Since Jesus told this story as one of his parables, to point out (taken from orthodox.net) that Our Holy Father Abraham, among his numerous virtues, was distinguished in the minds of the Jews for his hospitality. This is also associated with salvation.

"It may here be observed, that all who are offended by us are exposed to our view. But the rich man sees Lazarus not with any other righteous man, but in Abraham's bosom. For Abraham was full of love, but the man is convicted of cruelty. Abraham sitting before his door followed after those that passed by, and brought them into his house, the other turned away even them that abode within his gate." (St John Chrysostom)

To the world, the death of Lazarus, was a non-event. Someone had to grab him, because after all, he would start to smell, and throw him somewhere, into some potter's field. No one came to pray for him. No one cared. No one knew him. The rich man might have noticed after two or three weeks, "Oh the beggar is not there anymore. I don't have to step over him anymore. That's good". His death was of no consequence. It did not cause a ripple in the life of that time.

But he did NOT die alone, and his death was a matter of great rejoicing in the heavens, because the angels escorted him into Abraham's bosom. What does it say about those that die who are righteous, and the appearances, both in this world , and the REAL appearances in the next? Solomon says, "But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure is taken for misery, And their going from us to be utter destruction: but they are in peace. For though they be punished in the sight of men, yet is their hope full of immortality. And having been a little chastised" ... Lazarus' wounds were a little bit of chastisement mind you. Don't look at the appearances, look at the truth! And "they shall be greatly rewarded: for God proved them, and found them worthy for himself. As gold in the furnace hath he tried them, and received them as a burnt offering. And in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and run to and fro like sparks among the stubble." (Wisdom 3:1 - 7) So it is with the righteous when they die. The world sees a false picture, but we know the truth.

The rich man's death, although accompanied by great fanfare in the world, with paid mourners, and the playing of flutes, was an unimportant event in the heavens. He was merely buried. This burial, in the bowels of the earth, is meant here to signify that he descending into the lowest depths of Hell.

"He (the rich man, Ed.) died then indeed in body, but his soul was dead before. For he did none of the works of the soul. All that warmth which issues from the love of our neighbor had fled, and he was more dead than his body. But no one is spoken of as having ministered to the rich man's burial as to that of Lazarus. Because when he lived pleasantly in the broad road, he had many busy flatterers; when he came to his end, all forsook him. For it simply follows, and was buried in hell. But his soul also when living was buried, enshrined in its body as it were in a tomb." (St John Chrysostom)

Good job Wondergirl!! I am happy because like a good Catholic you have searched the Church Fathers to see how they who were closest to the Apostles interpreted the Scriptures. You will find that all of them were thoroughly Catholic in their understanding of Scripture.

In Homily #41, St. John Chrysostom also said:
Let us then give them aid and perform commemoration for them. For if the children of Job were purged by the sacrifice of their father, why dost thou doubt that when we too offer for the departed, some consolation arises to them? since God is wont to grant the petitions of those who ask for others. And this Paul signified saying, “that in a manifold Person your gift towards us bestowed by many may be acknowledged with thanksgiving on your behalf.” (2 Cor. i. 11.) Let us not then be weary in giving aid to the departed, both by offering on their behalf and obtaining prayers for them: for the common Expiation of the world is even before us. Therefore with boldness do we then intreat for the whole world, and name their names with those of martyrs, of confessors, of priests. For in truth one body are we all, though some members are more glorious than others; and it is possible from every source to gather pardon321321 συγγνωμήν. for them, from our prayers, from our gifts in their behalf, from those whose names are named with theirs. Why therefore dost thou grieve?
NPNF1-12. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians | Christian Classics Ethereal Library (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xlii.html)

Therefore, since St. John Chrysostom is your authority.

"Again we pray for the repose of the soul(s) of the servant(s) of God, departed this life; and that he (she, they) may be pardoned all his (her, their) sins, both voluntary and involuntary." (From Service Books of the Orthodox Church, Vol. I: the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom).

Do you believe in prayer for the dead? If so, then you are very close to believing in Purgatory.

Sincerely,

De Maria

St. John Chrysostom

Do you believe in prayer for the dead?
Did St. John Chrysostom believe in purgatory? That is not mentioned in what I quoted. No, I do not pray to the dead nor do I believe in purgatory.

Lets think about it this way, I would rather live Holy, Righteous, and true to Jesus and believe in only heaven and hell (since there is biblical proof for both) than to live my life in sin, and disregard Jesus as my savior and "HOPE" there is a purgatory so I won't have to spend eternity in hell. Eternally with out the presence of God!

Lets think about it this way, I would rather live Holy, Righteous, and true to Jesus and believe in only heaven and hell (since there is biblical proof for both) than to live my life in sin, and disregard Jesus as my savior and "HOPE" there is a purgatory so I won't have to spend eternity in hell.
I guess you have not been paying attention to the thread... NO ONE in purgatory goes to hell.... and if you have been living a life worthy of hell, that's where you go ---> not to heaven.

I guess you have not been paying attention to the thread.... NO ONE in purgatory goes to hell.... and if you have been living a life worthy of hell, that's where you go ---> not to heaven.
He didn't say that.

He didn't say that.
Okey dokey.

But he did say "to live my life in sin, and disregard Jesus as my savior and "HOPE" there is a purgatory so I won't have to spend eternity in hell"... and this is not even CLOSE to the teaching on purgatory, so I don't know what his point actually is then...

If one were to live their life in sin and disregard Jesus as their savior they would most likely go to hell... so again, I'm not sure what this has to do with purgatory, which only deals with people who are going to HEAVEN.

Thanks for clearing this up.

Did St. John Chrysostom believe in purgatory? That is not mentioned in what I quoted. No, I do not pray to the dead nor do I believe in purgatory.
The point is that Chrysostom DID advocate prayers for the dead:

"Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice (Job 1:5), why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them." (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians c. 392 A.D.)

"Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them [the deceased] to the extant of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf." (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians c. 402 A.D.)


From this you should understand:

Those in heaven do not need consolation... they are in HEAVEN!
Those in hell can not be helped at all... they are lost.
Sooooo.... prayers for the dead are for those who are in a state of purification, who need consolation and who will eventually be in heaven---> purgatory.:)

JOB 1:5

WHERE do you get that Jobs sons were dead at this point??

It says

And his possession was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a family exceedingly great: and this man was great among all the people of the east. 4 And his sons went, and made a feast by houses, every one in his day. And sending, they called their three sisters, to eat and drink with them. And made a feast by houses... That is, each made a feast in his own house and had his day, inviting the others, and their sisters. 5 And when the days of their feasting were gone about, Job sent to them, and sanctified them: and rising up early, offered holocausts for every one of them. For he said: Lest perhaps my sons have sinned, and have blessed God in their hearts. So did Job all days.

If your RCC gets this means Job sacrificed anything to his dead sons then it further proves to me that they twist scripture and I HAVE to agree with Tjs that we are not the ones doing the twisting NOR are we the ones doing private interpretation.

It isn't until Job 1:18 his family dies.

Clearly from what I read from Fred's understands is that by the Grace of God, who is Chirst, we are saved. The " if " added to the saving grace is to assure the understanding of a double minded person, which means ( evil doing - righteous belief) They will not enter heaven.. This is true...

What I find not true is the post #504 Scott just mentioned---> Sooooo... prayers for the dead are for those who are in a state of purification, who need consolation and who will eventually be in heaven---> purgatory

NO NO NO..That statement Scott, does suggest that a person or people can work out their own salvation by the help of man. It just is not true.. Each of us has to be accountable for their own actions, and belief. Only by Christ, who is the Grace of God can each be saved. It is vanity to think once someone is dead, {{you}} as a man can help save them.

JOHN 1:13 speaking of being born again
Says
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

MEANING that NO man can will you into heaven while you are alive, while you are dead, nor can they pray you into heaven, nor sacrifice anything on your behalf to get you out of purgatory.

Reading that any of that is possible is reading stuff into verses. I prefer to not believe in Purgatory BECAUSE you HAVE to read too much into the verses AND take them out of context!

People CAN pray for you to come to Christ but the rest is on the individual.

It is vanity to think once someone is dead, {{you}} as a man can help save them.
Some of us believe "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." and some of us don't... :cool:

Some of us believe "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." and some of us don't..... :cool:


Like I already said YES that is true and sndbay DOES believe that I am 100% sure
BUT that means the prayer of the righteous man availeth much MEANING DURING this life time. The Bible clearly teaches that once you die that is it heaven or hell nothing in between.
Getting Purgatory out of anything is reading things into the Bible.

BUT that means the prayer of the righteous man availeth much MEANING DURING this life time.
I guess God forget to make this clear in the bible, eh?

The Bible clearly teaches that once you die that is it heaven or hell nothing in between.
Right... purgatory is not "between" anything.

Getting Purgatory out of anything is reading things into the Bible.
Ah, I get it... Catholic interpretation is "reading things into the Bible" and non-Catholic interpretation is simply the Bible speaking for itself... rrrrrrright.;)

Lilmekiss,
There is no bible passage that says we are save by faith alone.
There none that way we are save by works alone.'But there are many that say we are saved by the grace of God If we have faith an WORK that faith for a "faith without works is dead".
That has nothing to do with the fact that Purgatory does or does not exist.
There is NO passages that prove that Purgatory does not exist, nine zilch.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

AGAIN THIS IS A DANGEROUS FALICY yes we are saved by faith and faith alone not by workds according to

Ephesians 2

Made Alive in Christ
1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

So please do read your Bible and search what you are saying is correct because this in its self is a 100% contradiction what you have stated and was disproven by these verses.

(added part)and when it comes to the verse that said "faith without works is dead" "and works without faith are dead". Was a statement that you could not be in
Christ if you produce no froot and the second stament means that without faith that the froot that you produce is bad that's what this is saying it is by no means a way to say that you have to work to go to heven but it is a means to say that if you are with christ that you will do good works without thinking about what you can get out of it.

May God enter you mind soul and heart and let him teach you the truth so that no man will fool you.
Your praying brother in Christ
Lilmkiss

Okey dokey.

But he did say "to live my life in sin, and disregard Jesus as my savior and "HOPE" there is a purgatory so I won't have to spend eternity in hell"... and this is not even CLOSE to the teaching on purgatory, so I don't know what his point actually is then...

If one were to live their life in sin and disregard Jesus as their savior they would most likely go to hell... so again, I'm not sure what this has to do with purgatory, which only deals with people who are going to HEAVEN.

Thanks for clearing this up.

They will go to hell plain and simple.

They will go to hell plain and simple.
I don't care to limit the divine mercy (http://thedivinemercy.org/message/) of God... only He truly knows who is lost.

Peace be with you.

I agree don't limit the divine mercy of God and that is ONE of the reasons I can't see him setting up a purgatory cause to me it is like saying my almighty powers are limited and so therefore have to go through this channel.

Sort of like in the Wizard of Oz when he sent them for the witches broom so they could go back to Kansas when all he had to do was send them back to Kansas!

Not sure where you guys are up to, I have only read up to page 48, so here is some more information.
Abrahams bosom.
Jesus was talking to the Pharisees and was using their teaching to explain a greater truth, (an allegory perhaps?), the Pharisees taught that there were three places, 1.Abraham's bosom, 2. Under the throne of Glory, 3. In the garden of Eden.(Gr. Paradise)
Speaking of death, they would say," This day he sits in Abraham's bosom.'
(Lightfoot, 'Works' vol xii, pp 159-63)
The Pharisees also taught that in life, two men may be "coupled together ", and one sees the other after death, and conversations take place.
(Lightfoot)
The Pharisees gave long stories of similar imaginary conversations and discourses.
(Lightfoot)

In Ephesians 4

7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.
8This is why it says:
"When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men."
9(What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions?
10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

I 1 Peter

18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
19through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison
20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

I'm not sure if these were the same captives that Jesus set free, according to Isaiah 61, but in John 5, Jesus says -

24"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.
25I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.
26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.

The time had come THEN for the dead to hear His voice, and those that believed in Him from before time past, that is, the promise of His coming and had faith in him as their Messiah, these were the prisoners that were set free and led in His train to heaven.

These are those that were risen from the dead in Mathew 27

50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split.
52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

These were Old Testament folk, who were taken to Heaven with Jesus, (note, no purgatory).

There is more, but I'm going to bed, night folks.
Peace.:)

Once again for any one to claim private interpretation, It seems odd that I would also have the same 'private interpretation' on the Bible as Peter Wilson. Odd how the Holy Spirit shows us the same thing and it is considered 'private interpretation'

I agree don't limit the divine mercy of God and that is ONE of the reasons I can't see him setting up a purgatory cause to me it is like saying my almighty powers are limited and so therefore have to go through this channel.
I can understand that... and I appreciate your comments... we can disagree (this topic certainly does not have anything to do with our relationship with Christ) because in the end, I think everyone has to admit we're just "guessing" and none of us have any special insight into the mystery that is our life after death.

Once again for any one to claim private interpretation, It seems odd that I would also have the same 'private interpretation' on the Bible as Peter Wilson. Odd how the Holy Spirit shows us the same thing and it is considered 'private interpretation'
Again, it seems that it's only "odd" when it's a non-Catholic opinion... when Catholics agree with each other and the last 2,000 or so years of Catholic teaching we're just following the "traditions of man"-----> and when you folks do it, you have "divine revelation".

Arians made up more than 50% of the Christian faith at one point... so 'private' means independent of Apostolic authority, be it one person or one million.

so 'private' means independent of Apostolic authority, be it one person or one million.

Scripture says that private means by man not the Holy Spirit.

And as for Apostolic authority, the Apostles all died about 2000 years ago. I'll stick with God's word, which comes from God, which is where the Apostles got their authority to begin with.

Divine revelation, private interpretation, whatever you want to call it it seems odd to me that we can all have the same 'private interpretation' which to me makes it seem like not so personally interpreted as some claim.

divine revelation, private interpretation, whatever you want to call it it seems odd to me that we can all have the same 'private interpretation' which to me makes it seem like not so personally interpreted as some claim.
Well, it shouldn't seem odd to you at all... you've all been educated by the same faith tradition and "stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught".

As Athanasius spoke against the Arians faulty interpretations of Scripture:

"However here too they (Arians) introduce their private fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise 'one,' or 'like,' as the CHURCH preaches, but as they themselves would have it"
-Orat 3,10

"Let us, retaining the GENERAL SCOPE of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a RIGHT interpretation"
-Orat 3,35

"But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, BUT DO NOT hold such opinions as the SAINTS HAVE HANDED DOWN, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they DO NOT rightly KNOW THEM nor their power"
-Festal Letter 2

"Of course, the holy Scriptures, divinely inspired are self-sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. But there are also numerous works composed for this purpose by blessed TEACHERS. The ONE WHO READS THEM will UNDERSTAND the INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures AND will be ABLE to GAIN knowledge he desires"
-C. Gentes 1

God bless.

Well, it shouldn't seem odd to you at all.... you've all been educated by the same faith tradition and "stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught".


THEN it is not private interpretation, as insisted upon in De Marie's post, if it was taught.

THEN it is not private interpretation, as insisted upon in De Marie's post, if it was taught.
I understand what you are saying... but I believe the rule against "private interpretation" does not simple mean one person.

Athanasius also correctly understood that "The holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the Truth" -Contra Gentiles 1,1

... but it's a matter of making sure that your interpretation is in keeping with the Church.

Blessings.

Some of us believe "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." and some of us don't..... :cool:

Scott I am trying to reason out how you might determine who is going to hell and who is going to purgatory. You are saying you pray for those that go to purgatory. How do you JUDGE THAT?

Lev 19:15

Scott I am trying to reason out how you might determine who is going to hell and who is going to purgatory. You are saying you pray for those that go to purgatory. How do you JUDGE THAT?
Faith dear friend... simply faith.

I don't know how some here can profess to know for CERTAIN that some go the hell, but then attack those who, based upon their faith in the divine mercy of God, pray for those who are not in hell.

Faith dear friend... simply faith.

I don't know how some here can profess to know for CERTAIN that some go the hell, but then attack those who, based upon their faith in the divine mercy of God, pray for those who are not in hell.
So HOW do you figure out who's in hell and who's in purgatory?

The Bible says that the road to heaven is narrow and that many go to hell so that is how it can be stated that it is certain that some go to hell. The point being that for ONE thing, if you are praying for somebody you assume to be in Purgatory when in actuality they are in hell that would make your prayers in vain which the Bible warns against.

So HOW do you figure out who's in hell and who's in purgatory?
Umm... I already told you: faith.

"As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come."[St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. Mt 12:31]

... and based upon faith that the person being prayed for is worthy of heaven, though in need of the "purgatorial fire" of Christ, we hope to intercede on their behalf.

I pray that one day this will be done for me!:D

Scott I am trying to reason out how you might determine who is going to hell and who is going to purgatory. You are saying you pray for those that go to purgatory. How do you JUDGE THAT?

Lev 19:15

I would add to Scott's comments, that the entire point is that it’s God's merciful and just will along with our willingness to accept his graces as determining factors who enters the Kingdom of Heaven. Catholics don’t determine for themselves (similar to the “once saved and always saved” way of thinking) who enters the Kingdom of Heaven.

CCC 682 When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works, and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace.

JoeT

So HOW do you figure out who's in hell and who's in purgatory?


That’s a curious question. Would you number who enter Hell, Purgatory, or Heaven? Or, is it that you would number yourself among the elect?

If nothing else you would be quite busy keeping all three gates.

JoeT

Okay why would the Bible say let the dead bury the dead if you were then suppose to then pray for people AFTER they died?

Luke 9:59-60

* "And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

* Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God."

Psalms 88:10-12

* "Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead? shall the dead arise and praise thee? Selah.

* Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction?

* Shall thy wonders be known in the dark? and thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness? "


Hebrews 9:26-27

* "For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

* And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"

That’s a curious question. Would you number who enter Hell, Purgatory, or Heaven? Or, is it that you would number yourself among the elect?

If nothing else you would be quite busy keeping all three gates.

JoeT

That was not the point at all whatsoever! The point is that you could very well be praying IN VAIN for loved ones to get out of purgatory when they are actually in hell. The Bible says do not pray in vain.

Umm.... I already told you: faith.
How does that work? Faith that alcoholic Uncle Joe, whom I couldn't stand, is in hell, so no prayers? Faith that sweet Aunt Maud who loved to bake is in purgatory, so let's all pray for her?

Faith dear friend... simply faith.

I don't know how some here can profess to know for CERTAIN that some go the hell, but then attack those who, based upon their faith in the divine mercy of God, pray for those who are not in hell.

To do judgement of another is to do harm to yourself and that person. So should you judge that someone is going to hell? .. I think not

Should you judge they are going to purgatory? .. It would again cause harm to yourself as well as that person.

Faith in God, His grace is a balance of truth without flaw or blemish.

Romans 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way.

James 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

How does that work? Faith that alcoholic Uncle Joe, whom I couldn't stand, is in hell, so no prayers? Faith that sweet Aunt Maud who loved to bake is in purgatory, so let's all pray for her?


No, I would be more inclined to pray for both of them. I would tend to trust in God's mercy and assume both made it to Heaven. Especially pray for Joe!
The point is WE don't determine who gets to Heaven and who doesn't. Catholic thinking is to leave that to God's merciful and just will.

JoeT

I would add to Scott's comments, that the entire point is that it’s God's merciful and just will along with our willingness to accept his graces as determining factors who enters the Kingdom of Heaven. Catholics don’t determine for themselves (similar to the “once saved and always saved” way of thinking) who enters the Kingdom of Heaven.

CCC 682 When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works, and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace.

JoeT

Joe, your statement of reason is that when he comes at the end of time to judge.. That is exactly so.. Christ will judge.

I am asking how Scott reasons out that He himself can judge and make the decision to pray for who he determined went to hell or purgatory. And again scripture warns us not to judge... becuase we can be a stumbling block to ourselves and to whom we have judged. Plus scripture says you judge another ye can be condemned..


Romans 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way.
James 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

The door is Christ..

No, I would be more inclined to pray for both of them. I would tend to trust in good mercy and assume both made it to Heaven.
If both made it to heaven, why would I pray for them?

Sndbay Scott is saying he would even pray for the ones that went to hell therefore he would not have to judge.

Well, it shouldn't seem odd to you at all.... you've all been educated by the same faith tradition and "stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught".

You mean scripture.

No, I would be more inclined to pray for both of them. I would tend to trust in good mercy and assume both made it to Heaven. Especially pray for Joe!
The point is WE don’t determine who gets to Heaven and who doesn’t. Catholic thinking is to leave that to God’s merciful and just will.
Amen Joe...

.... but it's a matter of making sure that your interpretation is in keeping with the Church.

Blessings.

No, scripture.

Men in the church can be wrong, but God's word is never wrong.

Seems like all this deciding and praying could take up a lot of time and could get confusing--and be fruitless. Isn't there a Bible verse that says prayers for the dead are not necessary, that they already have been judged?

Umm.... I already told you: faith.

Faith in what?

WE don’t determine who gets to Heaven and who doesn’t. Catholic thinking is to leave that to God’s merciful and just will.
So then what's the point of praying for them?

Sndbay Scott is saying he would even pray for the ones that went to hell therefore he would not have to judge.
Correct!

I pray for everyone!

... and sometimes it's important to remember that there is no such thing as a "wasted prayer".:)

I pray for everyone!
Why? Will this change God's mind?

Point two you got there!!
If they pray for them while in Purgatory where does it get the one in Purgatory anyway since they are going to heaven anyway?

Oh good point #1 was

Scott I am trying to reason out how you might determine who is going to hell and who is going to purgatory. You are saying you pray for those that go to purgatory. How do you JUDGE THAT?

Lev 19:15

Although that has been answered

Sndbay Scott is saying he would even pray for the ones that went to hell therefore he would not have to judge.

And yet he said those determined in hell there is no help..? If there is no judgement on his part how was it determined? What prayer is said? One prayer for all or two different prayers?


Note we can not bring salvation to anyone... so why is purgatory a teaching?

Why?
Love.

Will this change God's mind?
Nope.

Thanks for asking.

And yet he said those determined in hell there is no help..?? If there is no judgement on his part how was it determined? What prayer is said? One prayer for all or two different prayers?
I'm beginning to think all this praying for dead people is more for the pray-er than for the dead people. For instance, I didn't like alcoholic Uncle Joe when he was alive, so I pray for him after he dies so I feel better and less guilty about disliking him. Or I pray for sweet Aunt Maud who always baked cookies for me. She's probably in heaven now, but who knows. Wherever she is, I loved her a lot and praying for her makes me feel good.

I'm beginning to think all this praying for dead people is more for the pray-er than for the dead people. For instance, I didn't like alcoholic Uncle Joe when he was alive, so I pray for him after he dies so I feel better and less guilty about disliking him. Or I pray for sweet Aunt Maud who always baked cookies for me. She's probably in heaven now, but who knows. Wherever she is, I loved her a lot and praying for her makes me feel good.

So all is done as an act of self indulgence? That's the reasoning?

So all is done as an act of self indulgence? That's the reasoning?
We've been told we don't know where anyone is, so we pray for them all, but the praying won't necessarily change God's mind. So what is left? Scott had said to show love.

So all is done as an act of self indulgence? That's the reasoning?

YEP! That is what

ScottRC

Quote:

Why?
Love.

Quote:
Will this change God's mind?
Nope.

Thanks for asking.
__________________

... sounds like to me.

We've been told we don't know where anyone is, so we pray for them all, but the praying won't necessarily change God's mind. So what is left? Scott had said to show love.

I am all for showing love and in the pureness of heart. But there comes a point when your faith, in the Grace of God, is to recognize and acknowlodge His balance of truth . God' Will being done.

One of the stories in the bible was in David who brought flaws to his people, and God asked Him what punishment David wanted to accept for doing all that he had done wrong. David turned the choice to God, knowing that God would be of mercy and grace. Trusting in God's decision rather then risking your own.

Joe, your statement of reason is that when he comes at the end of time to judge.. That is exactly so.. Christ will judge.

These aren't my words, but with fear and trembling I'm working out salvation though the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church (Cf. Phil 2:12)


I am asking how Scott reasons out that He himself can judge and make the decision to pray for who he determined went to hell or purgatory. And again scripture warns us not to judge... becuase we can be a stumbling block to ourselves and to whom we have judged. Plus scripture says you judge another ye can be condemned.. I can't speak for Scott, but I would respond by saying the Church doesn't “condemn” folk to Purgatory. If you read my post (-link-) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/purgatory-just-how-long-238834-39.html#post1203305) carefully you'll see that it's not a place of condemnation; rather a state of being purified. If one selflessly loves God why object to a spiritual purification necessary to enter into a complete communion with God?

JoeT

What Sndbay means by condemning them to purgatory is a figure of speech.

If one selflessly loves God why object to a spiritual purification necessary to enter into a complete communion with God?

Why accept a place that is one step between what the Bible says to die in the body is to be present with Christ? Why add a step to one + one equals two?

These aren’t my words, but with fear and trembling I’m working out salvation though the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church (Cf. Phil 2:12)

I can’t speak for Scott, but I would respond by saying the Church doesn’t “condemn” folk to Purgatory. If you read my post (-link-) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/purgatory-just-how-long-238834-39.html#post1203305)carefully you’ll see that it’s not a place of condemnation; rather a state of being purified. If one selflessly loves God why object to a spiritual purification necessary to enter into a complete communion with God?

JoeT

Joe in all honesty it's because the rather a state of being purified already took place on the cross. At that moment finished... done.. That is what Chirst did.. To suggest differently or doing it again is to question the worthyness of what already took place.

What Sndbay means by condemning them to purgatory is a figure of speech.



The statement I made is backed by scripture.. Should you judge another NO! .. lest ye be condemned.
James 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

The statement I made is backed by scripture.. Should you judge another NO! .. lest ye be condemned.
James 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.
I guess this also means not to judge Catholics for their beliefs... or, let me guess, that's allowed?

Nobody is judging you... we state our beliefs just as you state yours... where is the judging?
We say why we do not believe your beliefs just as you say why you do not believe our beliefs... again where is the judging?

I guess this also means not to judge Catholics for their beliefs.... or, let me guess, that's allowed?

Not at all should anyone judge Scott.. This is a question and answer with logic and reasoning being used web site.

I rather give all acknowledgement to God, and His Word. It is He that reveals all unto us, if it be His Will, and He alone is glorified forever. No one else..

We say why we do not believe your beliefs just as you say why you do not believe our beliefs....again where is the judging?
I guess I don't remember starting a thread to tell anyone why their beliefs are false...

That's one difference I guess, I might take issue with HOW you come to your beliefs (sola scriptura) but not the beliefs themselves... I think you have the right to worship however you choose... anything else is judgement.

I was simply replying to this remark...


I guess this also means not to judge Catholics for their beliefs.... or, let me guess, that's allowed?

I guess I don't remember starting a thread to tell anyone why their beliefs are false...

That's one difference I guess, I might take issue with HOW you come to your beliefs (sola scriptura) but not the beliefs themselves... I think you have the right to worship however you choose... anything else is judgement.

Scott, You do indeed have the right to worship however you choose. But again this is a ASK ME Help Desk.. you will receive answers and questions.. that is a logical assumption.. Mine are scriptures being shared and seeds to plant and grow as God sees fit. Pointing fingers is not done.. For I follow the rule that pointing 1 finger is 3 fingers back at yourself.

Pointing fingers is not done.. For I follow the rule that pointing 1 finger is 3 fingers back at yourself.
Rrrrrrrright... I guess all the "{{{REBUKE REBUKE REBUKE!}}}" judgements were just simply you "sharing" your beliefs. :eek:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what "judgment" is...

Joe in all honesty it's because the rather a state of being purified already took place on the cross. At that moment finished...done.. That is what Chirst did.. To suggest differently or doing it again is to question the worthyness of what already took place.

No, not exactly. The sacrifice you speak of had no need to be purified. It was the fulfillment (end or finish) of the covenant with Moses. What it began was the New Covenant, with the real presence of God, His Kingdom on earth and the promise of salvation through faith and good works. God gave His only Son (the Lamb); the pure sacrifice provided by God, for our sin as well as the original sin. As I take it, It was done out of God's love for us. We should acknowledge receipt of that love though our own obedient love. What this sacrifice can't do without our participation is pay for our rejection of God's love. In some cases rejection can take the form where God's love is used as a tool for our selfish aims; such as a case where one depends on the spouse's love to manipulate their own gain, or in those cases where one uses God's love to, as it were, justify themselves by restricting God Will to their own interpretation; as it were done in a way to force God to prove His love – in Paul's day this was done by the Judo/Christian communities Rom 10:3 For they, not knowing the justice of God and seeking to establish their own, have not submitted themselves to the justice of God.

JoeT

No, not exactly. The sacrifice you speak of had no need to be purified. It was the fulfillment (end or finish) of the covenant with Moses. What it began was the New Covenant, with the real presence of God, His Kingdom on earth and the promise of salvation through faith and good works. God gave His only Son (the Lamb); the pure sacrifice provided by God, for our sin as well as the original sin. As I take it, It was done out of God’s love for us. We should acknowledge receipt of that love though our own obedient love. What this sacrifice can’t do is pay for our rejection of God’s love. In some cases rejection can take the form where God’s love is used as a tool for our selfish aims; such as a case where one depends on the spouse’s love to manipulate their own gain, or in those cases where one uses God’s love to, as it were, justify themselves by restricting God Will to their own interpretation; as it were done in a way to force God to prove His love – in Paul’s day this was done by the Judo/Christian communities Rom 10:3 For they, not knowing the justice of God and seeking to establish their own, have not submitted themselves to the justice of God.

JoeT

I don't know how you can limit Jesus' death to only fulfilling the OT when the Bible says repeatedly in so many ways that Jesus was made a sacrifice for our sins and his blood washed away our sins throughout the new testament.

I don't know how you can limit Jesus' death to only fulfilling the OT when the Bible says repeatedly in so many ways that Jesus was made a sacrifice for our sins and his blood washed away our sins throughout the new testament.

Read a little closer, I didn't say that.

OH I missed for our sin as well as the original sin. Sorry.

OH I missed for our sin as well as the original sin. Sorry.

No harm done.

What does it matter? You will be dead.

the promise of salvation through faith and good works
Salvation is not through good works. Any works we do are God's love reflecting off us and become our thank you to Him for His grace and mercy.


for our sin as well as the original sin
Jesus' sacrifice on the cross paid for ALL sins.

I don't care to limit the divine mercy (http://thedivinemercy.org/message/) of God.... only He truly knows who is lost.

Peace be with you.

And he simply states that those who are not with him are against him you are eather hot or cold and warm water he spits out meaning that they to are going to hell.

Umm.... I already told you: faith.

"As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come."[St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. Mt 12:31]

... and based upon faith that the person being prayed for is worthy of heaven, though in need of the "purgatorial fire" of Christ, we hope to intercede on their behalf.

I pray that one day this will be done for me!:D

Understand that this said Nor in the next age that means you will not be forgiven!

Pergatorial fire? This was never said!

Matthew 12

Jesus and Beelzebub
22Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub,[d] the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."

25Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

29"Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.

30"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

33"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. 35The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

This again is talking about something completely different use the word of God in context! And if you hadn't noticed I have already posted this up in earlyer posts so before you try to bring things like this up look in the prevous posts to see if they where descused!

and based upon faith that the person being prayed for is worthy of heaven, though in need of the "purgatorial fire" of Christ
Hmmm. I'm worthy of heaven now, this minute. Christ "purged" my sins by dying on the cross.

Rrrrrrrright..... I guess all the "{{{REBUKE REBUKE REBUKE!}}}" judgements were just simply you "sharing" your beliefs. :eek:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what "judgment" is....

Well before accuse me to giving judgement, please allow me to explain what my actions were in rebuking a double barreled statement. The intention is to rebuke satan. Jesus does this many times throughout the scriptures. We are told to rebuke satan temptations. So if you want to judge me in doing something wrong or bad that is your choice and you are accountable to that choice.

Another issue is correction can be helpful to bring obedience to the Word of God. Do we agree on that?

Originally Posted by JoeT777
The promise of salvation through faith and good works

Didn't we already talk about this read post 511 on page 52

No, not exactly. The sacrifice you speak of had no need to be purified. It was the fulfillment (end or finish) of the covenant with Moses. What it began was the New Covenant, with the real presence of God, His Kingdom on earth and the promise of salvation through faith and good works. God gave His only Son (the Lamb); the pure sacrifice provided by God, for our sin as well as the original sin. As I take it, It was done out of God's love for us. We should acknowledge receipt of that love though our own obedient love. What this sacrifice can't do without our participation is pay for our rejection of God's love. In some cases rejection can take the form where God's love is used as a tool for our selfish aims; such as a case where one depends on the spouse's love to manipulate their own gain, or in those cases where one uses God's love to, as it were, justify themselves by restricting God Will to their own interpretation; as it were done in a way to force God to prove His love – in Paul's day this was done by the Judo/Christian communities Rom 10:3 For they, not knowing the justice of God and seeking to establish their own, have not submitted themselves to the justice of God.

JoeT

God Holds Truth I offer His Word as that Truth

Mathew 27:50-53 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Hebrews 9:11-12 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].

Maria,

Are you aware that in translating words from one language to another, there is some loss in the connotation of the word? And yes, in English, prison means prison, and yes, the Greek word can mean prison when read in that context. But the Greek word carries a wider meaning which you appear to wish to ignore.

I thought you had turned over a new leaf and were going to begin answering the questions asked of you.

Here it is again:

I asked (message #459):

I consider a place of confinement a jail. Apparently you want to put a different spin on it than the actual people who actually know the language and what it means.
[i]1 Peter 3:18-20 (New International Version)
19through whomalso he went and preached to the spirits in prison

KJV
19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

Literally everyone interprets it "prison", except you.

What makes you a greater authority than they?

Please answer the question. The interpreters who translated the Greek to English in the NIV and the KJV say that word means "prison" when taking into account the Greek context. What makes you a greater authority than they?

Sincerely,

De Maria

I thought you had turned over a new leaf and were going to begin answering the questions asked of you.

Here it is again:

I asked (message #459):


Please answer the question. The interpreters who translated the Greek to English in the NIV and the KJV say that word means "prison" when taking into account the Greek context. What makes you a greater authority than they?

Sincerely,

De Maria
YOU BOTH ARE MAKING THE SAME ARGUMENT! Just saying it diffrently he said it means prison you say it means prison God never meant us to argue the exactsame point you both agree that it means prison so we have all had enough of this please. And you need not know somones age(whether or not you asked) or there education this does not effect how the Holy Spirit brings us to a realization of what his word means.

didnt we already talk about this read post 511 on page 52

I appreciate pointing that out, but it doesn’t settle the matter. There is a requitable element to any gift given. Accepting God’s love holds an obligation of returning that love with obedience.

JoeT

Maria,

I cannot keep doing all your work for you. You eventually have to do some of your own. As we have stated before, hades is hell. And it is across a gulf from Abraham's Bosom (not the same place).

Oh suddenly you don't want to use a lexicon.

Let me enlighten you:

Hadēs

1) name Hades or Pluto, the god of the lower regions

2) Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead

3) later use of this word: the grave, death, hell
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G86&t=kjv)

The realm of the dead. That description seems to jive quite well with Purgatory. Much better than with the place of eternal damnation. N wonder you lost your lexicon when asked what "hades" means in Greek.


Ah, now you add your own private interpretation into it. There is no purgatory, nor anything that looks like purgatory here. That is the problem that you are and have been facing from the start.

I beg to differ. The one facing the problem is you as I have proven above.


Not anymore.. that appears to be one of the points that you are missing. The other is that scripture has no description of purgatory here or anywhere else.

It seems to be quite clearly described here.

1. Note that the rich man is praying to Father Abraham, both for himself and for his brothers.
2. Note that the rich man is suffering in flames.

Therefore, it seems quite clearly to describe the condition of a soul, which it not in eternal damnation and not in heaven. The only option is Purgatory. Which you deny in spite of the Scriptural evidence.


Maria,

I told you before, and you agreed with my approach - when your posts get to be too long, I pick what I think are the key points and respond to them.

Oh, that's fine. But I'm not complaining about your shortening the messages but about your ignoring pertinent questions. There's a difference.


To come back now and get nasty about that is at best inappropriate.

Now, I am under absolutely no obligation to play 20 questions with you.

You're under no obligation to answer any questions, I agree. We are under no obligation to even speak to each other.

However, when you dodge pertinent questions, I will make sure to highlight what you've done.


You are a grown woman -

You've probably forgotten. I've corrected you before. I'm a man. No harm taken.


do your own work, argue your own points, and don't get nasty because someone doesn't do all your work for you.

I do quite well at all those things. I think you're getting upset because you have lost credibility.

First, you twist Cardinal Newman's words.
Then, you underhandedly claim that the Catholic Church is mentioned in Rev 17.
Then, you don't know the difference between the keys to heaven and the keys to hell.
All the while dodging pertinent questions and using the excuse that you are shortening the messages. Ruuuiiiiight.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I appreciate pointing that out, but it doesn’t settle the matter. There is a requitable element to any gift given. Accepting God’s love holds an obligation of returning that love with obedience.

JoeT
Grandma gives you a gift, a birthday present, free, no strings, doesn't dangle it in front of you and demand a payback. You tell her thank you and mow the lawn for her out of love.

Same with God and you. He sent His Son to die on the cross--free, a gift, no strings. You tell Him thank you and then do your best to treat others with the same kind of unconditional love.

understand that this said Nor in the next age that means you will not be forgiven!
That's certainly ONE way to interpret that text...

and if you hadn't noticed I have already posted this up in earlyer posts so before you try to bring things like this up look in the prevous posts to see if they where descused!
No thanks.

Grandma gives you a gift, a birthday present, free, no strings, doesn't dangle it in front of you and demand a payback. You tell her thank you and mow the lawn for her out of love.

Same with God and you. He sent His Son to die on the cross--free, a gift, no strings. You tell Him thank you and then do your best to treat others with the same kind of unconditional love.

Thank you I could not have said it better myself :)

That's certainly ONE way to interpret that text...

No thanks.

So what does the word Nor mean? As far as the dictionary is concerned means will not or can not, there for by definition in this text that a sin against the Holy Spirit is grounds for and automatic dismisal to hell, not to (a fake place called pergatory), or to heven you will not be forgiven ever and that is not one way to enterpret this scripture, it is the only way. (The Bible means what it says there are not muti meanings to the texts if it says if a man does this they are going to hell that's exactly what it means! And the definition of the english language might change but this is the context it was written in is plain and simple.)

If you want scripture to back any of this up ask me for it and I will be more then willing to get it for you.

And just because you use the NKJV or the KJV I am a student of old english texts, not just the bible but going to Shakespeare. Athough my spelling isn't alwase the best I can tell you what the definition of any old english word means!

Grandma gives you a gift, a birthday present, free, no strings, doesn't dangle it in front of you and demand a payback. You tell her thank you and mow the lawn for her out of love.
Then, half way finished, you decide to steal her lawnmower and go buy some booze... after consuming it, you think it would be funny to see how flammable grandma's house is and set it on fire.

Ooops... it turns out to be very flammable.

No worries though, grandma won't ask for the present back, and you certainly don't "owe" her anything to repair her house... right?

;)

I thought you had turned over a new leaf and were going to begin answering the questions asked of you.

Sigh!

I had hoped that you had stopped making false accusations.



Please answer the question.

I answer reasonable questions. I see no need to answer false accusations disguised as strawman questions.

(The Bible means what it says there are not muti meanings to the texts if it says if a man does this they are going to hell thats exactly what it means! and the definition of the english language might change but this is the context it was writen in is plain and simple.)
We'll have to disagree on this... I believe Scripture is polyvalent.

Peace be with you.

Why, let the stricken deer go weep,
The hart ungalled play;
For some must watch, while some must sleep:
So runs the world away.
Would not this, sir, and a forest of feathers-- if
The rest of my fortunes turn Turk with me--with two
Provincial roses on my razed shoes, get me a
Fellowship in a cry of players, sir?

:D

I believe Scripture is polyvalent.
:D


To the point of taking things out of context?

We'll have to disagree on this... I believe Scripture is polyvalent.

Show me scripure to back this up and I will not believe you until you do so. But I agree with you if you where to add if you take one verse it can have many meanings but if you actuly take the rest of the verses along with it then it can only have one. On this point taking one verse and interperting it as something in and of itself with out the context is adding and or subtracting and through out the bible this is a shown as a unforgivable offence to the holy spirit and will not be forgiven again you want the bible verses I will have no problem procuring them for you.

I would say that is taking the point of what is being explained way out of context,
Just following in to the logical conclusion... the statment:

Same with God and you. He sent His Son to die on the cross--free, a gift, no strings. You tell Him thank you and then do your best to treat others with the same kind of unconditional love.
... brings up the question of what happens when WE sin and how does that affect this "free, no-strings" gift mentioned.

show me scripure to back this up and i will not belive you untill you do so.
I couldn't care less if you believe me or not... I'm simply offering what I believe.

Because you are comparing people who accept the free gift to and with people that refuse the free gift that is the difference. That is mixing apples with oranges.

Because you are comparing people who accept the free gift to and with people that refuse the free gift that is the difference. That is mixing apples with oranges.
Nope... the gift of salvation is free... but do our actions (specifically our sins) affect this gift?

If you don't believe it does, I'd be curious to see some Biblical support for the idea that sin has no consequence and our actions won't be judged.

We'll have to disagree on this... I believe Scripture is polyvalent.

Does this mean that you think that we can interpret it any way that we want? Or just many different ways?

I could care less if you believe me or not... I'm simply offering what I believe.

Your personal private interpretation!

Exactly.

Ok, we are starting to insult and start attacking.

We are close to having to close their thread

Sainjoan,
Yes I believe that.
Is one of the many reasons I converted from PROTESTantism to Catholicism.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

De Maria,

You may have missed this post. Looks like you've been away for a while, and there has been a lot of traffic since then meaning that this probably got buried:


De Maria,

Yes, I can get wordy. I tried to keep things clear by underlining any questions that I had.

Early on in this thread I pointed out the fact that despite your claim about the rich man in Luke 16:24 being in Purgatory, none of the Fathers share your view. In your most recent post you indicated that they could not have used the term "purgatory" in their writings about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus because that word was not known to them, so they used the term "hell." Very well, if that's true, then some quotes by the fathers in which they describe the rich man as being in "hell temporarily" will suffice. Can you produce such quotes?

Now, regarding the chasm in Luke 16:26. I mentioned that it seemed to indicate that the rich man's fate was sealed. You replied, "Does that say the chasm is fixed permanently? Where?"

I'll freely admit that the text does not say that directly. But, turnabout is fair play. Can you show me where it says that the chasm isn't fixed permanently? Where?

You also asked me if there was any love in the hell of the damned. I'll freely admit that there probably is not. However, this is a parable. Jesus is telling this story to get his point across. He may, or may not be telling the story about an actual historical event. He may or may not change some details to get his point across. Now, you may say that the rich man can't be in hell because there is no love there. However, consider the following details from the story:

The Pharisees had a love of money. It appears that Jesus told this story about them in their presence. Part of God's will is that we help the poor. Will disregarding that will mean still being in God's grace and friendship? The rich man apparently was excessive and extravagant. He showed no concern for Lazarus despite the fact that it was clearly within the rich man's ability to help Lazarus. What does God say about that De Maria?

1 John 5:17 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?

Matthew 25:21-46 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Does the rich man call Abraham "father?" Yes he does, but isn't it presumptious for him to do that when he ignored the example of Abraham? By his calling Abraham "father" despite not living with love for his neighbor, and his request for Abraham to send Lazarus on his own personal task, it seems that he is continuing in his disregard for others even after death. Rather than an apology to Lazarus, we see here a request for a special favor in the way of a visitor from the afterlife to warn his kin. The rich man still seems to think that he is in charge! Tell me De Maria, is disregard for God's will, disregard for the poor, consistent with being in God's grace and friendship?

I did not say, "spirits must be modified to determine what it means." I did say that the word translated "spirits" unless modified represents non-human spirit beings. (I'm not sure how you mixed that up, maybe you are skimming instead of reading?) Since you seem to disagree De Maria, with my contention that 1 Peter 3:19 is not talking about humans, can you provide a verse in the New Testament where the word "spirits" not modified by an adjective or other word in the same sentence clearly indicates a deceased person? As you saw in the five verses that I provided (Matthew 12:45; Acts 23:8,9; Luke 10:20; Ephesians 2:2; Hebrews 1:14) there is no way one could misinterpret those verses as speaking about humans.

Are you attempting to claim that Noah's contemporaries that died in the flood really were in God's grace and friendship by posting a translation that reads, "Which had been some time incredulous…."?

Where exactly did you see me practicing , as you call it, "esegesis?"

Regarding 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, De Maria, if those whose works don't burn end up with the same thing as those whose works burn, how is that a reward?

Rob

Nope... the gift of salvation is free... but do our actions (specifically our sins) affect this gift?

If you don't believe it does, I'd be curious to see some Biblical support for the idea that sin has no consequence and our actions won't be judged.

So you are saying an atheist that refuses to accept that Jesus died for their sins
Yet lives a life that would make some Christians HAS the gift even though they reject it

Or what about the 'Christians' that maybe only profess to accept that gift yet burn grandma's house down?

MY point was that Wonder girl was specifically using grandma offering a free gift to explain how
God offers the free gift and then it is up to us what we do with the free gift accept it or reject it and then you threw out another scenario of how someone might use the free gift. Her point was not on how we use the free gift and the consequences of what we do.

Well, it shouldn't seem odd to you at all.... you've all been educated by the same faith tradition and "stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught".


Scott, I was brought up a roman catholic, and even wanted to become a priest at one time.
I was taught from the catechism through my school years, never from the Bible.
If you actually read the Bible, instead of Catholic literature, of what you have been taught to believe, then you would be a very odd catholic.
Of all the catholics that I know, and that includes my family, who go to church every week, don't, ever, read a bible, and most catholics don't even own one!
I have spoken to many priests over the years, and have asked them a number of questions about spirituality, and all, except one, had no idea.
One even said to me, "Wouldn't it be terrible if what we have believed all our lives, turned out to be wrong."
He was serious when he said this, I thought,"If he doesn't believe it, then where does that leave me?"
If you look at the true history of the roman church, then you would find out about the murder, rape, sodomy, that was not only committed by some of the popes themselves, but was given the blessing to anybody that would do the same to the prostestants.

Here is an extract from Babylon, Mystery Religion- by Woodrow.

The inhuman Inquisition
So OPENLY CORRUPT did the fallen church become in the Middle Ages, we can readily understand why in many places men rose up in protest. Many were those noble souls who rejected the false claims of the pope, looking instead to the Lord Jesus for salvation and truth. These were called `heretics" and were bitterly persecuted by the Roman
Catholic Church.
One of the documents that ordered such persecutions was the inhuman "Ad exstirpanda" issued by Pope Innocent IV in 1252. This document stated that heretics were to be "crushed like venomous snakes." It formally approved the use of torture. Civil authorities were ordered to burn heretics. "The aforesaid Bull `Ad exstirpanda' remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or reinforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake. It is to be noted that excommunication itself was no trifle, for, if the person excommunicated did not free himself from the excommunication within a year, he was held by the legislation of that period to be a heretic, and incurred all the penalties that affected heresy."
Men pondered long in those days on how they could devise methods that would produce the most torture and pain. One of the most popular methods was the use of the rack, a long table on which the accused was tied by the hands and feet, back down, and stretched by rope and windlass. This process dislocated joints and caused great pain.
Heavy pincers were used to tear out fingernails or were applied red-hot to sensitive parts of the body. Rollers with sharp knife blades and spikes were used, over which the heretics were rolled back and forth. There was the thumbscrew, an instrument made for disarticulating fingers and "Spanish boots" which were used to crush the legs and feet. The "iron virgin" was a hollow instrument the size and figure of a woman. Knives were arranged in such a way and under such pressure that the accused were lacerated in its deadly embrace. This torture device was sprayed with "holy water" and inscribed with the Latin words meaning, "Glory be only to God.
Victims after being stripped of their clothing had their arms tied behind their backs with a hard cord. Weights were attached to their feet. The action of a pulley suspended them in mid-air or dropped and raised them with a jerk, dislocating joints of the body. While such torture was being employed, priests holding up crosses would attempt to get the heretics to recant.
Ridpath's History of the World includes an illustration of the work of the Inquisition in the Netherlands. Twenty-one Protestants are hanging from the tree. A man on a ladder is about to be hanged, below him is a priest holding a cross.
"In the year 1554 Francis Gamba, a Lombard, of the Protestant persuasion, was apprehended and condemned to death by the sentence of Milan. At the place of execution, a monk presented a cross to him, to whom Gamba said, 'My mind is so full of the real merits and goodness of Christ that I want not a piece of senseless stick to put me in mind of Him.' For this expression his tongue was bored through and he was afterwards burned.
Some who rejected the teachings of the Roman church had molten lead poured into their ears and mouths. Eyes were gouged out and others were cruelly beaten with whips. Some were forced to jump from cliffs onto long spikes fixed below, where, quivering from pain, they slowly died. Others were choked to death with mangled pieces of their own bodies, with urine, or excrement. At night, the victims of the Inquisition were chained closely to the floor or wall where they were a helpless prey to the rats and vermin that populated those bloody torture chambers.
The religious intolerance that prompted the Inquisition caused wars which involved entire cities. In 1209 the city of Beziers was taken by men who have been promised by the pope that by engaging in the crusade against heretics they would at death bypass purgatory and immediately enter heaven. Sixty thousand, it is reported, in this city perished by the sword while blood flowed in the streets. At Lavaur in 1211 the governor was hanged on a gibbet and his wife thrown into a well and crushed with stones. Four hundred people in this town were burned alive. The crusaders attended high mass in the morning, then proceeded to take other towns of the area. In this siege, it is estimated that 100,000 Albigenses (Protestants) fell in one day. Their bodies were heaped together and burned.
At the massacre of Merindol, five hundred women were locked in a barn which was set on fire. If any leaped from windows, they were received on the points of spears. Women were openly and pitifully violated. Children were murdered before their parents who were powerless to protect them. Some people were hurled from cliffs or stripped of clothing and dragged through the streets. Similar methods were used in the massacre of Orange in 1562. The Italian army was sent by Pope Pius IV and commanded to slay men, women, and children. The command was carried out with terrible cruelty, the people being exposed to shame and torture of every description.
Ten thousand Huguenots (Protestants) were killed in the bloody massacre in Paris on "St. Bartholomew's Day", 1572. The French king went to mass to return solemn thanks that so many heretics were slain. The papal court received the news with great rejoicing and Pope GregoryXlll, in grand procession, went to the Church of St. Louis to give thanks! He ordered the papal mint to make coins commemorating this event. The coins showed an angel with sword in one hand and a cross in the other, before whom a band of Huguenots, with horror on their faces, were fleeing. The words Ugonot- torum Stranges 1572 which signify "The slaughter of the Huguenots, 1572", appeared on the coins.
An illustration from Ridpath's History of the World, as seen on the next page, shows the work of the Inquisition in Holland. A Protestant man is hanging by his feet in stocks. The fire is heating a poker to brand him and blind his eyes.
Some of the popes that today are acclaimed as "great" by the Romish church lived and thrived during those days. Why didn't they open the dungeon doors and quench the murderous fires that blackened the skies of Europe for centuries? If the selling of indulgences, or people worshipping statues as idols, or popes living in immorality can be explained as "abuses" or excused because these things were done contrary to the official laws of the church, what can besaid about the Inquisition? It cannot be explained away as easily, for though sometimes torture was carried out beyond what was actually prescribed, the fact remains that the Inquisition was ordered by papal decree and confirmed by pope after pope! Can any believe that such actions were representative of Him who said to turn the cheek, to forgive our enemies, and to do good to them that despitefully use us?



(Continued)


Peace:)

Papal Immorality
IN ADDITION TO the conclusive evidence that has
been given, the very character and morals of many of the popes would tend to identify them as sucessors of pagan priests, rather than representatives of Christ or Peter. Some of the popes were so depraved and base in their actions, even people who professed no religion at all were ashamed of them. Such sins as adultery, sodomy, simony, rape, murder, and drunkenness are among the sins that have been committed by popes. To link such sins with men who have claimed to be the "Holy Father", "The Vicar of Christ", and Bishop of bishops", may sound shocking, but those acquainted with the history of the papacy well know that not all popes were holy men.
Pope Sergius III (904-911 the papal office by murder. The annals of the church of Rome tell about his life of open sin with Marozia who bore him several illegitimate children.' He was described by Baronius as a "monster" and by Gregorovius as a "terrorizing criminal.
Says a historian: "For seven years this man...occupied the chair of St. Peter, while his
concubine and her Semiramis-like mother held court with a pomp and voluptousness that recalled the worse days of the ancient empire."
This woman—Theodora—likened to Semiramis (because of her corrupt morals), along with Marozia, the pope's concubine, `filled the papal chair with their paramours and bastard sons, and turned the papal palace into a den of robbers. The reign of Pope Sergius III began the period known as "the rule of the harlots" (904-963).
Pope John X (914-928) originally had been sent to Ravanna as an archbishop, but Theodora had him returned to Rome and appointed to the papal office. According to Bishop Liutprand of Cremona who wrote a history about fifty years after this time, "Theodora supported John's election in order to cover more easily her illicit relations with him. His reign came to a sudden end when Marozia smothered him to death! She wanted him out of the way so Leo VI (928-929) could become pope. His reign was a short one, however, for he was assassinated by Marozia when she learned he had "given his heart to a more degraded woman than herself" ! Not long after this, the teenage son of Marozia—under the name of John XI—became pope. The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "Some, taking Liutprand and the `Liber Pontificalis' as their authority, assert that he was the natural son of Sergius III (a former pope). Through the intrigues of his mother, who ruled at that time in Rome, he was raised to the Chair of Peter. But in quarreling with some of his mother's enemies, he was beaten and put into jail where he died from poisoning.
In 955 the grandson of Marozia at eighteen years of age became pope under the name of John XII. The Catholic Encyclopedia describes him as "a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium... On 6 November a synod composed of fifty Italian and German bishops was convened in St. Peter's; John was accused of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery, and incest, and was summoned in writing to defend himself. Refusing to recognize the synod, John pronounced sentence of excommunication against all participators in the assembly, should they elect in his stead another pope...John XII took bloody vengeance on the leaders of the opposite party, Cardinal-Deacon John had his right hand struck off, Bishop Otgar of Speyer was scourged, a high palatine official lost nose and ears...John died on 14 May, 964, eight days after he had been, according to rumor, stricken by paralysis in the act of adultery." The noted Catholic Bishop of Cremona, Luitprand, who lived at this time wrote: "No honest lady dared to show herself in public, for Pope John had no respect either for single girls, married women, or widows—they were sure to be defiled by him, even on the tombs of the holy apostles, Peter and Paul." The Catholic collection of the lives of popes, the "Liber Pontificalis," said: "He spent his entire life in adultery."
Pope Boniface VII (984-985) maintained his position through a lavish distribution of stolen money. The Bishop of Orleans referred to him (and also John XII and Leo VIII) as "monsters of guilt, reeking in blood and filth" and as "antichrist sitting in the temple of God." The Catholic Encyclopedia says he "overpowered John XIV (April, 984), thrust him into the dungeons of Sant'Angelo, where the wretched man died four months later... For more than a year Rome endured this monster steeped in the blood of his predecessors. But the vengeance was terrible. After his sudden death in July, 985, due in all probability to violence, the body of Boniface was exposed to the insults of the populace, dragged through the streets of the city, and finally, naked and covered with wounds, flung under the statue of Marcus Aurelius...The following morning compassionate clerics removed the corpse and gave it a Christian burial.
Next came Pope John XV (985-996) who split the church's finances among his relatives and earned for himself the reputation of being "covetous of filthy lucre and corrupt in all his acts."
Benedict VIII (1012-1024) "bought the office of pope with open bribery." The following pope, John XIX also bought the papacy. Being a layman, it was necessary for him to be passed through all the clerical orders . in one day! After this, Benedict IX (1033-1045) was made pope as a youth 12 years old (or some accounts say 20) through a money bargain with the powerful families that ruled Rome! He `committed murders and adulteries in broad daylight, robbed pilgrims on the graves of the martyrs, a hideous criminal, the people drove him out of Rome.' The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter." "Simony"--the buying and selling of the papal office—became so common, and corruption so pronounced, that secular rulers stepped in. King Henry III appointed Clement II (1046-1047) to the office of pope "because no Roman clergyman could be found who was free of the pollution of simony and fornication"!
A number of the popes had committed murders, but Innocent III (1198-1216) surpassed all of his predecessors in killing. Though he did not do the killing personally, he promoted the most devilish thing in human history—the Inquisition. Estimates of the number of heretics that Innocent (not so innocently) had killed run as high as one million people! For over five hundred years, popes used the inquisition to maintain their power against those who did not agree with the teachings of the Romish church.
In conflicts with cardinals and kings, numerous charges were brought against Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303). Says The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Scarcely any possible crime was omitted infidelity, heresy, simony, gross and unnatural immorality, idolatry, magic, loss of the Holy Land, death of Celestine V, etc... Protestant historians, generally, and even modern Catholic writers... class him among the wicked popes, as an ambitious, haughty, and unrelenting man, deceitful also and treacherous, his whole pontificate one record of evil." It is not necessary to insist that all charges brought against him were true, but all cannot be dismissed either. During his reign the poet Dante visited Rome and described the Vatican as a "sewer of corruption." He assigned Boniface (along with Popes Nicolas III and Clement V) to "the lower parts of hell."
Though seeking to put emphasis on certain good traits of Boniface, "Catholic historians... admit, however, the explosive violence and offensive phraseology of some of his public documents." An example of this "offensive phraseology" would be his statement that "to enjoy oneself and to lie carnally with women or with boys is no more a sin than rubbing one's hands together." On other occasions, apparently in those "explosive" moments he called Christ a "hypocrite" and professed to be an atheist.
Yet—and this sounds almost unbelievable—it was this pope that in 1302 issued the well-known "Unam Sanctum" which officially declared that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church, outside of which no one can be saved, and says: "We, therefore, assert, define and pronounce that it is necessary to salvation to believe that every human being is subject to the Pontiff of Rome." Because there have been sinful popes, being "subject" to the pope has raised a question. Should a sinful pope still be obeyed? The Catholic answer is this: "A sinful pope... remains a member of the (visible) church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience. "
From 1305 to 1377 the papal palace was at Avignon, France. During this time, Petrarch accused the papal household of "rape, adultery, and all manner of fornication." In many parishes men insisted on priests keeping concubines "as a protection for their own families!"
During the Council of Constance, three popes, and sometimes four, were every morning cursing each other and calling their opponents antichrists, demons, adulterers, sodomists, enemies of God and man. One of these "popes", John XXIII (1410-1415) "was accused by thirty seven witnesses (mostly. Bishops and priests) of fornication, adultery, incest, sodomy, simony, theft, and murder! It was proved by a legion of witnesses that he had seduced and violated three hundred nuns. His own secretary, Niem, said that he had at Boulogne, kept a harem, where not less than two hundred girls had been the victims of his lubricity." Altogether the Council charged him with fifty-four crimes of the worst kind.
A vatican record offers this information about his immoral reign. "His lordship, Pope John, committed perversity with the wife of his brother, incest with holy nuns, intercourse with virgins, adultery with the married, and all sorts of sex crimes... wholly given to sleep and other carnal desires, totally adverse to the life and teaching of Christ.. . he was publicly called the Devil incarnate." To increase his wealth, Pope John taxed about everything—including prostitution, gainbling, and usury. He has been called "the most depraved criminal who ever sat on the papal throne."
Pope Pius 11 (1458-1464) was said to have been the father of many illegitimate children. He "spoke openly of the methods he used to seduce women, encouraged young men to, and even offered to instruct them in methods of, self-indulgence." Pius was followed by Paul 11 (1464-1471) who maintained a house full of concubines. His papal tiara outweighed a palace in its worth. Next came Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) who financed his wars by selling church offices to the highest bidders and "used the papacy to enrich himself and his relatives. He made eight of his nephews cardinals, while as yet some of them were mere boys. In luxurious and lavish entertainment, he rivaled the Caesars. In wealth and pomp he and his relatives surpassed the old Roman families.
Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) was the father of sixteen children by various women. Some of his children celebrated their marriages in the Vatican. The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions only "two illegitimate children, Franceschetto and Teodorina" from the days of a "licentious youth. Like numerous' other popes, he multiplied church offices and sold them for vast sums of money. He permitted bull fights on St. Peter's square.
Next came Rodergio Borgia who took the name of Alexander VI (1492-1503), having won his election to the papacy by bribing the cardinals. Before becoming pope, while a cardinal and archbishop, he lived in sin with a lady of Rome, Vanozza dei Catanei; and afterward, with her daughter Rosa, by whom he had five children. On his coronation day, he appointed his son—a youth of vile temper and habits—as archbishop of Valencia. Many consider Alexander VI to be the most corrupt of the Renaissance popes. He lived in public incest with his two sisters and his own daughter, Lucretia, from whom, it is said, he had a child. On October 31, 1501, he conducted a sex orgy in the Vatican, the equal of which for sheer horror has never been duplicated in the annals of human history.
According to Life magazine, Pope Paul III (1534-1549) as cardinal had fathered three sons and a daughter. On the day of his coronation he celebrated the baptism of his two great-grandchildren. He appointed two of his teenage nephews as cardinals, sponsored festivals with singers, dancers, and jesters, and sought advice from astrologers.
Pope Leo X (1513-1521) was born December 11, 1475. He received tonsure at age 7, was made an abbot at 8, and a cardinal at 13! The illustration given above shows the Bull of Pope Leo X. On one side of the leaden seal appears the apostles Peter and Paul, on the other the pope's name and title. The word "bull" (from a Latin word linked with roundness) was first applied to the seals which authenticated papal documents and later to the documents also.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says that Pope Leo X "gave himself up unrestrainedly to amusements that were provided in lavish abundance. He was possessed by an insatiable love of pleasure... He loved to give banquets and expensive entertainments, accompanied by revelry and carousing. "
(Continued)

Peace:)

(Continued)
During those days, Martin Luther, while still a priest of the papal church, traveled to Rome. As he caught the first glimpse of the seven-hilled city, he fell to the ground and said: "Holy Rome, I salute thee." He had not spent much time there, however, until he saw that Rome was anything but a holy city. Iniquity existed among all classes of the clergy. Priests told indecent jokes and used awful profanity, even during Mass. The papal court was served at supper by twelve naked girls. "No one can imagine what sins and infamous actions are committed in Rome," he said, "they must be seen and heard to be believed. Thus they are in the habit of saying, `If there is a hell, Rome is built over it'."
One day during Luther's visit to Rome, he noticed a statue on one of the public streets that led to St. Peter's—the statue of a female pope. Because it was an object of disgust to the popes, no pope would ever pass down that certain street. "I am astonished", said Luther, "how the popes allow the statue to remain." Forty years after Luther's death, the statue was removed by Pope Sixtus V.
Though The Catholic Encyclopedia regards the story of pope Joan as a mere tale, it gives the following summary: "After Leo IV (847-855) the Englishman John- of Mainz occupied the papal chair two years, seven months and four days, he was, it is alleged, a woman. When a girl, she was taken to Athens in male clothes by her lover, and there made such progress in learning that no one was her equal. She came to Rome, where she taught science, and thereby attracted the attention of learned men...and was finally chosen as pope, but, becoming pregnant by one of her trusted attendants, she gave birth to a child during a procession from St. Peter's to the Lateran... There she died almost immediately, and it is said she was buried at the same place."
Was there really a female pope? Prior to the Reformation which exposed so much error in the Romish church, the story was believed by chroniclers, bishops, and by popes themselves. The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries this popess was already counted as an historical personage, whose existence no one doubted. She had her place among the carved busts which stood in Siena cathedral. Under Clement VII (1592-1595),and at his request, she was transformed into Pope Zacharias. The heretic Hus, in defence of his false doctrine before the Council of Constance, referred to the popess, and no one offered to question the fact of her existence." Some have questioned how Pope Clement could have a female pope, named Joan, "transformed" into a male pope, named Zacharias, centuries after she had died!
Having mentioned the gross immorality that has existed in the lives of some of the popes, we do not wish to leave the impression that all popes have been as bad as the ones mentioned. But we do believe this evidence seriously weakens the doctrine of "apostolic succession", the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church because it can trace a line of popes back to Peter. Is this really an important point? If so, each of these popes, even those who were known to be immoral and cruel, must be included. There is even the possibility of a female pope to make the succession complete! But salvation is not dependent on tracing a line of popes back to Peter—or even on a system of religion claiming to represent Christ. Salvation is found in Christ himself.

End of quote.

If you want to belong to a church with this sort of history, you are welcome to it.
Remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees, that they were guilty of the blood of the prophets because they agreed that their forefathers put them to death.
Even so, as it talks about Mystery Babylon in Revelation 18

4Then I heard another voice from heaven say:
"Come out of her, my people, (looks like there is some of God's people in there, are you one of them?)
So that you will not share in her sins,
So that you will not receive any of her plagues;
5for her sins are piled up to heaven,
And God has remembered her crimes.
6Give back to her as she has given;
Pay her back double for what she has done.
Mix her a double portion from her own cup.
7Give her as much torture and grief
As the glory and luxury she gave herself.
In her heart she boasts,
'I sit as queen; I am not a widow,
And I will never mourn.'
8Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her:
Death, mourning and famine.
She will be consumed by fire,
For mighty is the Lord God who judges her.

21Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said:
"With such violence
the great city of Babylon will be thrown down,
never to be found again.
22The music of harpists and musicians, flute players and trumpeters,
will never be heard in you again.
No workman of any trade
will ever be found in you again.
The sound of a millstone
will never be heard in you again.
23The light of a lamp will never shine in you again.
The voice of bridegroom and bride
will never be heard in you again.
Your merchants were the world's great men.
By your magic spell all the nations were led astray.
24In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints,
and of all who have been killed on the earth."
Peace:)

Grandma gives you a gift, a birthday present, free, no strings, doesn't dangle it in front of you and demand a payback. You tell her thank you and mow the lawn for her out of love.

Same with God and you. He sent His Son to die on the cross--free, a gift, no strings. You tell Him thank you and then do your best to treat others with the same kind of unconditional love.

Well, yeah. But that is only one side of the equation. Lets go back to Scripture:

Romans 3:5 But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God.

6 Who will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. 9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Its in more than one place so lets post another Scripture from another perspective but meaning the same thing:
Rev 20 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works. 14 And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire.

Ok, now lets round out your equation.

Jesus died for our sins and we, being grateful, also die to our sins and work for His Kingdom.

However, some of us begin to work then decide we like it better if we work for the pleasure of our flesh than for the Kingdom of God. According to these Scriptures, what becomes of those who do not work for God's Kingdom?

I'll give you a hint:
John 15 6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and case him into the fire, and be burneth.

Two hints:
Matt 7 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

Sincerely,

De Maria

(Continued)

Gosh Peter??

Couldn't you shorten it just a bit. Posting entire websites makes it kind of hard to have a decent discussion. Would you like for me to post the entire Catholic encyclopedia in response?

Besides, I think that's against the rules. Lets be reasonable, shall we?

Sincerely,

De Maria

I don't understand why all the debate over wondergirl saying salvation is a free gift
YEAH we get that it does not mean that all accept the free gift or anything else.
It isn't the 'other side of equation because then you are saying it is a free gift with equations
What you are suggesting is more the extensions of the extenuating circumstances of people who reject or misuse the free gift so I don't understand the 'debate' or whatever it is when we DO understand and agree with what you are saying.

So you are saying an atheist that refuses to accept that Jesus died for their sins yet lives a life that would make some Christians HAS the gift even though they reject it

Yes. Actions speak louder than words.

St. Justin Martyr on the topic of righteous atheists:

CHAPTER XLVI -- THE WORD IN THE WORLD BEFORE CHRIST.

But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible--let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them;


or what about the 'Christians' that maybe only profess to accept that gift yet burn grandma's house down?

They are spoken of in Scripture are they not?

Hebrews 10 26 For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. 28 A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people.


MY point was that Wonder girl was specifically using grandma offering a free gift to explain how God offers the free gift and then it is up to us what we do with the free gift accept it or reject it and then you threw out another scenario of how someone might use the free gift. Her point was not on how we use the free gift and the consequences of what we do.

As I understood her point, it was to say that we are once saved always saved. Therefore, she illustrated the gift and the appreciative response. But she did not represent the nonappreciative response.

What are the consequences of the person who receives the gift and rejects it. It seems clear, in Scripture, that if we reject the gift BY OUR DEEDS, we will be rejected in turn.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I don't understand why all the debate over wondergirl saying salvation is a free gift

There is no debate over salvation being a free gift. Salvation is a free gift. The debate is over your understanding of what constitutes the free gift of salvation.

Let me put like this. At work, our company frequently gives out pins and watches for years of service and for performance. These are gifts.

How could they be gifts, they are given out based on merit of some sort?

First criteria. We must be employees to be eligible to receive these gifts.
Second criteria. We must produce some verifiable effort.

So, this is remuneration of a sort.

True, but the company is making a free will gift because no one is forcing the company to give any gift whatsoever. There is no contractual requirement that they must recognize anyone at all except to pay them their due wages.

It's the same with God's salvation.

First criteria. We must have faith. Faith does not merit the grace of salvation but without it we won't be saved.

Second criteria. Works. Our works of righteousness do not merit our salvation. But without them we don't demonstrate faith. Therefore faith without works is dead and we won't be saved.


YEAH we get that it does not mean that all accept the free gift or anything else.
It isn't the 'other side of equation because then you are saying it is a free gift with equations

That is correct. It is a free gift with conditions. The conditions are in Scripture. You want to eat, you got to work. If you don't work you don't eat.


What you are suggesting is more the extensions of the extenuating circumstances of people who reject or misuse the free gift so I don't understand the 'debate' or whatever it is when we DO understand and agree with what you are saying.

Do you? Then why do you seem to be objecting? Do you believe that faith without works is a saving faith or not?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Exactly the point we are getting at it is free but then up to you how to use it or even accept it

As I understood her point, it was to say that we are once saved always saved. Therefore, she illustrated the gift and the appreciative response. But she did not represent the nonappreciative response.
Wondergirl did NOT say that--"once saved aways saved." Nothing like adding to the text...

Now you want a nonappreciative response? That wasn't the question on the table at the time, so I will write another Grandma example to illustrate that.

NO De Marie NOBODY is saying once saved always saved!
We ARE agreeing with you on THIS point it is how you choose to use the free gift doesn't mean once saved always saved

Let me put like this. At work, our company frequently gives out pins and watches for years of service and for performance. These are gifts.
No, they aren't. They are rewards for service, a whole 'nother animal.

It would be like God saying, "Youse guys have been so loving and kind lately and so full of goodness, so I'm gonna send My Son to die on the cross for you. What a peachy-keen bunch you are!"


It's the same with God's salvation.
Sorry, Charlie. It's not the same at all.

Now if the employees came in late and played Free Cell instead of doing their work and hung out in the cafeteria for hours at a time, then went home early, and the company owners gave them merit pay increases and gift certificates to local restaurants... that example is a lot closer to what God did for us in Christ.


First criteria. We must have faith.
Sorry, not true. The Bible says God sent His Son IN SPITE OF man's lack of love and faith--"while we were yet in our sins." That bumper sticker, "I found God" is all wrong. It should be, "God found me." God comes to each of us wherever we are.


Second criteria. Works. Therefore faith without works is dead and we won't be saved.
Again, not true. Yes, faith without works is dead, but works don't save us. Only Christ's death on the cross saves us. The works are our thank you to God.


It is a free gift with conditions.
No conditions. Salvation is a free gift just like Grandma's birthday gift was. Both were out of unconditional love. Neither God nor Grandma dangle strings alongside their gift.

It's really difficult to imagine that someone would give us something that's totally free, isn't it. We've always been warned to look behind the gift, to look for the condition, the string, the obligation. Nothing is free in this life, they say. Watch out for all those free offers--they're gimmicks to suck you in. I guess that's why people just can't believe God would give us something totally for free. That's not how the world operates. But then... God is not of this world and doesn't play by earthly standards and expectations, does He.

Scott, I was brought up a roman catholic, and even wanted to become a priest at one time.
I was taught from the catechism through my school years, never from the Bible.
If you actually read the Bible, instead of Catholic literature, of what you have been taught to believe, then you would be a very odd catholic.
Of all the catholics that I know, and that includes my family, who go to church every week, don't, ever, read a bible, and most catholics don't even own one!
I have spoken to many priests over the years, and have asked them a number of questions about spirituality, and all, except one, had no idea.
One even said to me, "Wouldn't it be terrible if what we have believed all our lives, turned out to be wrong."
He was serious when he said this, I thought,"If he doesn't believe it, then where does that leave me?"
If you look at the true history of the roman church, then you would find out about the murder, rape, sodomy, that was not only committed by some of the popes themselves, but was given the blessing to anybody that would do the same to the prostestants.
Peace:)

Seems strange that a man would be so compassionate for the supposed evils done 600 or 700 years ago, immediately abandon the faith of his family; that for want of a book, that could be purchased for a few dollars, he could give up the real presence of Christ? I suspicion there's more to it than that.

Even still, my “zeal” forces me to make sure that other readers understand that there is at least two sides to every story.


The Black Legend

The first inquisition came out of southern France where the majority was Cathars. Catharism is a sect with strong Gnostic elements that thrived in the 11th through the 13 centuries. Holding dualist and Gnostic faiths, Cathars held theological views such as the world was created evil by Satan, while considering God of the Old Testament to be the moral equal and opposite of Satan – the yin yang of good and evil. Many hold that Catharism had its theological genesis in Gnosticism with an aberrant mix of Judaism and Mohammedanism.

In southern France they formed opposition to the clergy and the Catholic Church. They perceived the individual to be the source of moral, spiritual, and political authority and as such viewed the Catholic Church as corrupt.

Procreation was considered undesirable and child birth was discouraged. They considered sex as a perversion, but at the same timed considered recreational sex as preferable to sex reserved for the purpose of procreation. It seems that taking on concubines was a moral alternative to marriage. It's really interesting that the Cathars could hold such distain for a natural act while finding recreational sex healthy – it hurts the head doesn't it? - by refusing to reproduce it's a wonder they lasted two hundred years.

Much like the radical Islamists of today, this movement can be viewed as the cradle of the Protestant movement. Morally dysfunctional societies such as Cathars refused the authority of the Church. They defended radical attacks against the Church, refused social regulation, taxes, social and moral bans while feeling justified in any moral disorder proclaiming to be above any moral truth taught by the Catholic Church. – When it's in black and white, its amazing how much they sound like today's secularists with a twisted freaky dualist god.

Which brings me to my point presented best by Warren H Carroll in The Glory of Christendom,


“The 'black legend' of the Inquisition has been the most successful of all historical propaganda offensives against the Catholic Church; and the difficulty of responding to it persuasively is vastly increased by the almost complete inability of modern man to understand how any society could regard a man's religion as a matter of life and death. But in fact the heretic in Christendom was in every sense of the word a revolutionary, as dangerous to public order and personal safety as yesterday's Communist or today's terrorist.”

JoeT

PS I wonder how this new thread would go over: “Is Protestantism taking on the same errors as Cathars in that they hold that individuals are the sole source of moral, and spiritual authortity” .

okay so you say it is propaganda so is that saying the Catholic church was falsely accused?

Two sides to every story= two wrongs do not make a right.

Gosh Peter???

Couldn't you shorten it just a bit. Posting entire websites makes it kind of hard to have a decent discussion. Would you like for me to post the entire Catholic encyclopedia in response?

Besides, I think thats against the rules. Lets be reasonable, shall we?

Gee, it seems to me that I have said the same thing to you, De Maria!

Gee, it seems to me that I have said the same thing to you, De Maria!


I D0 remember those pages of Catholic *encyclopedias* on answerway.com and I believe I remember them on askme.com too :eek: :rolleyes:

This is illustrated in 431 AD. Where the Bishops responded to Pope Celestine’s decision, “He [Peter] lives even to this time, and always in his successor’s gives judgment.”
Just out of curiosity, did you toss in that apostrophe or did the text come that way?

Gee, it seems to me that I have said the same thing to you, De Maria!

Well yeah. But I didn't post an entire website. I just answered each of your posts in my usual verbose style.

:o

I D0 remember those pages of Catholic *encyclopedias* on answerway.com and I believe I remember them on askme.com too :eek: :rolleyes:

I've never been on those websites. And I've never posted pages of Catholic encyclopedias. Although I have linked to the Catholic encyclopedia. Is that what you are referring to?

No, they aren't. They are rewards for service, a whole 'nother animal.

No, they are free will gifts. If the company decided to stop giving them tomorrow, we couldn't legally obligate them to do so.


It would be like God saying, "Youse guys have been so loving and kind lately and so full of goodness, so I'm gonna send My Son to die on the cross for you. What a peachy-keen bunch you are!"

Excellent example!!

Lets look at it more closely.

So far so good. God gave us a free will gift. His Son. God was not obligated to save us. But He sent His only begotten Son to save us as a free will Gift.

Is everyone saved? The whole world? No one is damned anymore no matter what they've done and whether they repented?

Of course not. Only certain people are saved? Why? Because there are conditions to this gift. What are the conditions?

1. Believe and be baptized and you are saved.
You must be born again into the family of God.

2. Repent!!!
One must confess and repent of one's sins.

3. Eat My Flesh and drink My Blood.
Faith alone won't save you, you must believe Jesus and act upon His Words no matter how hard they are to believe.

4. he who perseveres till the end will be saved
You must persevere in your faith until the end.

Salvation is a free will gift with conditions. Otherwise the entire world would be saved and that would not be justice.


Sorry, Charlie. It's not the same at all.

Yeah, it is.


Now if the employees came in late and played Free Cell instead of doing their work and hung out in the cafeteria for hours at a time, then went home early, and the company owners gave them merit pay increases and gift certificates to local restaurants... that example is a lot closer to what God did for us in Christ.

In other words, you believe that because of Jesus sacrifice, you are now free to sin. But Scripture is clear:
Romans 6 1 What shall we say, then? shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?2 God forbid. For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein? 3 Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death? 4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.

So, if you believe that you are free to sin because Jesus died on the Cross, then you are sorely mistaken.

If we go back to the example, if we employees were to desist from work and begin to play all day and expect to still receive the Company's gifts, we would be sorely mistaken. In fact, there is one possible last gift we might receive. A pink slip.

And that is what will happen to those who will continue to sin after Jesus' sacrifice. They will be cutoff and thrown into the fire.


Sorry, not true. The Bible says God sent His Son IN SPITE OF man's lack of love and faith--"while we were yet in our sins." That bumper sticker, "I found God" is all wrong. It should be, "God found me." God comes to each of us wherever we are.

Regardless of whether God found us or we found Him, if we don't abide with Him, we will be cutoff:
Romans 11 22 See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.


Again, not true. Yes, faith without works is dead, but works don't save us. Only Christ's death on the cross saves us. The works are our thank you to God.

True, but without the works, you won't be saved:
John 15
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.

6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and case him into the fire, and be burneth.



No conditions. Salvation is a free gift just like Grandma's birthday gift was.

Even Grandma's birthday gift has a condition. It is your birthday. If she doesn't give it to you on your birthday then it isn't a birthday gift.

And even then it would be conditional on your being her grand daughter. She wouldn't give your gift to a total stranger. You are a member of her family.

Salvation is for the members of God's family. Those who have been born again of the spirit in Baptism.


Both were out of unconditional love. Neither God nor Grandma dangle strings alongside their gift.

Apparently you never noticed the strings because you are speaking of your Grandma. I remember the first time I spent Christmas in another family's house. My stay was unexpected and there were gifts for everyone, but none for me. Big String. You've got to be a family member. God doesn't just save anyone no matter how they live their lives or whether they believe Jesus or not.


It's really difficult to imagine that someone would give us something that's totally free, isn't it.

No. Its really difficult to believe that someone gives us such a wonderful gift and you place such a small value on it that you don't believe you should do everything in your power to pay it back.

Even if its impossible to payback, you should at least try. It seems astonishing to me that anyone should accept such a gift and then say, "I don't need to do anything." "God has taken on flesh and died for my sins, but I'm too good to follow His steps even one inch."


We've always been warned to look behind the gift, to look for the condition, the string, the obligation. Nothing is free in this life, they say. Watch out for all those free offers--they're gimmicks to suck you in. I guess that's why people just can't believe God would give us something totally for free. That's not how the world operates. But then... God is not of this world and doesn't play by earthly standards and expectations, does He.

I'll ask you a simple question. Do you believe that people who blaspheme the Holy Spirit will be saved?

Jesus' died for everyone's sins right? Why won't they be saved? Or, why will they be saved if you believe they will?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Wondergirl did NOT say that--"once saved aways saved." Nothing like adding to the text...

I didn't say that's what you said, please reread the message in question. I said that is what I understood.


Now you want a nonappreciative response?

What does that mean?


That wasn't the question on the table at the time, so I will write another Grandma example to illustrate that.

Ok, looking forward to it.

Just out of curiosity, did you toss in that apostrophe or did the text come that way?


I don’t doctor quotes; but if you’ll remind me where this is posted I’ll look up the reference for you. I can’t remember how I titled the post in my files.

Exactly the point we are getting at it is free but then up to you how to use it or even accept it

Yeah, but you haven't touched on the other side of the equation. What happens if you don't "use it"? I assume by "use it" you mean that you work. So what happens if after you accept the gift, you don't feed the hungry, help the poor or produce any fruit of any kind?

John 15 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.

6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and case him into the fire, and be burneth.

What happens if you insult the gift:
Hebrews 10 29 How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound good to me.

Now that is what happens if you accept the gift and don't use it and then if you accept the gift and disrespect it.

What happens if you don't accept the gift at all:
Romans 2 3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them who do such things, and dost the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and patience, and longsuffering? Knowest thou not, that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance? 5 But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God.

6 Who will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. 9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Sincerely,

De Maria

So what happens if after you accept the gift
Ah, there's the rub. We can only say no; we can only refuse the gift.

Well yeah. But I didn't post an entire website.

Right - I have seen smaller websites. :p

De Maria,

Maybe I missed it, but could you show me where you answered rhadsen's question in post #600? Perhaps I missed your answers.

His questions were:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early on in this thread I pointed out the fact that despite your claim about the rich man in Luke 16:24 being in Purgatory, none of the Fathers share your view. In your most recent post you indicated that they could not have used the term "purgatory" in their writings about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus because that word was not known to them, so they used the term "hell." Very well, if that's true, then some quotes by the fathers in which they describe the rich man as being in "hell temporarily" will suffice. Can you produce such quotes?

Now, regarding the chasm in Luke 16:26. I mentioned that it seemed to indicate that the rich man's fate was sealed. You replied, "Does that say the chasm is fixed permanently? Where?"

I'll freely admit that the text does not say that directly. But, turnabout is fair play. Can you show me where it says that the chasm isn't fixed permanently? Where?

You also asked me if there was any love in the hell of the damned. I'll freely admit that there probably is not. However, this is a parable. Jesus is telling this story to get his point across. He may, or may not be telling the story about an actual historical event. He may or may not change some details to get his point across. Now, you may say that the rich man can't be in hell because there is no love there. However, consider the following details from the story:

The Pharisees had a love of money. It appears that Jesus told this story about them in their presence. Part of God's will is that we help the poor. Will disregarding that will mean still being in God's grace and friendship? The rich man apparently was excessive and extravagant. He showed no concern for Lazarus despite the fact that it was clearly within the rich man's ability to help Lazarus. What does God say about that De Maria?

1 John 5:17 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?

Matthew 25:21-46 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Does the rich man call Abraham "father?" Yes he does, but isn't it presumptious for him to do that when he ignored the example of Abraham? By his calling Abraham "father" despite not living with love for his neighbor, and his request for Abraham to send Lazarus on his own personal task, it seems that he is continuing in his disregard for others even after death. Rather than an apology to Lazarus, we see here a request for a special favor in the way of a visitor from the afterlife to warn his kin. The rich man still seems to think that he is in charge! Tell me De Maria, is disregard for God's will, disregard for the poor, consistent with being in God's grace and friendship?

I did not say, "spirits must be modified to determine what it means." I did say that the word translated "spirits" unless modified represents non-human spirit beings. (I'm not sure how you mixed that up, maybe you are skimming instead of reading?) Since you seem to disagree De Maria, with my contention that 1 Peter 3:19 is not talking about humans, can you provide a verse in the New Testament where the word "spirits" not modified by an adjective or other word in the same sentence clearly indicates a deceased person? As you saw in the five verses that I provided (Matthew 12:45; Acts 23:8,9; Luke 10:20; Ephesians 2:2; Hebrews 1:14) there is no way one could misinterpret those verses as speaking about humans.

Are you attempting to claim that Noah's contemporaries that died in the flood really were in God's grace and friendship by posting a translation that reads, "Which had been some time incredulous…."?

Where exactly did you see me practicing , as you call it, "esegesis?"

Regarding 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, De Maria, if those whose works don't burn end up with the same thing as those whose works burn, how is that a reward?
--------------------------------------------------

3. Eat My Flesh and drink My Blood.
Faith alone won't save you, you must believe Jesus and act upon His Words no matter how hard they are to believe.


And I am having trobles understanding what you mean by this part, if you would please elaborate on the context in which you where using this passage. I do not understand how Eat My Flesh and dring My Blood corispond to the later statement. This is what I am asking you to clarify


But as it stands to your second part of this statement there are 2 sets of verses I want to show you.

Ephesians 2
Made Alive in Christ
 1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

And

Faith and Deeds
 James 2

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
 18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
      Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
 19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
 20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
 25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

This shows a triangle

_______Jesus
_____/______\
____/________\
__Faith ----- Grace
__/____________\
Works________Free

These two verses help to show the triangle, showing that we are saved by faith and grace but if we take out the work's our faith is dead and therefore we are not with Christ. But if we take it to the reverse and say it is by works that we work for grace to get to Heaven we are no longer depending on the Grace of God therefore we again are not with Christ.

Now responding to


Salvation is a free will gift with conditions. Otherwise the entire world would be saved and that would not be justice.

How can a gift be free yet have conditons this is an oxymoron. God wants the entire world to be saved he never wanted any of us to go to hell but when we make the choice to reject him and go to other Gods/religons instead of staying in our faith/relationship with him it is our choice. But this has nothing to do with justice because even a man who raped and killed a child can truly repent come to a relationship with christ and be saved. How many people would see justice in that? So truly it is not baced on traditions conditons works or otherwise it is a free gift this is also shown by the death on the cross when Jesus said the murderer on his right that he would be in paridise with him that day. If this was all about justice then this man would not have gone up to heaven with Jesus.
(God said in many places in the bible that our punishment/judgement is death.) this for the christian faith means fisical death, for other regioions this means a spiritual death(hell) as well.

Faith alone won't save you
*sigh*
"By grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves"


you must believe Jesus
You can only say no.


and must act upon His Words
Responding in love is voluntary, has nothing to do with assuring salvation, and is your thank-you to God.

*sigh*
"By grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves"


You can only say no.


Responding in love is voluntary, has nothing to do with assuring salvation, and is your thank-you to God.

I know you seem to be talking to him but, did I respond to this question incorrectly?

The problem with respect to the question of faith and works comes when people do not understand the context of the original Greek words and only read it in English, and they then fall into the mis-understanding that De Maria fell into - and it is a common mis-understanding.

The word "Faith" and "Faithfulness" in Greek are the same word. So when scripture speaks of faith, we can also read it as "Faithfulness".

The problem that De Maria and others who fell into this trap have is that they think that the works are required for salvation, whereas what these verses are saying is not that works are required for salvation, but rather that work demonstrate our faithfulness.

Since faith and faithfulness are the same word in Greek, where scripture says that "Faith without works is dead", it is just as accurate to read it saying "Faithfulness without works is dead". Thus if you do you not live out our faith with works, then you are not faithful, and how then why we should we assume that you have faith if you are not faithful?

... if we take it to the reverse and say it is by works that we work for grace to get to Heaven we are no longer depending on the Grace of God therefore we again are not with Christ.




In some ways I agree. The Vatican Council (III, 3) says that "faith is a supernatural virtue by which we with the inspiration and assistance of God's grace, believe those things to be true which He has revealed". I often think of works as a requitement of faith; or a cooperation between faith and works. It takes both acceptance and cooperation with God’s grace of Truth salvation to be efficacious. Based on Scripture, it’s not the nature of God to strike us dumb with an irresistible faith.

However, I find Catholic faith in God quite different from the ‘struck by lightning’ knowledge that waits for a predestined salvation. There are many Protestants that have this type of faith, i.e. once saved always saved. On the other hand, Catholics hold ‘faith’ in God to be those truths revealed by God in Scripture and in the Tradition of the Church (objective faith). Faith can also be those things we hold true that are beyond our understanding, but within the natural light of reason (subjective faith). This latter type of faith requires a supernatural strengthening of natural light. "Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?" (What is faith but belief without seeing?). In either event intellectual reasoning has an element of faith that requires participation.

We can’t forget that the four gospels are first and foremost theology; not special codes like the Mosaic Law. Luther, like others, chose to turn away from the harmony in the scriptures substituting rationalism. But, reason outside the confines of apostolic teaching is bound to produce confusion that results in the denial of the oneness of faith. ( Cf. John 17:9-10)

Many of your arguments conform to the Catholic faith. However, the subtle deviations miss the essence of the two natures of Christ, man and God; faith and works. Christ may have died for our sins, (an act of God’s mercy), but he lived along with his mother and disciples not only to hear or speak the word of God, but to personify, “do it” – unquestionably a “work” as defined by most Protestant faiths. (cf Luke 8:21)

Christ not only lived the old covenant, he was a redeemed faith, marked with faith-blood that “worked” internally and externally. The word of God was grafted into his being as a Jew. Was not the Christ’s crucifixion a “work” in the spirit of Yom Kippur, atonement for our sins? Forgiveness of sins was a unique concept hitherto unknown to the Jewish faith. Was it not Christ who lived the Jewish High Holydays of the Sukkuot (Tabernacles)? Was it not a “work” when Jesus transfigured before Peter, John and James. Was the procession to the temple where the people waived palms and shouted “Hosanna” a “work”? Being both the priest offering the sacrifice while simultaneously being the sacrifice. This single act transformed both heaven and earth; the old covenant did not have forgiveness of sin. (cf Lev. 17:11, Rom 3:25 and Heb. 8:7? Was it not Zechariah’s vision on Rosh Hashoanah? During Rosh Hashanah the practice of Tahilikh (the casting off sins) was observed. The prophecy tells of God rising up a horn of salvation “to perform the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant” (a work). Couldn’t we even say that Christ’s birth in late December a “work” found in the Jewish Hanukah – the lighting of the menorah? Christ even waits till the feast of Hanukah to proclaim, “The Father and I are one.” (the light of the world). Jesus lived his faith and the traditions of his faith like no other man; obedient to the point of sweating blood, to the point of death.

When read with the apostolic teachings of the Catholic Church we can see that Christ lived and worked his faith both internally and externally. He didn’t simply “believe” in God, he was a “doer” of God’s words. So, it’s no wonder that James gives us the same advice, “[W]ith meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was.” (James 1:21-24.)

Jesus didn’t come to the Jews and say, “I think: I believe: therefore I am - so follow me.” So, in our poor attempt to emulate Christ, Paul tells us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. (cf Phil 2:12). In short live your faith; believing is simply not enough. "and only when necessary use words;" (who said that?- or did I even get the quote right -I can't recall)

JoeT

Luther, like others, chose to turn away from the harmony in the scriptures substituting rationalism.
Pardon me? Did I read that right?

De Maria,

You may have overlooked it as this thread is seeing a lot of activity, but I asked you some questions in post #140 and asked them again in post #600. Have you had a chance to take a look at them?

Rob

Pardon me? Did I read that right?

Yes, that's correct. Not that Luther was the first; you might say he perfected theological rationalism. The concepts held by Luther were actually predated by Wycliff (sp ?) and Jan Hus with the roots in Catharism (see The Black Legend - link) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/purgatory-just-how-long-238834-62.html#post1210791)

JoeT

De Maria,

You may have overlooked it as this thread is seeing a lot of activity, but I asked you some questions in post #140 and asked them again in post #600. Have you had a chance to take a look at them?

Rob

Not to mention my own family life. Sorry, I'll look them up now.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria,

Yes, I can get wordy. I tried to keep things clear by underlining any questions that I had.

Early on in this thread I pointed out the fact that despite your claim about the rich man in Luke 16:24 being in Purgatory, none of the Fathers share your view. In your most recent post you indicated that they could not have used the term "purgatory" in their writings about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus because that word was not known to them, so they used the term "hell." Very well, if that's true, then some quotes by the fathers in which they describe the rich man as being in "hell temporarily" will suffice. Can you produce such quotes?

Isn't that your burden to prove? Not that the rich man is in "hades" temporarily but that he is in "hades" permanently.

Since the Church Fathers you referenced seem to be using the terminology "hades", isn't it imperative that you prove that they don't mean the abode of the dead but the abode of the damned?

In addition, since the topic of this discussion is "Purgatory". Shouldn't you first prove that the Church Fathers did not believe in the concept of Purgatory, whether, they used that word to describe it?

The Roots of Purgatory
The Roots of Purgatory (http://www.catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp)


Now, regarding the chasm in Luke 16:26. I mentioned that it seemed to indicate that the rich man's fate was sealed. You replied, "Does that say the chasm is fixed permanently? Where?"

I'll freely admit that the text does not say that directly. But, turnabout is fair play. Can you show me where it says that the chasm isn't fixed permanently? Where?

Great thinking! I love the logic. You realize however, that it is you who are the Sola Scripturist and I the one who believes in Scripture and Tradition.

Therefore, since the rest of the verses are about a faithful son of Abraham who is suffering in fire for his sins of ommission, I infer that it is Purgatory.

So, it is you must prove FROM SCRIPTURE. Not I. Follow?


You also asked me if there was any love in the hell of the damned. I'll freely admit that there probably is not.

Thanks. I agree. Except I am absolutely certain there is not.


However, this is a parable.

Wrong. In a parable, the protagonists are unnamed because they are symbolic of truths being expressed.

But this is a narrative. The protagonist is named. And Church tradition tells us the name of the other person. His name is Dies.

Therefore, again, although you are stuck searching for truth in the Scriptures alone. Tradition helps me to fill in the gaps.


Jesus is telling this story to get his point across. He may, or may not be telling the story about an actual historical event. He may or may not change some details to get his point across. Now, you may say that the rich man can't be in hell because there is no love there. However, consider the following details from the story:

The Pharisees had a love of money. It appears that Jesus told this story about them in their presence.

Here you are displaying an unreasonable attitude displayed by Protestants against the Pharisees. Because of your Sola Scripturist attitude, you actually believe that all Pharisees went to hell.

But not all Pharisees were abusing their position. Certainly a significant number were, but not all.


Part of God's will is that we help the poor. Will disregarding that will mean still being in God's grace and friendship? The rich man apparently was excessive and extravagant. He showed no concern for Lazarus despite the fact that it was clearly within the rich man's ability to help Lazarus. What does God say about that De Maria?

1 John 5:17 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?

Matthew 25:21-46 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

You are correct. But these are teachings. They have to be written in black and white because one must generalize from them.

Now, let me ask you. Have you ever walked past a poor man without giving him something to eat or drink?

I know that I have. And I know that many in this United States have done so. Does that mean we will go to hell?

On the other hand, even Jesus said, "Mark 14 7 For the poor you have always with you: and whensoever you will, you may do them good: but me you have not always."

So, there is really not enough information in this narrative in order to condemn the Rich Man eternally. Do you know if he is a faithful husband? A faifhful and loving son to his father and moter? A good citizen paying his taxes and dues? Yet if this man fails in feeding one poor man, is he condemned to eternal damnation? Does that sound fair to you?

It doesn't sound fair to me and to be perfectly honest, I will probably have the same destiny as the Rich Man. Since I fare sumptuously everyday and yet I'm aware of much starvation throughout the world.

So, if you are correct, I am already condemned to eternal fire. Where do you stand? Have you helped everyone that you can help? Or have you also ignored the poverty at your doorstep?


Does the rich man call Abraham "father?" Yes he does, but isn't it presumptious for him to do that when he ignored the example of Abraham? By his calling Abraham "father" despite not living with love for his neighbor, and his request for Abraham to send Lazarus on his own personal task, it seems that he is continuing in his disregard for others even after death. Rather than an apology to Lazarus, we see here a request for a special favor in the way of a visitor from the afterlife to warn his kin. The rich man still seems to think that he is in charge! Tell me De Maria, is disregard for God's will, disregard for the poor, consistent with being in God's grace and friendship?

Your logic doesn't follow. When you anger your father, do you cease to call him father? When you anger your mother, do you thereby cease to be her son? When you sin against God, do you then deny His Fatherhood?

Obviously, like all humans in distress, Dives is calling out to those he thinks love him and will have compassion on him. This is not what one would expect of any soul in perdition.


I did not say, "spirits must be modified to determine what it means." I did say that the word translated "spirits" unless modified represents non-human spirit beings. (I'm not sure how you mixed that up, maybe you are skimming instead of reading?) Since you seem to disagree De Maria, with my contention that 1 Peter 3:19 is not talking about humans, can you provide a verse in the New Testament where the word "spirits" not modified by an adjective or other word in the same sentence clearly indicates a deceased person? As you saw in the five verses that I provided (Matthew 12:45; Acts 23:8,9; Luke 10:20; Ephesians 2:2; Hebrews 1:14) there is no way one could misinterpret those verses as speaking about humans.

No. I'm not simply skimming. I'm reading. However your logic is faulty. As I said, the word in that verse is already modified. It is clear that it refers to those human spirits which were disobedient during the time of the flood.


Are you attempting to claim that Noah's contemporaries that died in the flood really were in God's grace and friendship by posting a translation that reads, "Which had been some time incredulous…."?

I must modify what your words slightly in order to agree with them:

I am claiming that Noah's contemporaries which were described as "some time incredulous" were in an imperfect state of God's grace and friendship. That is precisely why they were in prison and not in eternal damnation.

Where exactly did you see me practicing , as you call it, "esegesis?"


Regarding 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, De Maria, if those whose works don't burn end up with the same thing as those whose works burn, how is that a reward?

It seems manifest to me. I don't even understand how you can question that it isn't a reward.

Perhaps if you compare to this parable. For the sake of brevity, please read Matt 20:1-16.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The problem with respect to the question of faith and works comes when people do not understand the context of the original Greek words and only read it in English, and they then fall into the mis-understanding that De Maria fell into - and it is a common mis-understanding.

The word "Faith" and "Faithfulness" in Greek are the exact same word. So when scripture speaks of faith, we can also read it as "Faithfulness".

The problem that De Maria and others who fell into this trap have is that they think that the works are required for salvation, whereas what these verses are saying is not that works are required for salvation, but rather that work demonstrate our faithfulness.

Since faith and faithfulness are the same word in Greek, where scripture says that "Faith without works is dead", it is just as accurate to read it saying "Faithfulness without works is dead". Thus if you do you not live out our faith with works, then you are not faithful, and how then why we should we assume that you have faith if you are not faithful?

Except that in the verses we've discussed, faith implies a working faith. If works do not accompany faith, then the faith is dead:

James 2 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

And that isn't where the Catholic understanding ends. Although the Protestant understanding falls short even of that understanding.

If we go to Romans 2, we see that not only are good works rewarded. But sins or evil works are punished.

9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The juxtaposition of these concepts makes it very clear. Those who work evil will go to hell. Those work good will go to heaven.

Very simple concept, but the reality doesn't work out that simply does it.

Most of us do both. So, there must be an accounting:
Matthew 12 36 But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment.

Simply asking saying, "Lord, Lord forgive me" doesn't cut it. You must make amends:

Acts Of Apostles 26
20 But to them first that are at Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and unto all the country of Judea, and to the Gentiles did I preach, that they should do penance, and turn to God, doing works worthy of penance.

Matthew 3 8 Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance.

Oh, I know, that is what the Catholic Bible says. Lets look at the NIV, a popular Protestant Bible:

Matt 3 8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

Acts 26 20First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Except that in the verses we've discussed, faith implies a working faith. If works do not accompany faith, then the faith is dead:

Exactly - that is the point. If we are not being faithful by our works, then do we truly have faith? It is not the works that save, if you read the Greek, but it is works that are an indicator of the faith.

Exactly - that is the point. If we are not being faithful by our works, then do we truly have faith? It is not the works that save, if you read the Greek, but it is works that are an indicator of the faith.

Perfect!! You have now joined works to faith and it is no longer faith alone. Read in James:
James 2 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?


And also:

James 2 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without works; and I will show thee, by works, my faith.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Perfect!!! You have now joined works to faith and it is no longer faith alone. Read in James:
James 2 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?


And also:

James 2 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without works; and I will show thee, by works, my faith.

Sincerely,

De Maria


Why do you always act like someone just came around to your way of thinking whenever that is what they believed all along but you didn't take what they said that way because you are busy putting the Catholic spin on it?
Toms NEVER said or suggested it is faith alone! He has always said that faith PRODUCES works.
I think if you could set aside the Catholic teachings for awhile and just discuss Bible more you would see that Tom does believe some of the same ways as you do on SOME things.
It is not his finally coming around in his thinking.

Isn't that your burden to prove? Not that the rich man is in "hades" temporarily but that he is in "hades" permanently.

Since the Church Fathers you referenced seem to be using the terminology "hades", isn't it imperative that you prove that they don't mean the abode of the dead but the abode of the damned?

In addition, since the topic of this discussion is "Purgatory". Shouldn't you first prove that the Church Fathers did not believe in the concept of Purgatory, whether or not, they used that word to describe it?

The Roots of Purgatory
The Roots of Purgatory (http://www.catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp)



Great thinking! I love the logic. You realize however, that it is you who are the Sola Scripturist and I the one who believes in Scripture and Tradition.

Therefore, since the rest of the verses are about a faithful son of Abraham who is suffering in fire for his sins of ommission, I infer that it is Purgatory.

So, it is you must prove FROM SCRIPTURE. Not I. Follow?



Thanks. I agree. Except I am absolutely certain there is not.



Wrong. In a parable, the protagonists are unnamed because they are symbolic of truths being expressed.

But this is a narrative. The protagonist is named. And Church tradition tells us the name of the other person. His name is Dies.

Therefore, again, although you are stuck searching for truth in the Scriptures alone. Tradition helps me to fill in the gaps.



Here you are displaying an unreasonable attitude displayed by Protestants against the Pharisees. Because of your Sola Scripturist attitude, you actually believe that all Pharisees went to hell.

But not all Pharisees were abusing their position. Certainly a significant number were, but not all.



You are correct. But these are teachings. They have to be written in black and white because one must generalize from them.

Now, let me ask you. Have you ever walked past a poor man without giving him something to eat or drink?

I know that I have. And I know that many in this United States have done so. Does that mean we will go to hell?

On the other hand, even Jesus said, "Mark 14 7 For the poor you have always with you: and whensoever you will, you may do them good: but me you have not always."

So, there is really not enough information in this narrative in order to condemn the Rich Man eternally. Do you know if he is a faithful husband? A faifhful and loving son to his father and moter? A good citizen paying his taxes and dues? Yet if this man fails in feeding one poor man, is he condemned to eternal damnation? Does that sound fair to you?

It doesn't sound fair to me and to be perfectly honest, I will probably have the same destiny as the Rich Man. Since I fare sumptuously everyday and yet I'm aware of much starvation throughout the world.

So, if you are correct, I am already condemned to eternal fire. Where do you stand? Have you helped everyone that you can help? Or have you also ignored the poverty at your doorstep?



Your logic doesn't follow. When you anger your father, do you cease to call him father? When you anger your mother, do you thereby cease to be her son? When you sin against God, do you then deny His Fatherhood?

Obviously, like all humans in distress, Dives is calling out to those he thinks love him and will have compassion on him. This is not what one would expect of any soul in perdition.



No. I'm not simply skimming. I'm reading. However your logic is faulty. As I said, the word in that verse is already modified. It is clear that it refers to those human spirits which were disobedient during the time of the flood.



I must modify what your words slightly in order to agree with them:

I am claiming that Noah's contemporaries which were described as "some time incredulous" were in an imperfect state of God's grace and friendship. That is precisely why they were in prison and not in eternal damnation.

Where exactly did you see me practicing , as you call it, "esegesis?"



It seems manifest to me. I don't even understand how you can question that it isn't a reward.

Perhaps if you compare to this parable. For the sake of brevity, please read Matt 20:1-16.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Nicely done – very logical response to the points. Have you ever noticed that the only way to prove Sola Scriptura with logic is to read the Scripture with Catholic discipline? And, it seems to me that the more rigorous the discipline is rooted in our love for Christ, the more logical it becomes. Now that’s grace at work!

JoeT

To Rob, (Rharden),


Where exactly did you see me practicing , as you call it, "esegesis?"

Perhaps that is too strong a word. I'm sorry. But I certainly believe that your exegesis is in error.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Perfect!!! You have now joined works to faith and it is no longer faith alone. Read in James:
James 2 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?

Do you even read what is written? If you had, you could not possibly have mis-represented what I said so badly.

Works plays no part in salvation. Works is the result of faith and salvation.

Do you even read what is written? If you had, you could not possibly have mis-represented what I said so badly.

Works plays no part in salvation. Works is the result of faith and salvation.

I didn't misrepresent what you said. I simply clarified for all concerned, the illogical idea you presented.

Here's what you said:

Exactly - that is the point. If we are not being faithful by our works,

First you admitted that a faith without works is not a saving faith.


then do we truly have faith? It is not the works that save, if you read the Greek, but it is works that are an indicator of the faith.

Then you claimed that the works which made the faith perfect had nothing to do with our salvation. That is plainly illogical and contradicts Scripture:

James 2 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?

James 2 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Why do you always act like someone just came around to your way of thinking whenever that is what they believed all along but you didn't take what they said that way because you are busy putting the Catholic spin on it?
Toms NEVER said or suggested it is faith alone! He has always said that faith PRODUCES works.

But Tom says that works have nothing to do with salvation.


See message #644
Works plays no part in salvation. Works is the result of faith and salvation.

That is what faith alone means.

We, Catholics believe we are justified by faith and works. In fact, according to James, we are justified by works.

James 2 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

And that is correct because faith itself is a work:

John 6 29 Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent.

That is what we are discussing. The difference between the Protestant doctrine of faith alone and the Catholic doctrine of faith and works.


I think if you could set aside the Catholic teachings for awhile and just discuss Bible more you would see that Tom does believe some of the same ways as you do on SOME things.

This isn't one of them.

Where do you stand? Do you believe we are saved by faith alone?


It is not his finally coming around in his thinking.

Nor did I think he had. I was merely celebrating because he made an error in logic and I could use it to highlight the Catholic doctrine.

You may not realize that TJ and I have had these discussions long before you came to the forum. I'm pretty certain that TJ won't be convinced by my arguments. I simply reiterate my statements for the edification of those who might be reading our discussion.

Sincerely,

De Maria

NO it is not illogical. Works DO NOT save they are a reflection of your faith.

I didn't misrepresent what you said. I simply clarified for all concerned, the illogical idea you presented.

Weasel words for claiming the right to mis-represent.


Here's what you said:

First you admitted that a faith without works is not a saving faith.

No I didn't. See? You mis-represent me again. I ew-iterated what scripture says - the evidence of faith is being faithful, and the result of that is works.

Works is the evidence that you have faith.

Now, I would suggest that you worry about defending your position rather than telling others what they think. You are having enough problems with the former.:D

Weasel words for claiming the right to mis-represent.

Sticks and stones...


No I didn't. See? You mis-represent me again. I ew-iterated what scripture says - the evidence of faith is being faithful, and the result of that is works.

No, I quoted your words. Look at my message. Then I highlighted how illogical was the idea you presented. Here I'll copy it into this message:


Here's what you said:
Quote:
Exactly - that is the point. If we are not being faithful by our works,

First you admitted that a faith without works is not a saving faith.

Quote:
Then do we truly have faith? It is not the works that save, if you read the Greek, but it is works that are an indicator of the faith
.

Then you claimed that the works which made the faith perfect had nothing to do with our salvation. That is plainly illogical and contradicts Scripture:

James 2 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?

James 2 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?


Works is the evidence that you have faith.

Good! Now follow that logic.

First you said that:
Works plays no part in salvation. Works is the result of faith and salvation

Now you are saying that works are the evidence of faith. See above.

Logically speaking then, if a faith without works is not faith. And we are saved by faith alone. Then a saving faith is faith which is accompanied by works. Therefore we are saved by faith and works.

So, if you say that works play no part in our salvation, you are contradicting yourself and Scripture.


Now, I would suggest that you worry about defending your position rather than telling others what they think. You are having enough problems with the former.:D

Nah. You're floundering. There is no way for you to come out of this logical quagmire which you've created.

Sincerely,

De Maria

NO it is not illogical. works DO NOT save they are a reflection of your faith.

I know you don't want to believe me because you're prejudiced against the Catholic Church. But if you don't want to believe me, at least believe Scripture.

James 2 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

NO I am not prejudice against the Catholic church that is your assumption.

Can you post which post that is of Toms that you just quoted because it looks like you have two completely different quotes mixed together.


ALSO the verses about the Judgment day of the believers and the crowns even says that
Even though your works may be all burned up (leaving you with no works) yet you will be saved. So if your works are all burned up as if you had no works that were worthy then HOW do works save you??

Sticks and stones...

I said nothing about you, but rather your behaviour is mis-representing what I said.


No, I quoted your words.
You quoted and then mis-represented. I saw it. Other people are more respectful - quote and then discuss what I really said.


Now you are saying that works are the evidence of faith.

This is what I said from the start. Of course there who cannot deal with the truth who will claim otherwise - but cannot find quotes where I said any such thing.

Can you not handle the truth?

I know you don't want to believe me because you're prejudiced against the Catholic Church. But if you don't want to believe me, at least believe Scripture.

Stay off the ad hominems and deal with the issue.

NO I am not prejudice against the Catholic church that is your assumption.


My assumption is based on the content of your messages.


Can you post which post that is of Toms that you just quoted because it looks like you have two completely different quotes mixed together.

Is this the one you mean:
See message #644

Works plays no part in salvation. Works is the result of faith and salvation.

Its one quote from one message.


ALSO the verses about the Judgment day of the believers and the crowns even says that Even though your works may be all burned up (leaving you with no works) yet you will be saved. So if your works are all burned up as if you had no works that were worthy then HOW do works save you??

They got you into Purgatory. Once your in Purgatory, you are saved. You just have to be cleansed of your sins:

Isaias 6 6 And one of the seraphims flew to me, and in his hand was a live coal, which he had taken with the tongs off the altar. 7 And he touched my mouth, and said: Behold this hath touched thy lips, and thy iniquities shall be taken away, and thy sin shall be cleansed.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Do you even read what is written? If you had, you could not possibly have mis-represented what I said so badly.

Works plays no part in salvation. Works is the result of faith and salvation.


How does that look like this??

Here's what you said:
Quote:
Exactly - that is the point. If we are not being faithful by our works,

First you admitted that a faith without works is not a saving faith.

Quote:
Then do we truly have faith? It is not the works that save, if you read the Greek, but it is works that are an indicator of the faith
.

Then you claimed that the works which made the faith perfect had nothing to do with our salvation. That is plainly illogical and contradicts Scripture:

James 2 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?

James 2 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

They got you into Purgatory. Once your in Purgatory, you are saved. You just have to be cleansed of your sins:

Isaias 6 6 And one of the seraphims flew to me, and in his hand was a live coal, which he had taken with the tongs off the altar. 7 And he touched my mouth, and said: Behold this hath touched thy lips, and thy iniquities shall be taken away, and thy sin shall be cleansed.


Quite a story! It would be much better if you could actually validate the following claims using scripture:

1) That purgatory exists
2) That we are saved in the mythical place called purgatory
3) That we are not saved and perfected solely by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.
4) that we can get out of the place of eternal fire.

ALSO the verses about the Judgment day of the believers and the crowns even says that Even though your works may be all burned up (leaving you with no works) yet you will be saved. So if your works are all burned up as if you had no works that were worthy then HOW do works save you??

De Marie:
They got you into Purgatory. Once your in Purgatory, you are saved. You just have to be cleansed of your sins:


So you are saying we go through TWO fires. One that burns our works and THEN one that burns our sins.

How do you come to the conclusion that Purgatory is after the Judgment?

ALSO the verses about the Judgment day of the believers and the crowns even says that Even though your works may be all burned up (leaving you with no works) yet you will be saved. So if your works are all burned up as if you had no works that were worthy then HOW do works save you????

De Marie:
They got you into Purgatory. Once your in Purgatory, you are saved. You just have to be cleansed of your sins:


So you are saying we go through TWO fires. One that burns our works and THEN one that burns our sins.

How do you come to the conclusion that Purgatory is after the Judgment?

Good questions!

ALSO the verses about the Judgment day of the believers and the crowns even says that Even though your works may be all burned up (leaving you with no works) yet you will be saved. So if your works are all burned up as if you had no works that were worthy then HOW do works save you????

De Marie:
They got you into Purgatory. Once your in Purgatory, you are saved. You just have to be cleansed of your sins:


So you are saying we go through TWO fires. One that burns our works and THEN one that burns our sins.

How do you come to the conclusion that Purgatory is after the Judgment?

I thought you agreed before that sins were works of iniquity? Or was it someone else?

And no, it's the same fire. The Consuming Fire that punishes in Hell, is the same Fire that cleanses in Purgatory and Glorifies in Heaven.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quite a story! It would be much better if you could actually validate the following claims using scripture:

1) That purgatory exists
2) That we are saved in the mythical place called purgatory
3) That we are not saved and perfected solely by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.
4) that we can get out of the place of eternal fire.

The questions have been answered throughout this thread. Follow along now.

I thought you agreed before that sins were works of iniquity? Or was it someone else?

And no, its the same fire. The Consuming Fire that punishes in Hell, is the same Fire that cleanses in Purgatory and Glorifies in Heaven.

Sincerely,

De Maria

So, you are saying that wherever we go after death, your view that we will all be in a lake of everlasting fire - right?

The questions have been answered throughout this thread. Follow along now.

Avoiding questions again, De Maria? Tsk tsk.

Gosh Peter???

Couldn't you shorten it just a bit. Posting entire websites makes it kind of hard to have a decent discussion. Would you like for me to post the entire Catholic encyclopedia in response?

Besides, I think thats against the rules. Lets be reasonable, shall we?

Sincerely,

De Maria
Sorry, it was a bit long, I actually scanned it from a book, seemed to work pretty good, I have never done that before.
I just bought a new Brother MFC- 465cn.
Seems to work pretty good!
Cheers.:)

Sorry, it was a bit long, I actually scanned it from a book, seemed to work pretty good, I have never done that before.
I just bought a new Brother MFC- 465cn.
Seems to work pretty good!
Cheers.:)

Oh no!!

He's got a scanner!! :eek:

Seriously, though, that is handy. I've tried scanning stuff onto websites from my two bit machine but it never works.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Avoiding questions again, De Maria? Tsk tsk.

Naw. It was late and I was sleepy. I figgered if you wanted some answers sooner than I could provide them, you might follow the thread. The answers have all been previously provided:



1) That purgatory exists

Several verses have been provided from Scripture:
1 Corinthians 3 15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

And we've discussed the one about prison:
1 Peter 3 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:



2) That we are saved in the mythical place called purgatory

I think you're making the same logical error as Nohelp4u. Once in Purgatory, you are saved, as through fire.

Oh and Purgatory is neither a place nor is it mythical.


3) That we are not saved and perfected ... by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

Did I say that? When?

In fact, I've said that Purgatory is the application of the graces released by the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.


3a) That we are not saved and perfected solely by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

That is in Scripture:
Colossians 1 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:

You see, the Bible does not teach we are perfected "solely" by the suffering of Christ on the Cross. The Bible teaches that we must also suffer:

Romans 8 17 And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.


4) that we can get out of the place of eternal fire.

Who said that? Purgatory is not the place of eternal punishment.

Oh, wait, you said eternal fire. Who would want to do that?

God is Consuming Fire:
Hebrews 12 29 For our God is a consuming fire.

God is eternal:
Daniel 6 26 It is decreed by me, that in all my empire and my kingdom all men dread and fear the God of Daniel. For he is the living and eternal God for ever: and his kingdom shall not be destroyed, and his power shall be for ever.

I, for one, am longing for union with that Eternal Fire!!

Luke 12 49 I am come to cast fire on the earth; and what will I, but that it be kindled?

Sincerely,

De Maria

I, for one, am longing for union with that Eternal Fire!!!
Have fun! I'll be in the celestial kitchen baking brownies.

Have fun! I'll be in the celestial kitchen baking brownies.

Lol!! Good one!

Naw. It was late and I was sleepy. I figgered if you wanted some answers sooner than I could provide them, you might follow the thread. The answers have all been previously provided:

Let's have a look at what you say are answers.


Several verses have been provided from Scripture:
1 Corinthians 3 15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

And we've discussed the one about prison:
1 Peter 3 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:

How many times must you be shown that, in context, these do not say what you claim.


I think you're making the same logical error as Nohelp4u. Once in Purgatory, you are saved, as through fire.

It is not enolugh for you to say it - where is it in scripture?


Oh and Purgatory is neither a place nor is it mythical.

Half right - it is not a place.

D
id I say that? When?

Many times in many ways. But rather than spending time arguing whether you did say it, if you agree that we are saved and perfected by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross alone, then there is no need for the mythical place of purgatory.


Colossians 1 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:

You see, the Bible does not teach we are perfected "solely" by the suffering of Christ on the Cross. The Bible teaches that we must also suffer:

Romans 8 17 And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.

Colossians referws to sufferings in the flesh, not in the mythical place of purgatory.

Heb 10:14
For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
NKJV

Note the past tense?


Who said that? Purgatory is not the place of eternal punishment.
Oh, wait, you said eternal fire.

So you are saying that purgatory will go away? It is not eternal?


Who would want to do that?

Do what - get out of eternal fire? Who wouldn't?


God is Consuming Fire:
Hebrews 12 29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Yes, we have been through that already. Are you planning to be on the receiving end of God's anger for His enemies?

Let's have a look at what you say are answers.
How many times must you be shown that, in context, these do not say what you claim.

Once at a minimum. But you have yet to show anything.


It is not enolugh for you to say it - where is it in scripture?

Nor is it enough for you to simply deny it.


Half right - it is not a place. D

You are reduced to quips? If you have an argument make it.


Many times in many ways. But rather than spending time arguing whether you did say it, if you agree that we are saved and perfected by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross alone, then there is no need for the mythical place of purgatory.


Whether there is a need for purgatory is a moot point. It is a reality which God has revealed.


Colossians referws to sufferings in the flesh, not in the mythical place of purgatory.

But the point is that Colossians mentions the:

and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ

That is pretty explicit. The suffering of Christ is wanting.


Heb 10:14
For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
NKJV

Note the past tense?

Duly noted. Note the "are being sanctified." In other words, they have not yet been but will be in the future.


So you are saying that purgatory will go away? It is not eternal?

Apocalypse 20
13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works. 14 And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire.

Note that death and hell (or hades) gives up its dead. And the dead are judged according to their works. Then hell and death are cast into the pool of fire.

Of the dead who were judged, if they were not found in the book of life, they are also cast into the pool of fire.

So, yes, purgatory will go away.


Do what - get out of eternal fire? Who wouldn't?

I suppose if you believe that God is not eternal fire, you would not want eternal fire.

However, I believe Scripture. Our God is a consuming fire. And how I long to be consumed by that Fire.


Yes, we have been through that already. Are you planning to be on the receiving end of God's anger for His enemies?

No. If we love God, we have no need to fear fire.

1 Machabees 2 59 Ananias and Azarias and Misael by believing, were delivered out of the flame.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Once at a minimum. But you have yet to show anything.

Actually that is not true. You need to be shown at least once (you must have been shown at least a couple of dozen times), but does nothing unless you read it at least once.


Nor is it enough for you to simply deny it.

Which is why we keep showing you what scripture says.


It is a reality which God has revealed.

Well out with it - have you been holding back? Where did God reveal it?


But the point is that Colossians mentions the:

and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ

That is pretty explicit. The suffering of Christ is wanting.

I wuish you would get a decent tranlsation. Clearly it is causing you a great deal of difficulty.

Col 1:21-29
21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight-- 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church, 25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God, 26 the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints. 27 To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28 Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. 29 To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily.
NKJV

Not that the context and the topic is the suffering of Paul in the flesh, not the suffering of Christ. Paul is referring to his suffering in the flesh for the cause of Christ. But in any case, even if your erroneous translation were used, it still says nothing about suffering after death, so though we could debate this point further, your point is already lost.


Duly noted. Note the "are being sanctified." In other words, they have not yet been but will be in the future.


Yep that is what I am saying. Note that sanctification occurs in the flesh, so you cannot claim that this has anything to do with purgatory either.


Apocalypse 20
13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works. 14 And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire.

The fiery place referred to here is hell, so are you therefore conceding that purgatory is in fact "hell"?


I suppose if you believe that God is not eternal fire, you would not want eternal fire.

However, I believe Scripture. Our God is a consuming fire. And how I long to be consumed by that Fire.

Even though you have been warned that it is symbolic of how God destroys those who are His enemies. That is quite an admission on your part.


1 Machabees 2 59 Ananias and Azarias and Misael by believing, were delivered out of the flame.

You do know that even Maccabees itself says that it is not an inspired work.

The early Christian Church was Greek-speaking; it therefore used
The LXX. Even though the LXX sometimes gave different readings
From the original Hebrew and had "extra" books interspersed with
The rest, the early Church believed it to be inspired. "With
regard to whatever is in the Septuagint that is not in the Hebrew
manuscripts, we can say that the one Spirit wished to say to them
through the writers of the former rather than through the latter
in order to show that both the one and the other were inspired"
(St. Augustine, City of God, 18:43).

Hence the Orthodox Church uses only the LXX and not the original
Hebrew as the official inspired OT. The LXX, compared to the
Hebrew Bible, has the following additional books: Tobit, Judith,
Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch (including the Letter of
Jeremias), 1-3 Machabees, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 1
Esdras, additions to Esther and Daniel, and very rarely, 4
Machabees since it was not widely available and was never
Considered inspired.

This is not my work this was written by as far as I can tell the author of the web site http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/bible.txt

But is explains why in simple terms why Maccabees is not and inspired work of God(aka the original bible was written by you guess it the Jew's and these books where never used by them there for since they are the original writers of the bible I would be overly confident in the fact that if they say that those books are not books inspired by God that they aren't plain and simple. (only when it comes to the old testament!)

but is explains why in simple terms why Maccabees is not and inspired work of God(aka the original bible was written by you guess it the Jew's and these books where never used by them there for since they are the original writers of the bible i would be overly confident in the fact that if they say that those books are not books inspired by God that they arn't plain and simple. (only when it comes to the old testament!)

Maccabees has internal evidence that it is not inspired:

2 Maccabees 15:37-38
This then is how matters turned out with Nicanor, and from that time the city has been in the possession of the Hebrews. So I will here end my story. If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do.
NRSV

Clearly the author is giving no credit to divine inspiration. He takes full credit and full responsibility for the contents.

Post closed, no attacking members and attacking faith of other people.