Posted on 05/17/2014 4:31:22 PM PDT by Gamecock
Where are Paul’s sucessors?
Iscool:
Nonsense. There was a Bishop of Rome from the start. St. Irenaeus of Lyons list the them in his Letter. The Muratorian Fragment, which was cited in the article, Mentions Pius as holding the “Cathedra” [Chair] of the Church in the City of Rome when the Shepherd. Pius was Bishop of Rome from 140 to 155AD.
Mr. Rogers:
Really? Yes, they had churches teaching what the First this Baptist, Pentecostal Church of somewhere in Miisssssss sippppi or Allaaaaaabammma , or Tennnnnnesseeeeee
Yea right
Wow, if you want to beat him up that’s fine, but mocking Southern states is going too far. Unlike the average “Catholic” voter up north, the South is actually filled with conservatives.
Actually, I live in the South, just a State with a more Catholic History than the rest of the South. And I know the Know-nothing type Southerner which my post referred to. They think Jesus wrote the King James Bible, and it fell from the Sky after Christ Ascended into Heaven, and somehow we got from Jesus Christ to Saint Paul to the First Baptist, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, etc, etc, etc, and skipped 2,000 years!!
Trust me, I have dealt with the likes of which I speak above for a long, long, long, time.
Iscool:
The word Pope is just the English word for Papa. Papa was used with more flexibility and in the East, any Bishop and many priests used the term. In the West, by the time of Tertullian [200 AD, see Newadvent article on the Popes], only Bishops could use Papa and by the end of the 4th century, the term Papa was reserved for the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church.
In addition, I see you are still on your personal crusade to reject the Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch. Even critical Protestant scholars of the 19th century, the first to translate these texts from Latin, Greek and Syriac, into English, concluded that they are authentic. P. Schaff, another Protestant patristic scholar does as well.
The reason opinions like yours that still abound are because the letters are so Catholic it makes many Protestant heads spin, although I am not saying it makes your head spin. I am well aware of your position on the Letters of St. Ignatius.
Again, excusing the here or there internet protestant theologian, nobody among serious Patristic Scholars doubts [Protestants I am referring to] the authenticity of the Ignatian Letters. They were always received [the 7 that Eusebius cited] as authentic by the Catholic and Orthodox Church and only in the Post Reformation period did “Protestants question them”. The reason, and Schaff’s commentary on it suggests the fact, is because the 1) hierarchical structure of the Church is so clearly indicated in all his letters, 2) He indicated both Saint Peter and Saint Paul were at Rome, 3) He uses the term Catholic Church [he was a pupil of the Last living Apostle, Saint John, as was Polycarp], 4) He does indicate that the Church of Rome “presides in Love” and early example of the Primacy of Church and Bishop of Rome [note, I am not saying that Primacy was understood the same way then as now, but the seed of Primacy was already evident by Ignatius time in 107AD], and finally 5), His description of the Eucharist is so realistic that the late J. Pelikan [The Christian Tradition Vol 1. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition(100 to 600 AD, pp. 168-170] indicates that the Liturgical and patristic evidence now clearly indicates that the Eucharist was a special presence of Christ. He goes on to cite Ignatius as one who used strikingly realistic language when writing about the Eucharist [he also cited Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian] who also wrote in the 2nd century, albeit later than Ignatius.
“Yes, they had churches teaching what the First this Baptist...Yea right”
Well, scripture does. There is no discussion of Purgatory in scripture. No priests are discussed, apart from the universal priesthood of the believer. In fact, priests - Jewish priests - are contrasted with Christianity, not emulated. There was no Pope, although Paul would have had a better claim of primacy than Peter. There wasn’t a hierarchical body of churches. Peter recommends SCRIPTURE for protection from deceit, not church organization:
He says he experienced divine revelation in person, but he will make sure “that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things”, because:
“We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
The Christians can count on the writings of the Apostles, because it is not their personal opinion, but “prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit”.
And this was important, because “there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies”. But believers don’t need to worry, because “Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles....
...Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.”
We are commanded to rely on the teachings of the divinely inspired Apostles, not the all too human squabbling of the “Church Fathers”!
Well said. Thank you for your patience and gentleness.
Salvation posts scripture daily.
LOL! I thought about saying that too. God bless!
So how is that not evading the questions, "Inspired?" Be more specific and also answer the rest.
So what RC writers hold that the writings of so-called church fathers were wholly inspired as Scripture was? And do they just the church more than the church judges them? And is God the author of infallible teachings of Rome as he is of Scripture?
Who was it that whining about "propaganda?"
When you want to form an argument do so. What and how do you deny what i said?
Mr Rogers:
Peter was the one who Christ chose to lead the Apostles. You read in what you want to read in. No early Father of the Church saw differently. I will not go thru every Patristic cite on who Peter was chosen to be First among the Apostles but in every list of Apostles in the Gospels, Peter is listed “first”. In the Acts of the Apostles, even though James was Bishop/leader, it was Peter who got up and spoke to solve the questions at hand.
There was a hierarchical Church. The Apostles were Apostles, then there were Deacons and Presbyters and Bishops appointed by those same Apostles. The NT mentions Bishops [One who oversees], Presbyters and Deacons. In St. Paul’s Letters to Timothy and Titus, only they were charged with the authority to appoint presbyters and deacons and were told to be careful who you lay hands on, etc.
The notion that there were no Bishops and priests represents Protestant polemics. In fact, the reason that the notion of a hierarchical church was rejected by Protestants like Luther and Calvin was because all earlier schisms and heretical movements were led by Bishops who had valid ordinations. Luther was a Catholic Priest, Calvin and Deacon, so there movement, since it could not lay claim to Apostolic Succession of Bishops had to do all it can to reject it.
The NT is silent as to Church Governance for the most part, save the pastoral epistles of Saint Paul and perhaps the Letter of Saint James were it clearly says call the presbyters to anoint the sick [a priestly function btw], but they do show a transition from the Apostles to the next generation of the Church. The epistles of Saint Clement and St. Ignatius clearly show a hierarchical church in full force by the end of the 1st century
The points above would require a lengthy post in themselves but purgatory, is one that I will address in this post with some detail.
Purgatory is in Scripture, the doctrine, although not the term, just you dismiss the notion of it because it does not fit the Protestant imputed notion of justification. The OT mentions fire as a cleansing and refining agent in several places [Sirach 2:5, Is 4:4; 6:6-7; Zech 13:9, and Mal 3:2-3]. 2 Macabees 2:46 mentions prayers for the dead. St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:15 speaks of a cleansing fire and Matthew 12:31 speaks of sins not forgiven in this age or age to come.
Purgatory has to be understood in the context of how Catholics understand Grace and sin. Sin ruptures and breaks our communion with God and it is Grace that justifies us and makes us Holy. Thus, Grace, from the Catholic perspective is “transformative” and not just a covering of God’s Grace, which is the classic Protestant understanding. The Catechism discusses Grace in paragraph 1996 and 1997:
1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.
1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.
The Catechism states that as sanctifying Grace, God shares his divine life and friendship with us in a habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that enables the soul to live with God and act by his love. As actual grace, God gives us the help to conform our lives to his will.
With respect to Purgatory, the Catechism states:
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:
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.
I have already cited 1 Corinthians 3:15 as a passage consistent with Purgatory, along with other passages [Matthew 12:31; 1 Peter 1:7, 2 Mac 12:46] are all cited in the CCC 1031 cited above.
Now, I acknowledge that scripture passages can have multiple meanings, all being true. In fact, this is in line with Catholic Doctrine. For example, the Catholic Church interprets scripture through Typology (see CCC 128-130), i.e. the Old Testament signs, persons and events prefigure Christ and find there conclusion in Christ, and thus the Epistles are interpreted in the context of Christ and the four Gospels (e.g., Gospels are central, see CCC 127). The Catholic Church also uses the “Four Senses” of Scripture approach to get the fullness of revelation from the Sacred Scriptures (see CCC para 115-119). Link to Catholic Catechism and Catholic principles for interpreting Sacred Scripture follows:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml
So the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:12-16, can have layered meanings, one conclusion from that text is that Christians will face trials during this life with respect to their faith and passing through fire could mean an allegorical image of those who remain committed to Christ will be saved. This is one interpretation and is not unorthodox. However, while I agree that interpretation is a good one, and is not unorthodox, the interpretation that I referenced about 1 Cor 3:15 being seen as purgatory is also a legitimate interpretation, and thus I believe both are possible and don’t detract from each other.
Furthermore, the interpretation that 1 Cor. 3:15 is part of the theological tradition of St. Augustine as he writes in his Explanation of the Psalms [i.e. a collection of Homilies/sermons and commentaries written on the Psalms from 392 to 418 AD] as follows:
“Lord rebuke me not in Your indignation, nor correct me in Your anger [c.f. Psalm 38:2]….In this life You may cleanse me and make me such that I have no need of corrective fire, which is for those who are saved, but as if by fire…For it is said “He shall be saved, but as if by fire [c.f. 1 Cor 3:15]. And because its says he shall be saved, little is thought of that fire. Yet plainly though, we be saved by fire, that fire will be more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life”
In his defense of the Book of Genesis [written 388-395 AD] against the Manicheans [who were dualistic and thus had problems with Creation and the fact that God had given man free will], St Augustine uses the term “purgatorial fires” as he writes:
“The man who has cultivated that remote land (c.f. Genesis 3:17) and who has gotten his bread by his very great labor is able to suffer this labor to the end of life. After this life, however, it is not necessary that he suffer. But the man who perhaps has not cultivated the land and has allowed it to be overrun with brambles has in this life the curse of the land on all his works, and after this life he will have either purgatorial fire or eternal punishment.”
St. Augustine talks of purgatorial fires in his reflection “Faith and Works” (413 AD) and The Enchiridion of Faith, Hope and Love {421 AD}, and also speaks of the doctrine of purgatory in The City of God [413-426 AD] in numerous places throughout that work.
The Doctrine of Purgatory is consistent the Liturgical Rites of the early Church, both West and East which all offered prayers for the dead [cf. 2 Maceabees 12:43-46]
For example, Saint Gregory of Nyssa on a Sermon [around 382] on the Dead speaks of a purifying fire that purges [not quite the use of the word purgatory but it is consistent with it]. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem [350 AD in Catechetical Lectures, which is ripe with Sacred Scripture commentary by him] speaks of praying for the dead at the Eucharistic celebration and states we pray to Him for those who have fallen asleep, thought they be sinners. St. John Chrysostom in Homilies on Saint Paul’s Letter to the Philipians speaks of “Not in vain was it decreed by the Apostles that in awesome Mysteries [The Greek term for Sacrament] remembrance should be made for the departed.
As far back as Tertullian [205 AD], he speaks of offering sacrifices for the dead [I.e. praying for the dead at the Eucharistic Liturgy]. While of course Tertullian would break away from the Catholic Church, he does provide us with great glimpses into many Doctrinal issues so we have again a notion of praying for the departed souls.
With respect to Praying for the Dead at Liturgy, St. Augustine writes in his Sermons [391-430 AD] “There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended .”
Again, St. Augustine writes in his Sermons [391 to 430 AD] “ But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the body and blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead.”
While you may not agree with the doctrine of Purgatory, the Catholic Church’s doctrine is well grounded in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
So again Mr. Rogers, with respect to Purgatory, the passage 1 Corinthians 3:15 is a passage consistent with Purgatory [as interpreted by St. Augustine in numerous commentaries], and this passage along with Matthew 12:31; 1 Peter 1:7, 2 Mac 12:46 are all cited in the CCC 1031, which is linked below
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art12.shtml.
As documented above, the Church does see the first epistle of St. Peter as being consistent with purgatorial fire (c.f. 1 Peter 1:7). Later on in that epistle, we read “In it he went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in al, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now…” (cf. 1 Peter 3:19-21). Now this text clearly indicates a spiritual state [Who the 8 are is not necessary for the point of the discussion, most scholars contend it was the 8 angels who acted contrary to God’s commands, cf. Gen 6:4 and non-biblical texts from the Book of Enoch] that is not heaven nor is it hell. Now, while it does not directly indicate purgatory, what it does show is that there is/was a state that was not heaven or hell, which is consistent with the doctrine of purgatory, which of course as I noted earlier, the Church Fathers were consistent in both West and East with indicating that in the Liturgy the Church prayed for the dead (cf. 2 Mac 12:16, which was from LXX version of the OT, which the early Church used). While I know 2 Macabbees is not in your canon, we do see in 1 Samuel 31:13 the Jewish soldiers took Saul’s body and his sons and buried them and then “Then they took their bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh, and fasted for seven days.” So both texts together do indicate some concept of praying/fasting for deceased fellow believers.
The verse from 1 Peter 3:19 is one of the reasons you see some Catholic scholarship seeing Luke 12:59 and the parallel text found in Matthew 5:26 that the person finding himself in prison will not get out until the last penny has been paid. If we understand the term “prison” as being seen as a place that one goes to for a time and after serving that time, gets out, this idea, extrapolated to the after life is consistent with individuals who have died in communion with God, but still, having some attachment to worldly inclinations, are fully purged of to be transformed and made Holy “for it is written, Be Holy because I [am] Holy” (cf. 1 Peter 1:16). Again, I think one of the issues again here is how Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox for that matter, understand Grace and how it does justify and sanctify us. CCC link on Grace follows:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt3art2.shtml
Later in first Peter, we read something again that is consistent with purgatory: “For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that, though condemned in the flesh in human estimation, the might live in the spirit in the estimation of God” (cf. 1 Peter 4:6). Now, clearly these are not the same folks in 1 Peter 3:19, who are seen as being angelic powers, whereas the “dead preached to” in 1 Peter 4:6 must be seen as Christians who have died since the hearing of the Gospel but have not yet experienced the fullness of the resurrection where the entire human person [body and soul] is raised up to be with God.
St. Paul himself seems to have prayed for a deceased co-worker and disciple who helped him in missionary work for we read “May the Lord grant mercy to the family of Onesiphorus because he often gave me new heart and was not ashamed of my chains. But when he came to Rome, he promptly searched for me and found me. May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day. And you know very well the services he rendered in Ephesus’ (cf. 2 Timothy 1: 16-18). Two Catholic Commentaries that I have make the statement indicating that Onesiphorus is spoken of as if he were dead.
Some Protestant Patristic Scholars [Which were cited in a work that I read, I don’t have those commentaries, for the record] interpret the passage consistent with Catholic Commentaries. For example,
1) Philip Schaff (1819-1893) (Reformed Protestant), The International Illustrated Commentary on the New Testament, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889, Vol. IV, writes in his work the Catholic Epistles and Revelation p. 587 wrote with respect to 2 Timothy 1:16-18
“On the assumption already mentioned as probable, this would, of course, be a prayer for the dead. The reference ot the great day of judgment falls in with this hypothesis. . . . From the controversial point of view, this may appear to favour the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome “ .
2) Professor JND Kelley (1909-1997) (Anglican): A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, London, A&C Black, [1963, p. 171] writes:
“On the assumption, which must be correct, that Onesiphorus was dead when the words were written, we have here an example, unique in the N.T., of Christian prayer for the departed. . . . the commendation of the dead man to the divine mercy. There is nothing surprising in Paul’s use of such a prayer, for intercession for the dead had been sanctioned in Pharisaic circles at any rate since the date of 2 Macc 12:43-45 (middle of first century B.C.?). Inscriptions in the Roman catacombs and elsewhere prove that the practice established itself among Christians from very early times.”
I deny everything you said.
**They don’t prove that Jesus isn’t God at all,**
So, in John 17:1-3, when Jesus Christ calls the Father ‘the only true God’, or saying that the Father is in him doing the works (Jn 14:10), and giving him the words (Jn 1:1) to speak, he’s not being quite accurate.........
And the apostle Paul said: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, OF whom are all things, and we in him;(semi-colon) and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY whom are all things, and we by him.” 1 Cor. 8:6. Was Paul not quite accurate in that description?
Are you wiser than they at describing the Godhead?
**my passages explicitly call Christ “Almighty” or the “First and the Last,” and it is stupid to claim that there can be two “Almighties” or two “First and Lasts.”**
I make no such claim. The Almighty God is IN Jesus Christ without measure. That’s what he, and his apostles and prophets declare.
**He’s not really God but has God in Him (like all of us do)**
Not like all of us do, for he was born sinless, and has been given the Spirit without measure, like NO one else.
Notice the capitalized ‘OF’ and ‘BY’. I capped them to help you notice that everything is OF God, including the Christ (Son OF God), and we IN Him (God is a omnipresent Spirit). And BY the Son OF God (the firstborn, to whom God gave the Spirit without measure) came the rest of creation, and we BY him.
Neither Jesus Christ, nor the apostles ever used the phrase ‘God the Son’, only the ‘Son of God’.
Are you ‘Planet Earth the GPH’ , or ‘GPH of Planet Earth’?
Again,...did Jesus Christ inherit his name?
“In the Acts of the Apostles, even though James was Bishop/leader, it was Peter who got up and spoke to solve the questions at hand.”
Actually, when Peter spoke, it did not end the discussion. In fact, Paul & Barnabas continued to address the elders in Jerusalem, and then James wrapped it up:
“12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
18 things known from long ago.
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
“The NT mentions Bishops [One who oversees], Presbyters and Deacons.”
Actually, it mentions Elders and Deacons. For example, as Peter himself wrote:
“Verse 1
The elders which are among you I exhort - The word “elder” means, properly, “one who is old;” but it is frequently used in the New Testament as applicable to the officers of the church; probably because aged persons were at first commonly appointed to these offices. See Acts 11:30, note; Acts 14:23, note; Acts 15:2, note. There is evidently an allusion here to the fact that such persons were selected on account of their age, because in the following verses (1 Peter 5:4) the apostle addresses particularly the younger. It is worthy of remark, that he here refers only to one class of ministers. He does not speak of three “orders,” of “bishops, priests, and deacons;” and the evidence from the passage here is quite strong that there were no such orders in the churches of Asia Minor, to which this Epistle was directed. It is also worthy of remark, that the word “exhort” is here used. The language which Peter uses is not that of stern and arbitrary command; it is that of kind and mild Christian exhortation. Compare the notes at Philemon 1:8-9.
Who am also an elder - Greek: “a fellow-presbyter,” (sumpresbuteros) This word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means that he was a co-presbyter with them; and he makes this one of the grounds of his exhortation to them. He does not put it on the ground of his apostolical authority; or urge it because he was the vicegerent of Christ; or because he was the head of the church; or because he had any pre-eminence over others in any way. Would he have used this language if he had been the “head of the church” on earth? Would he if he supposed that the distinction between apostles and other ministers was to be perpetuated? Would he if he believed that there were to be distinct orders of clergy? The whole drift of this passage is adverse to such a supposition.”
“The notion that there were no Bishops and priests represents Protestant polemics.”
No. There were elders. There was a universal priesthood, but NO priests in Christianity! One has to go way outside of scripture, and reject the clear teaching of scripture, to create priests.
“Purgatory is in Scripture, the doctrine, although not the term, just you dismiss the notion of it because it does not fit the Protestant imputed notion of justification. The OT mentions fire as a cleansing and refining agent in several places [Sirach 2:5, Is 4:4; 6:6-7; Zech 13:9, and Mal 3:2-3]. 2 Macabees 2:46 mentions prayers for the dead. St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:15 speaks of a cleansing fire...”
Again, simply an incredible distortion of the clear meaning of scripture! 1 Cor 3 does NOT, in any way, suggest the existence of a place after death where we are cleansed by fire of our sins which were not totally forgiven in this life!
It says:
10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.”
Thus every man’s ministry in building the church will be revealed as durable and valuable, or as a waste of time. There is no hint in here of personal sin, or unforgiven sin, etc. Paul is clearly writing about one’s MINISTRY being revealed by God’s just judgment.
“Because it shall be revealed by fire - The work, the edifice which shall be built on the true foundation shall be made known amidst the fire of the great Day. The “fire” which is here referred to, is doubtless that which shall attend the consummation of all things - the close of the world. That the world shall be destroyed by fire, and that the solemnities of the Judgment shall be ushered in by a universal conflagration, is fully and frequently revealed. See Isaiah 66:15; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; 2 Peter 3:7, 2 Peter 3:10-11. The burning fires of that Day, Paul says, shall reveal the character of every man‘s work, as fire sheds light on all around, and discloses the true nature of things.”
“St. Augustine talks of purgatorial fires in his reflection “Faith and Works” (413 AD) and The Enchiridion of Faith, Hope and Love {421 AD}, and also speaks of the doctrine of purgatory in The City of God [413-426 AD] in numerous places throughout that work.”
And on that Great Day, what Augustine did will be revealed by the fire. Did Augustine build with hay & stubble, or with stone and gold? In his case, I think the evidence shows there will be ample hay & stubble...
“St. Paul himself seems to have prayed for a deceased co-worker and disciple who helped him in missionary work for we read “May the Lord grant mercy to the family of Onesiphorus because he often gave me new heart and was not ashamed of my chains. But when he came to Rome, he promptly searched for me and found me. May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day. And you know very well the services he rendered in Ephesus’ (cf. 2 Timothy 1: 16-18). Two Catholic Commentaries that I have make the statement indicating that Onesiphorus is spoken of as if he were dead.”
This is a classic case of forcing theology into the text, regardless of how much it twists it! 2 Tim 4 merely says, “Greet Priscilla and Aquila and the household of Onesiphorus.” That does not in any way say Onesiphorus was dead! Nor does this passage suggest he is dead:
“May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. 17 On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. 18 May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus.”
When someone builds a theology of Purgatory on such slender reeds, one doesn’t need to wait for that Great Day to see the value of what is being built!
I disagree with James White on a number of issues, but agree with him on this:
“Besides, there is only one result of the testing in purgatory: everyone ends up in heaven. But there are two results of this testing: there are those whose works remain, and they receive a reward. And there are those who works are burned up, but they are saved anyway. So could someone tell me how there is anyone in purgatory whose works, upon being tested, are shown to be gold, silver, and precious stones? Aren’t those the godly, the righteous, who receive a reward? But purgatory is for those who have in fact been judged, but, they are judged to have more temporal punishment for sin upon their souls than they have positive merit, so they must be cleansed and prepared through purgatory. So how does one get from a fire that tests works of Christian leaders, demonstrating who did what they did in life for the glory of Christ, to the fire of purgatory that should only be applied to those having temporal punishments of sin? You sure don’t get there by exegesis.”
What scripture teaches is that we are placed in Christ, and in Him we are counted righteous and whole:
“4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Teaching that Jesus is inadequate, and that we are not forgiven our sins but need to be punished further after death before we can enter heaven is utterly hay and stubble. It is, in fact, total heresy - which Peter warned against. The Author of Purgatory is the Father of Lies, not the Holy Spirit!
Thank God that by the power of God, we are born again, new creations, born to live in Him:
“21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.”
But the "description" doesn't claim that Jesus isn't God. The Son receives everything from the Father because that is His role in the Godhead. All the world was created through the Son, and the Son Himself is uncreated. He is called the "Word" who is both with God and is God. Repeating these tired fallacies does not save you. And your assumptions about it are based on a theology that depends on believing that whenever the scriptures speak of Jesus as 'God' or as saying "I AM" such and such, the Almighty, that really they aren't doing so. You must read the scripture in its entirety, not read a few verses and try to force them to conform to your delusions.
I make no such claim. The Almighty God is IN Jesus Christ without measure. That’s what he, and his apostles and prophets declare.
Christ plainly says "I AM" the Alpha and the Omega, and is described as the speaker who is "almighty." He is not referring to the Father. The Father is not speaking, nor is Christ a non-entity, otherwise He would say "The Father in me is the Alpha and the Omega... and He, speaking through me, is the almighty." I am, I am, I am, saith He, and so on and so forth, these words have meaning, whether hell-bound cultists like them or not.
By the way, I asked you a question: What are you? Are you a Mormon or not? Are you an Armstrongite? A Jehovah's Witness? Or are you afraid to tell me?
It is necessary to put this into context. The "doctrine" of purgatory was not one passed down from "tradition," but was mere speculation and no firm article of faith. Augustine gives two different interpretations, suggesting that either are possible, the first being the Protestant interpretation, and the latter, which he depicts as being mere possibility, and no sure thing, is the concept of purgatory. This is a problem for Catholicism, as they teach that their doctrines have the weight of perpetual tradition:
"Chapter 68. The True Sense of the Passage (1 Corinthians 3:11-15) About Those Who are Saved, Yet So as by Fire. But as these most plain and unmistakeable declarations of the apostles cannot be false, that obscure saying about those who build upon the foundation, Christ, not gold, silver, and precious stones, but wood, hay, and stubble (for it is these who, it is said, shall be saved, yet so as by fire, the merit of the foundation saving them ), must be so interpreted as not to conflict with the plain statements quoted above. Now wood, hay, and stubble may, without incongruity, be understood to signify such an attachment to worldly things, however lawful these may be in themselves, that they cannot be lost without grief of mind. And though this grief burns, yet if Christ hold the place of foundation in the heart—that is, if nothing be preferred to Him, and if the man, though burning with grief, is yet more willing to lose the things he loves so much than to lose Christ,— he is saved by fire. If, however, in time of temptation, he prefer to hold by temporal and earthly things rather than by Christ, he has not Christ as his foundation; for he puts earthly things in the first place, and in a building nothing comes before the foundation. Again, the fire of which the apostle speaks in this place must be such a fire as both men are made to pass through, that is, both the man who builds upon the foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, and the man who builds wood, hay, stubble. For he immediately adds: The fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. The fire then shall prove, not the work of one of them only, but of both. Now the trial of adversity is a kind of fire which is plainly spoken of in another place: The furnace proves the potter's vessels: and the furnace of adversity just men. And this fire does in the course of this life act exactly in the way the apostle says. If it come into contact with two believers, one caring for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord, that is, building upon Christ the foundation, gold, silver, precious stones; the other caring for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife, that is, building upon the same foundation wood, hay, stubble—the work of the former is not burned, because he has not given his love to things whose loss can cause him grief; but the work of the latter is burned, because things that are enjoyed with desire cannot be lost without pain. But since, by our supposition, even the latter prefers to lose these things rather than to lose Christ, and since he does not desert Christ out of fear of losing them, though he is grieved when he does lose them, he is saved, but it is so as by fire; because the grief for what he loved and has lost burns him. But it does not subvert nor consume him; for he is protected by his immoveable and incorruptible foundation.
Chapter 69. It is Not Impossible that Some Believers May Pass Through a Purgatorial Fire in the Future Life.
And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it. This cannot, however, be the case of any of those of whom it is said, that they shall not inherit the kingdom of God, unless after suitable repentance their sins be forgiven them. When I say suitable, I mean that they are not to be unfruitful in almsgiving; for Holy Scripture lays so much stress on this virtue, that our Lord tells us beforehand, that He will ascribe no merit to those on His right hand but that they abound in it, and no defect to those on His left hand but their want of it, when He shall say to the former, Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom, and to the latter, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm
Augustine was a man of God of profound spiritual depth. Not everyone is correct in every aspect of theology. His doctrines gave birth to the Reformation, as both Luther and Calvin did not invent their doctrines, but were merely the heirs of Augustine's teachings on grace and predestination.
It would have been nice if you would at least have tried to answered my questions.
**The Son receives everything from the Father because that is His role in the Godhead.**
Well at least we agree on that. The Son also says that his words are not his own, speaking only those things that his Father do desires. “God hath in these last days spoken unto us, by his Son, whom he hath APPOINTED heir of all things”.
Is God the Father going to die? /sarc.
And “this day I have begotten thee”. That’s not a beginning. /sarc.
I’m oneness Pentecostal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.