Vatican Releases New List of Sinful Acts

StFrancisOfAssisi »

Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophet,

Please do not think that I’m speaking of a literal fire when it comes to purgatory. You could be absolutely right in that the fire could be that of the Holy Spirit, or as some say, “the burning love of God”. That’s seems perfectly plausible to me. The Scriptures don’t seem to say one way or another. If I’m not mistaken, it appears that we agree on a few key points, first, the consumption of things in our soul that are not of God, and second, that all that reach this point are saved, regardless of how much gets burned up. Sound right?

I'll probably get back to this on Sunday. God bless.

Vatican Releases New List of Sinful Acts

StFrancisOfAssisi »

Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Online,

Thanks for your comments on 1Cor 3:11-15. Several things:

My point is that the Trinity is not explicit. It took hundreds of years to iron it out, and many heresies to fight against biblically-based objections. Please also note that heresies in the Church were very well documented. There were many for the Trinity. However, not a single objection to the doctrine of purgatory is recorded until Martin Luther. I think that’s significant.

I’m using the word “place” loosely. My apologies for not being as precise as I should be. Purgatory can be likened to a place for convenience, since we think that way. However, it is a condition or state of being. However, my point remains in that a purging takes place after death for the elect who die with wood, hay and stubble as part of what they’ve built.

You are correct, it speaks of building on a foundation. However, the text clearly speaks of a testing or proving fire for that which was built. “If anyone’s work is burned up …” refers to a fire purifying that which was built. These passages are talking about the purification of the structure. The structure is our soul.

You are incorrect in your assertion that Scripture does not speak of a third “place” aside from heaven and hell. The OT belief was that souls that died went to a place called Sheol (or Hades, or the realm of the dead). 1Pet 3:19 speaks of Jesus, “in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison”. If the prison is hell, preaching does not help them. If it is heaven, preaching is not necessary. It is someplace else. Jesus gives us a picture in Lk 16:19-31. The righteous man goes to “Abraham’s bosom”, while the selfish man is in torment. Remember, heaven has not been opened yet, since Jesus has not yet accomplished his work of Redemption. The righteous man is therefore not in heaven, nor is he in hell either. He is in a temporary holding place, where the righteous are comforted, until heaven is opened. Likewise, the unrighteous are in torment. Is this the same as the prison of 1Pet 3:19 – I think so, but I’m not 100% sure. In any case, heaven and hell only? I don’t think so.

Lastly, we are individually judged immediately after death, and we know then where we’ll spend eternity – “once to die, then to judgment”. Immediately after death, souls are judged and go either to heaven, hell or purgatory. Therefore, purgatory exists now, and ceases to exist after the last person on earth dies, and right before the general judgment.

(Side Note on Luke 16: 19-31 – notice the “intercession” of the selfish man on behalf of his brothers. Not only is he interceding on their behalf, but he is very aware of their state of being, and is very worried about them. Also, Abraham knows their state as well, and also knows that sending someone back from the dead won’t help them. Could this possibly be hinting at the “communion of saints”?)

Vatican Releases New List of Sinful Acts

StFrancisOfAssisi »

Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Online,

I would like to agree with you on a key point. We both agree that Jesus suffering and death was 100% sufficient. Nothing more is needed by anybody anywhere. However, sufficient for what? We agree that Jesus’ suffering and death is 100% sufficient for the forgiveness of sins – Matt 26: 28 – “for this is the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”. We agree that Jesus suffering and death is 100% sufficient for our Redemption (don’t have a chapter/verse offhand, but it’s really not a point of debate). Our difference is in the reparation required for sin. We say that Jesus suffering and death does not pay for the reparation of sins committed. Individuals pay that.

First, the Bible does not say that Jesus suffered so that we don’t have to suffer at all for our sins. If I am incorrect, please provide a verse that says this. It does say that Jesus suffered so that we could be forgiven and saved.

Second, the Old and new Testaments both teach the necessity of personal reparation for sins:

1. OT: As I mentioned in a previous post, King David’s punishment. I agree, his punishment was earthly, but was punishment nonetheless. Also, all punishments in the OT were earthly. Punishments in the NT are spiritual. For example, the punishment for disobeying the Church in the OT was physical death (Deut 17: 8-13). The punishment for disobeying the Church in the NT is spiritual death (“being to you as a Gentile or tax collector” Mt 18:17).

2. OT: Another example of reparation for sin is Moses. He committed a sin, and his punishment was that he could not enter the Promised Land. He was forgiven & redeemed, but had to pay a penalty.

3. NT: Matt 5:25-26, Lk 12:58-59 & Matt 18: 23-35 – In all cases, a sinner is thrown into jail. He is to remain there until he has paid the last penny for his sin. Is he forgiven? – yes. Is he still saved? – yes. Must he pay personal reparation? – yes.

Third, reparation is reasonable, and necessary for justice to be served. Again, I use the example of a broken window. If I break your window, it’s not enough for me to ask forgiveness and to receive it, then expect you to bear the cost of repair. For justice to be served, I must pay for the damage.

Fourth, if Jesus suffering was sufficient for everything in regards to sin, then the following verses make no sense:

Jas 5:20 – “Let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins”

1Pet 4:8 – “Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins”.

If Jesus did everything for the expiation of sin, how can anything we do “cover a multitude of sins”?

Vatican Releases New List of Sinful Acts

StFrancisOfAssisi »

Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Online4Him,

The Scriptures do not explicitly speak of “purgatory”. Nor do they speak explicitly about the Trinity, abortion, polygamy, and many other things that you and/or I hold as essential beliefs. But, be that as it may, I disagree that the Scriptures do not speak of a purging after death. I will refer you back to 1Cor3:11-15. I also disagree with your interpretation that verse 15 is referring to an escape from flames, as opposed to a cleansing.

1Cor 3:11-15 Paul lays the foundation (v. 10), and the foundation is Christ (v. 11). Each one of us builds upon the foundation (v. 10). During our life as Christians, we as individuals build on the foundation gold, silver and precious stones, very pure materials. However, we also build wood, hay and stubble, which are impure and highly combustible. On “the Day” (v. 13), presumably our judgment day, which is after death, our work will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done (v. 13).

Now, can you enter heaven with your wood, hay and stubble? No – because nothing unclean shall enter heaven (Rev 21:27). Now, would you need to remain outside of heaven due to the wood, hay and stubble, and not receive a reward based on your gold, silver and precious stones? No, this would be unjust, because you’ve built on the foundation which is Christ. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the impure, combustible materials. The fire consumes what we ourselves have built, wood, and hay and stubble. The fire destroys the wood of our self-love, sins where we lacked true contrition, and other impurities, and then returns to us the reward, which is heaven. The fire makes us perfect, and able to join the other “spirits of just men made perfect” (Heb 12:23) in heaven. You suffer loss, but are still saved, but only as through fire (v. 15).

I believe that this demonstrates a perfectly Biblical “purging” after death.

I have much more to say, but I've run out of time and energy! Will continue another time.

Just out of curiosity, do you consider polygamy a sin? The other night, I caught a glimpse of Law and Order, and there was a Christian woman defending her polygamous marriage, of which she was one of multiple wives, and she was using the Bible in her defense.

Vatican Releases New List of Sinful Acts

StFrancisOfAssisi »

Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Online4Him,

Just wanted to let you know that I was too busy to respond today. I'll probably have a chance to compose a response thursday evening. Thanks for your patience, and God bless.

Vatican Releases New List of Sinful Acts

StFrancisOfAssisi »

Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Prophet and Online4Him,

One more comment on purgatory. In case there is any doubt as to the teaching of the RCC, here is exactly what the Catechism says:

First, from the Definitions section: "Purgatory: A state of final purification after death and before entrance into heaven for those who died in God's friendship, but were only imperfectly purified; a final cleansing of human imperfection before one is able to enter the joy of heaven"

Second, from the body of the Catechism:

The Final Purification, or Purgatory
Paragraph 1030: All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

Beginning of Paragraph 1031: "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned".

Now, if a Catholic tells you that purgatory is a second chance, you can correct them!

If you want to read more about this or any other subject, you can view the Catechism at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM.

Have a blessed day.

Vatican Releases New List of Sinful Acts

StFrancisOfAssisi »

Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Prophet and Online4Him,

One more text to consider - Matthew 12:32. "but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come". This text seems to imply that some sins are not forgiven until after we die, meaning that not all is done here on earth. Looking forward to your comments.

Vatican Releases New List of Sinful Acts

StFrancisOfAssisi »

Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Prophet and Online4Him,

Please consider Matthew 5:25-26 for a hint at purgatory. Another way of looking at purgatory is that it is where we "pay the last penny". Yes, salvation is a gift of God, but we are expected to make reparation for our sins, even after forgiveness. Look at David, for example. Presumably, he was saved. Then he committed murder and adultery, confessed his sin and was forgiven. Everything cool, right? No. God then takes the life of David's child as a punishment - even after forgiveness. David still had to pay a price, even though he was forgiven.

Please also take a look at Luke 18: 34-35 for additional insight. The man is forgiven of his debt (saved), but then after he sins (he doesn't forgive someone), he is delivered to the jailers till he pay all his debt. He goes from a situation from being free from debt, to owing a debt because of sin. We call it reparation. It's like if you break someone's window, you ask forgiveness and get it. But the damage is still there, and you're expected to pay to fix the window. You still have the gift of forgiveness, but there is a price to pay. You are released once you have paid the debt.

I'm interested in your comments.

Vatican Releases New List of Sinful Acts

StFrancisOfAssisi »

Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Prophet, whoa, wait a minute!! I am startled by your understanding of purgatory. There's a serious problem here. Who teaches that purgatory is another chance? Certainly not the Catholic Church. Please show me where the Catholic Church teaches such a silly doctrine. As I explained before, some of the saved go there simply to be purified, as by fire, prior to entry into heaven. Notice I said that only the SAVED go there. Those who die unsaved go to hell - period. When you die, that's it. No second chance. Not sure what Church you're talking about.

"Yes, God used men to put His Holy Scriptures together. That's it." Well, since you're sure that this distinction exists, plese show me where it says that in the Bible.

Vatican Releases New List of Sinful Acts

StFrancisOfAssisi »

Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Prophet,

What you're describing is almost exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. It appears to me that our disagreement on infallibility may be just a matter of semantics. Let me try to explain. Infallibility simply means that the Holy Spirit prevents sinful men, at certain times, from making a mistake. It means that teachings on matters of faith and morals are guaranteed to be error-free, just as if Jesus was teaching it - “He who hears you hears me”. It does not mean the people are without sin. It does not guarantee that the decisions will be complete, made at the right time, or made at all. It does not guarantee that someone is right all the time in all matters of life, nor does it guarantee that their theological opinions are correct. When the early Church decided what books belong in the Bible, it was sinful men acting infallibly, that is, error-free, at that instance under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I believe WE AGREE COMPLETELY ON THIS POINT, we’re just using different language. And, like you, we believe that all the credit goes to God – Amen!

Infallibility simply means they are guaranteed to not err - as in the selection of books in the Bible. And you are admitting that that is exactly what happened when it comes to the books in the Bible (you’re getting dangerously close to Catholic doctrine here!!) But who says it stops with the Bible? Does the Bible address this? Yes, again Jesus says “He who hears you hears me”. He didn’t limit this to Bible book selection. He also describes the method for handling disagreements in Mt 18. “… take it to the Church”. Well, the Bible was disputed for 300 years. They took it to the Church, and they made an error-free decision. “The Holy Spirit will guide you to all truth” (I’ve paraphrased), not to just some of the truth, like the selection of books. The very same Church that made the final decisions on the Bible in 382 AD, also gave us Mary as the New Eve, purgatory, the primacy of the Peter, and other basic Christian stuff, all before the canon was decided upon. Is it possible that this corrupt Church, as you put it, could put forth such heresies in the early years, and yet get it right in 382 AD with the Bible? Do you trust that corrupt Church to give you a Bible? And when they decided, they bound all Christianity to it, just like the other doctrines that came earlier. Again, where did the authority come from to bind all Christianity to anything? And where is that authority today?

Lastly, if the Church was putting forth such heresies early on, what was the vehicle for salvation for people before Martin Luther? They couldn’t go to the Bible because most people couldn’t read, and if they could read, they couldn’t afford hand-printed Bibles. Bible alone is a real bad idea when 95% of the people can’t read. Did Jesus abandon mankind for a thousand years or more?

Vatican Releases New List of Sinful Acts

StFrancisOfAssisi »

Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Prophet,

I agree with you completely. The Bible doesn’t tell us what belongs in the Bible. That being the case, we must conclude that men made those decisions. These men were either fallible or infallible. If they were fallible men who can make mistakes, then how do we know that they selected the right books? How do we know that any NT books for that matter are inspired? Are we not basing our salvation on the decisions of error-prone men? There were hundreds of writings at the time that had to be decided upon. Most were rejected. How do we know for sure that some of the rejected writings were not in fact inspired? For 300 years, the Shepherd of Hermas was considered inspired - why was it ultimately axed when decision time came? How do we know for sure that Romans, Ephesians, etc are inspired, and not in the Bible by mistake? There are only 2 logical positions we can take – either the men who decided on the Bible were infallible, in which case we can accept the Bible for what we believe it to be because they said so – or that the men who decided on the Bible were fallible, in which case we have no reason to accept it at all. If the Bible doesn’t tell us what books belong, and if fallible men decided, then the Bible itself is reduced to a tradition of man (which, by the way, is precisely the teaching of the Jesus Seminar, and I don’t think that either one of us wants to be associated with them). The only other option is that somehow fallible men made these decisions infallibly, which I’m sure you’ll agree is impossible. You cannot squeeze infallible Bible juice from a fallible orange. Which position do you take?

On a related topic, why do we believe that a New Testament was coming anyway? Did Jesus write any of the books? Did Jesus ever command his disciples to write? Did Jesus, Paul, James, John, Peter or any New Testament writer ever even hint that there was a book coming that would act as the sole rule of faith for the Christian? I don’t believe there is, which makes the whole notion of the Bible Alone unscriptural and therefore a tradition of man. The fact is that the Church came first, on Pentecost, and the Bible came from the Church. That Church had the authority to select the books and to definitively say that they were the very Word of God. That Church wrote and assembled the Bible, even though Jesus did not tell them to, because they had the authority to do so. So it is only logical, and Biblical, to accept what that Church says. “He who hears you hears me” sounds like the language of men teaching infallibly. And, that church still exists – “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (my church)”. We should not be building Churches based on the Bible. We should be looking for the Church who gave us the Bible. That Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1Tim 3:15), and we accept the Bible from it as truth. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find that Church.

Vatican Releases New List of Sinful Acts

StFrancisOfAssisi »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Prophet,

I'd like to respond to several items. I'll get to the other items at another time.

Why do you believe that there are 66 inspired books? Who determined that, and where did they get the authority to bind you and me to that? Were these people infallible? Who closed the canon, and where did they get the authority to do that? Does that authority still exist somewhere today? Please provide scripture references.

Are you infallible in your scriptural interpretations, or can your interpretations be wrong?

Regarding forgiveness, John 20:21-23, Jesus is speaking with his disciples. He breathes on them and says "Receive ye the Holy Spirit; whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven them; whose sins ye retain, they are retained”. Your interpretation of this passage is that Jesus is telling his disciples that they must forgive others, just as stated in the Lord's prayer. Well, this passage simply does not say that. Jesus is specifically addressing the forgiveness of sins, not the forgiveness of people who wrong us. Again, "whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven them". I don’t know how you can read it any other way. Not only is Jesus giving his disciples his authority to forgive sins, but he's also giving them the authority to retain them as well, that is, to not forgive them, at their discretion. One other note - the Catholic Church does not teach that only priests can forgive sins - God is the only one who ultimately forgives sins - but he chooses to use his earthly ministers to act in his place. The priest is a servant of God’s forgiveness, not it’s master.

Regarding the church – you are correct – the word Catholic does not appear in the Bible. It was not necessary, since there was only one church with one doctrine (The word catholic, which means universal, appeared on the scene in the first half of the second century as it continued to spread around the known world). Now there are thousands of Churches, with thousands of different combinations of doctrines, all claiming to follow the Bible and all claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Please show me in the Bible where it talks about denominations. Please also show me in the Bible where it says that it is OK to have multiple churches with conflicting doctrines.

Rms 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

1Tim 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine …

1Tim 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.