote, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified (Gk., dedikaiomai). It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4). Concerning his remaining life, Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27). The Greek word for "disqualified" may also be translated as "reprobate," which is one who is foreordained to damnation.
For a spiritual giant such as Paul, it would be quite unexpected and out of character for him to fall from God’s grace. Nevertheless, he points out that, however much confidence in his own salvation he may be warranted in feeling, even he cannot be infallibly sure either of his own present state or of his future course.
Your post really surprised me; as a graduate student of Scripture, your viewpoint is unsettling. If you would like to understand why, then please read over John's first Catholic epistle (1 John) in your Bible.
For example, "Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him."
God bless,
Carson
[ March 22, 2002, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
You wrote, "We will never be sinless until we reach Heaven. This means that none of can say we will never sin again. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we all sin in some way almost daily. The good news is that by accepting Christ, we were forgiven for past, present and FUTURE sin as He knew we would all sin again. That is why He died for us!"
Paul wrote, "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22).
Paul wrote near the end of his life, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day" (2 Tim. 4:7-8).
But earlier in life, even Paul did not claim an infallible assurance, either of his present justification or of his remaining in grace in the future. Concerning his present state, he wrote, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified (Gk., dedikaiomai). It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4). Concerning his remaining life, Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27). The Greek word for "disqualified" may also be translated as "reprobate," which is one who is foreordained to damnation.
For a spiritual giant such as Paul, it would be quite unexpected and out of character for him to fall from God’s grace. Nevertheless, he points out that, however much confidence in his own salvation he may be warranted in feeling, even he cannot be infallibly sure either of his own present state or of his future course.
Your post really surprised me; as a graduate student of Scripture, your viewpoint is unsettling. If you would like to understand why, then please read over John's first Catholic epistle (1 John) in your Bible.
For example, "Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him."
God bless,
Carson
[ March 22, 2002, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
Yes Carson, indeed you would have to revise your Scriptures to fit in your doctrine of Purgatory, if this is your belief, because the doctrine of Purgatory is obviously not there. Catholics have painstakingly tried to prove purgatory from Scripture but have failed every time. When Christ said "It is finished," (John 19:30), He meant what He said. The work of salvation was finished. Nothing more was required. Not purgatory, not works, nothing. Simply to believe on that work that He had done on the cross, that is salvation.
You will have to write your own Bible to include your own heresies. Of course the Catholics have already tried that by attempting to include the Apocrypha into the canon of Scripture. But that hasn't worked very well for them either.
DHK
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi DHK,
You wrote, "the doctrine of Purgatory is obviously not there [i.e.] the Scriptures."
There is no explicit reference within Scripture that the third catholic epistle of St. John is inspired Scripture. So, perhaps you should cast this epistle from your Bible, DHK. Why do you fail to do such when the Bible teaches nowhere explicitly that 3 John is inspired?
You wrote, "Catholics have painstakingly tried to prove purgatory from Scripture but have failed every time."
The honest Catholic would not attempt to "prove" purgatory from Scripture as if it's explicitly demonstrated in the text, which it is not. Neither is the Trinity, nor the composition of Christ's natures, nor the canon of Scripture, nor your doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
The honest Catholic will show that the doctrine of Purgatory is harmonious w/ Scripture and the true doctrine of Salvation, which includes the sanctification of the soul by the Spirit.
You wrote, "When Christ said "It is finished," (John 19:30), He meant what He said. The work of salvation was finished. Nothing more was required. Not purgatory, not works, nothing."
Nothing? Perhaps faith isn't even required. Not even faith. You're saved DHK and so is the rest of humanity. Praise Him for your simple logic; how far would you like to redefine Christianity? Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion.
God bless,
Carson
You wrote, "the doctrine of Purgatory is obviously not there [i.e.] the Scriptures."
There is no explicit reference within Scripture that the third catholic epistle of St. John is inspired Scripture. So, perhaps you should cast this epistle from your Bible, DHK. Why do you fail to do such when the Bible teaches nowhere explicitly that 3 John is inspired?
You wrote, "Catholics have painstakingly tried to prove purgatory from Scripture but have failed every time."
The honest Catholic would not attempt to "prove" purgatory from Scripture as if it's explicitly demonstrated in the text, which it is not. Neither is the Trinity, nor the composition of Christ's natures, nor the canon of Scripture, nor your doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
The honest Catholic will show that the doctrine of Purgatory is harmonious w/ Scripture and the true doctrine of Salvation, which includes the sanctification of the soul by the Spirit.
You wrote, "When Christ said "It is finished," (John 19:30), He meant what He said. The work of salvation was finished. Nothing more was required. Not purgatory, not works, nothing."
Nothing? Perhaps faith isn't even required. Not even faith. You're saved DHK and so is the rest of humanity. Praise Him for your simple logic; how far would you like to redefine Christianity? Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion.
God bless,
Carson
Really, what then do you say their writings were for and why were they circulated by apostolic command? The stated intent and purpose was to provide a record of the doctrines that were delivered by Christ and the Apostles.
The scriptures are authoritative in that they are declared by scripture to be inspired by God Himself. Do you disagree? Do you say that the scriptures were not inspired by God? Do you say that they do not declare it of themselves? Do you deny that by virtue of being inspired by God, they carry His authority?
Who said anything about becoming their own bishop/apostle? We believe in the priesthood of each believer because the Bible tells that we can come boldly before the throne of God.
No. The word does not appear. (BTW, the Jehovah's Witnesses use the claim that Catholics invented this doctrine to try and trick ignorant reactionary protestants). However, God the Father is clearly God. God the Son is clearly God. And, God the Holy Spirit is clearly God. What is not explicitly said is declared indirectly with such strength as to be undeniable. The same cannot be said of post-apostolic revelation nor of apostolic successionism. These doctrines were assumed by men, not declared by the Word of God.
Well actually they weren't the first.
[ March 22, 2002, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]
GraceSaves
New Member
I couldn't have avoided a question better myself.
If I quit believing in something every time someone said I had failed, I'd amount to nothing. Sorry, DHK, but I have not failed in making a strong case for the existence of purgatory. The fact that you do not wish to believe it does not make it any less evident to me. Personally, I believe you've done a poor job of explaining your position against it, because every post seems to be filled with an anti-Catholic remark. It's easy to dismiss an idea by dismissing the person making the idea. It's called Ad Hominem and it's a major logical fallacy. Look it up.
It's amazing how you can add so many things into a verse and expect it to have the same meaning. I wish I had that talent.
Which is what I've been saying since the beginning. Purgatory is part of Christ's saving work. Christ isn't dead; he is alive. Therefore, he is still alive and still saving His people. Christ is an active God. He didn't die on the cross and disappear.
Which excluded purgatory...how? Read again, DHK: Purgatory is cleansing done upon us! We do nothing to earn it, and we certainly don't deserve it. It is by divine love that it happens. All it takes is belief in Christ, right?
Another Ad Hominem and avoiding of Carson's question to you.
You can't stop with the anti-Catholic tactics, can you? Make an obtuse notion with no proof (you've yet to provide any proof for this, no matter how many times you state it, although you require proof of it from ME), and then you use it to attack Catholics with a rude and unnecessary comment.
If this is what you use to convert Catholics, I'm appalled.
GraceSaves
New Member
Such strength that the Catholic Church had to create three different creeds to further clarify the Holy Trinity? So strong that the Catholic Church (or early Church, if you won't agree to that) had to fight out COUNTLESS heresies against the Trinity? If it is so strong, why did SO many people question it and create new beliefs around it? So, where is the strength?
The fact that you are unwilling to look for strength in the purgatory doctrine does not make it less strong. You wouldn't believe in Christ if you didn't accept the faith that the Holy Spirit planted in you.
Again, the overall theme of the NT is God's grace and plan of redemption for man. The concepts of unmerited favor, justification, imputed righteousness, and the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice permeate the NT without one mention of purgatory nor allusion to it.
GraceSaves
New Member
You reject purgatory, so how would you possibly recognize the allusions to it? You have to believe in something to be able to spot allusions or refernces to it.
Furthermore, purgatory is, in essence, simply moving from our earthly bodies to heaven. After death, we cannot sin nor merit, so we're just there, constantly moving closer to heaven. And, since all in purgatory go to heaven, is there even a need to talk explicitly about it? Not really, because while it is important, it's not important that we know everything about it. It will simply happen.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Scott,
You asked, "Really, what then do you say their writings were for and why were they circulated by apostolic command? The stated intent and purpose was to provide a record of the doctrines that were delivered by Christ and the Apostles."
I would not say that they were circulated as the final authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and morality. This is a doctrine unknown to the communities of the New Testament, unknown to the Apostolic Age, unknown to the Apologists, unknown to the Fathers, unknown to High Scholasticism, and known to the co-founders of the doctrine: Martin Luther & John Calvin - your Luther and French Protestant Fathers.
You wrote, "The scriptures are authoritative in that they are declared by scripture to be inspired by God Himself. Do you disagree? Do you say that the scriptures were not inspired by God? Do you say that they do not declare it of themselves? Do you deny that by virtue of being inspired by God, they carry His authority?"
Yes I disagree! I couldn't disagree more.
1. Paul, in 2 Tim, only teaches that the OT is inspired. He nowhere explicitly speaks of any of the NT as inspired Scripture.
2. The majority of NT Scriptures do not declare their inspiration. If you think so, then please show me where each epistle and Gospel account claims inspiration or the status of inspiration.
You wrote, "Who said anything about becoming their own bishop/apostle? We believe in the priesthood of each believer because the Bible tells that we can come boldly before the throne of God."
Yes, and so do I. I'm a priest just as well as you. However, I am not a bishop; I hold no authoritative teaching office in the Church. Neither do you.
You wrote, "No. The word does not appear. (BTW, the Jehovah's Witnesses use the claim that Catholics invented this doctrine to try and trick ignorant reactionary protestants). However, God the Father is clearly God. God the Son is clearly God. And, God the Holy Spirit is clearly God."
And who's to say that Sabellianism (Patripassianism) or Adoptionism isn't true? Perhaps the Holy Spirit is merely a personified impersonal force equated with the Spiritual form of Jesus or God presents himself to us in three modes of being (but never three persons, for how can God be divided if he's one?)?
You wrote, "What is not explicitly said is declared indirectly with such strength as to be undeniable."
Really? I disagree profoundly with you. The canon of faith is what has enabled the Church to develop its doctine into today's definition of the Mystery of the Trinity. Any university/seminary student of Christian history and doctrine understands this.
The doctrine of the Trinity has been, indeed, denied by many, many Christians throughout history. You're feeding upon Catholic doctrine, which has been usurped by a non-Catholic sect, claiming the Trinity as its own and as a logical end of Scripture, which is untrue.
If you want proof, simply examine the fast growing Oneness Pentecostal "Christian" denomination that rests its confidence solely in the Scriptures.
You wrote, "The same cannot be said of post-apostolic revelation nor of apostolic successionism. These doctrines were assumed by men, not declared by the Word of God."
Catholicism denies post-apostolic revelation, and Apostolic succcession is implied in the restoration and elevation of the Davidic Kingdom by Christ, the son of David as presented in the Gospel of Matthew. Cf. the thread in this section entitled, "The Davidic Covenant".
God bless,
Carson
You asked, "Really, what then do you say their writings were for and why were they circulated by apostolic command? The stated intent and purpose was to provide a record of the doctrines that were delivered by Christ and the Apostles."
I would not say that they were circulated as the final authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and morality. This is a doctrine unknown to the communities of the New Testament, unknown to the Apostolic Age, unknown to the Apologists, unknown to the Fathers, unknown to High Scholasticism, and known to the co-founders of the doctrine: Martin Luther & John Calvin - your Luther and French Protestant Fathers.
You wrote, "The scriptures are authoritative in that they are declared by scripture to be inspired by God Himself. Do you disagree? Do you say that the scriptures were not inspired by God? Do you say that they do not declare it of themselves? Do you deny that by virtue of being inspired by God, they carry His authority?"
Yes I disagree! I couldn't disagree more.
1. Paul, in 2 Tim, only teaches that the OT is inspired. He nowhere explicitly speaks of any of the NT as inspired Scripture.
2. The majority of NT Scriptures do not declare their inspiration. If you think so, then please show me where each epistle and Gospel account claims inspiration or the status of inspiration.
You wrote, "Who said anything about becoming their own bishop/apostle? We believe in the priesthood of each believer because the Bible tells that we can come boldly before the throne of God."
Yes, and so do I. I'm a priest just as well as you. However, I am not a bishop; I hold no authoritative teaching office in the Church. Neither do you.
You wrote, "No. The word does not appear. (BTW, the Jehovah's Witnesses use the claim that Catholics invented this doctrine to try and trick ignorant reactionary protestants). However, God the Father is clearly God. God the Son is clearly God. And, God the Holy Spirit is clearly God."
And who's to say that Sabellianism (Patripassianism) or Adoptionism isn't true? Perhaps the Holy Spirit is merely a personified impersonal force equated with the Spiritual form of Jesus or God presents himself to us in three modes of being (but never three persons, for how can God be divided if he's one?)?
You wrote, "What is not explicitly said is declared indirectly with such strength as to be undeniable."
Really? I disagree profoundly with you. The canon of faith is what has enabled the Church to develop its doctine into today's definition of the Mystery of the Trinity. Any university/seminary student of Christian history and doctrine understands this.
The doctrine of the Trinity has been, indeed, denied by many, many Christians throughout history. You're feeding upon Catholic doctrine, which has been usurped by a non-Catholic sect, claiming the Trinity as its own and as a logical end of Scripture, which is untrue.
If you want proof, simply examine the fast growing Oneness Pentecostal "Christian" denomination that rests its confidence solely in the Scriptures.
You wrote, "The same cannot be said of post-apostolic revelation nor of apostolic successionism. These doctrines were assumed by men, not declared by the Word of God."
Catholicism denies post-apostolic revelation, and Apostolic succcession is implied in the restoration and elevation of the Davidic Kingdom by Christ, the son of David as presented in the Gospel of Matthew. Cf. the thread in this section entitled, "The Davidic Covenant".
God bless,
Carson
OK. You imply that it is there and I am somehow unwilling to see it. What scriptures clearly support this doctrine? I am willing to look at your proof... I simpy haven't seen any.
I have no trouble at all discerning the Trinity in the scriptures but I see nothing remotely like purgatory.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi GraceSaves,
You wrote, "You reject purgatory, so how would you possibly recognize the allusions to it? You have to believe in something to be able to spot allusions or refernces to it."
As Peter Kreeft has said, "What a man wonders about fills his heart and directs his thought."
God bless,
Carson
You wrote, "You reject purgatory, so how would you possibly recognize the allusions to it? You have to believe in something to be able to spot allusions or refernces to it."
As Peter Kreeft has said, "What a man wonders about fills his heart and directs his thought."
God bless,
Carson
GraceSaves
New Member
Don't tell me you haven't seen the verses Catholics always use to show allusions to purgatory. I'll pull them out if you want, but will that really make a difference in what you already are holding to?
That's because you knew about the Trinity, as most Christians believe in it today, before you became a Biblicist. You went into Scriptures already knowing what you believed about the Trinity, and thus finding supporting evidence is a piece of cake. If you go into Scriptures with a believe in purgatory, likewise, you will find supporting scriptures.
It's a matter of reading objectively verses subjectively.
GraceSaves
New Member
I have a general question to throw out:
If the Catholic Church willingly and knowingly added the doctrine of purgatory, knowing that it contradicts the Word of God, and the Catholic Church has "added" books to the Bible, why didn't they simply delete those troublesome verses that seem to run contrary to purgatory?
Simply put, the Church creates doctrines of men and changes the Bible to fit its needs...but has not subtracted a single verse that appears to run contrary to Church teachings.
If the Catholic Church was doing this out of evil (the whole anti-Christ bit), why would it not stop at taking out all verses of the Bible that "run contrary" to Catholic teachings? Wouldn't this be much easier than having to daily struggle in backing up the beliefs despite the seemingly contrary verses?
Furthermore, a Church that creates these doctrines for their own purposes and desires, would surely not allow these verses that are contrary to their teachings in fear of the laity finding out about it!
Why then does the Church struggle with "proving" to you their doctrines instead of pulling out these verses that you use from the Bible? I mean, the Catholic Church can infallibly change anything, right? Why don't they just do it, and make everything easier?
Please explain why you can say she (the Church) added entire books to the Bible and upholds traditions of men that run contrary to Scripture, and yet she did not make it easy on herself by ommitting verses that make these doctrines harder to swallow? Surely if she can add she can omit, right?
If the Catholic Church willingly and knowingly added the doctrine of purgatory, knowing that it contradicts the Word of God, and the Catholic Church has "added" books to the Bible, why didn't they simply delete those troublesome verses that seem to run contrary to purgatory?
Simply put, the Church creates doctrines of men and changes the Bible to fit its needs...but has not subtracted a single verse that appears to run contrary to Church teachings.
If the Catholic Church was doing this out of evil (the whole anti-Christ bit), why would it not stop at taking out all verses of the Bible that "run contrary" to Catholic teachings? Wouldn't this be much easier than having to daily struggle in backing up the beliefs despite the seemingly contrary verses?
Furthermore, a Church that creates these doctrines for their own purposes and desires, would surely not allow these verses that are contrary to their teachings in fear of the laity finding out about it!
Why then does the Church struggle with "proving" to you their doctrines instead of pulling out these verses that you use from the Bible? I mean, the Catholic Church can infallibly change anything, right? Why don't they just do it, and make everything easier?
Please explain why you can say she (the Church) added entire books to the Bible and upholds traditions of men that run contrary to Scripture, and yet she did not make it easy on herself by ommitting verses that make these doctrines harder to swallow? Surely if she can add she can omit, right?