Bible verses for purgatory

  • Thread starter Thread starter evidence
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Tanner;

ok , this is the last comment I’ll make re: the passages that I cited. From the verses alone, it seems to me that both inspired authors (Paul and James), are citing the same Scripture regarding Abraham however it also seems to me that each author is pointing out that righteousness of God was “imputed” to Abraham at two distinct and different points in his life; believing God that he would give him a son (and descendants) and believing Him in offering up that son at a later time. Therefore, this tends, IMO, to lend credence to the Catholic position that Justification is ongoing. This was something that I did not see before I started considering Catholicism. Also, I believe that an “act of perfect contrition” justifies a sinner as well, according to a Catholic source I read (which I can’t remember off the top of my head.) I don’t know if said source cited it, but surely they must have been thinking about the “Publican and the sinner.” “Lord, have mercy on me a sinner.” The Lord tells us that that one was or would be justified in the sight of God (I can’t remember which it was: was, is, or would be justified.)

That’s all I really care to say, no need to start a thread; it takes time and we will probably just agree to disagree in the end as was the case in another thread 🙂 It’s cool, if the administrator (s) care to split it and people want to continue the matter, so be it. Peace, and Happy Lord’s Day to you as well.
 
Hi Tanner;

ok , this is the last comment I’ll make re: the passages that I cited. From the verses alone, it seems to me that both inspired authors (Paul and James), are citing the same Scripture regarding Abraham however it also seems to me that each author is pointing out that righteousness of God was “imputed” to Abraham at two distinct and different points in his life; believing God that he would give him a son (and descendants) and believing Him in offering up that son at a later time. Therefore, this tends, IMO, to lend credence to the Catholic position that Justification is ongoing. This was something that I did not see before I started considering Catholicism. Also, I believe that an “act of perfect contrition” justifies a sinner as well, according to a Catholic source I read (which I can’t remember off the top of my head.) I don’t know if said source cited it, but surely they must have been thinking about the “Publican and the sinner.” “Lord, have mercy on me a sinner.” The Lord tells us that that one was or would be justified in the sight of God (I can’t remember which it was: was, is, or would be justified.)

That’s all I really care to say, no need to start a thread; it takes time and we will probably just agree to disagree in the end as was the case in another thread 🙂 It’s cool, if the administrator (s) care to split it and people want to continue the matter, so be it. Peace, and Happy Lord’s Day to you as well.
I would only add a little more thought to consider. If what you said is true, then God saves in 2 different ways. Does He? No.

Romans 3 -
24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.

I Corinthians -
God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God. 30 **But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.” **

Eph 2 -
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, {it is} the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

The works were decided before the foundation of the world; something to think about. God does not need to see the fruits of those who are His; He made them all according to His will and purposes. The simplest way I can phrase this is that the faith of the believer, which justifies, will result in good works; which those works will show the unbelieving world the fruit of the Spirit that dwells in the man. Works are not the means; they are the result.

Consider this as well; God cannot commingle with sin can He? So then; how can He indwell a believer without first washing Him? He can’t; it would defile the nature of God. It is why we need the perfection of Christ accounted to us and the reason God looked upon Christ and saw, not His spotless Son, but you and me. Only God can bear the wrath of God for the sins of the world; no man could withstand that punishment…praise the Lord Jesus for this truth.

Here it is pulling the thoughts together.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 -
16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and {that} the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

1 Corinthians 6:17-20 -
17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit {with Him.} 18 Flee immorality. Every sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

Galatians 2:20-21 -
20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the {life} which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 21 “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness {comes} through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

Pulling it further together:
Romans 8:9-11 -
9 However, **you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed **the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, ***yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. ***11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also ***give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. ***

God bless and I hope God’s voice will leave you with fewer doubts.

As far as Abraham and Paul and James. Pull those passages, then look at the cross-references in your Bible, which should lead you to Genesis and look at the time frame between when God credit Abraham with righteousness to the time he almost sacrificed Issac - should help answer your question.
 
Bible verses for purgatory]
God’s Divine and Perfect Nature and common logic affirm the need for Pergatory
***1 Peter 1:16 "since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17 And if you invoke as Father him who judges each one impartially according to his deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile.
Matt. 5:48 “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”.***
***Rev. 21: 27 “But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”
2 Peter 2” 4 “For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment”
Heb. 12: 29 “for our God is a consuming fire. “
1 Cor. 3: 13 “each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, [Purgatory] though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
Rev. 1: “17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, 18 and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.”
Mt. 5: 26 truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.***
2 Peter 2: 4 For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven other persons, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds), 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.
Love and prayers,
 
Tanner check you PM, I don’t want to derail the thread in case I haven’t done so already. My apologies everyone.
 
Here’s more proof…the jews and the early church father both believe in purgatory…
The Jews already believed it before the coming of the Messiah, as revealed in the Old Testament (2 Macc. 12:41–45) as well as in other pre-Christian Jewish works, such as one which records that Adam will be in mourning “until the day of dispensing punishment in the last years, when I will turn his sorrow into joy” (The Life of Adam and Eve 46–7). Orthodox Jews to this day believe in the final purification, and for eleven months after the death of a loved one, they pray a prayer called the Mourner’s Kaddish for their loved one’s purification. Jews, Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox have always historically proclaimed the reality of the final purification. It was not until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century that anyone denied this doctrine. As the quotes below from the early Church Fathers show, purgatory has been part of the Christian faith from the very beginning. Some imagine that the Catholic Church has an elaborate doctrine of purgatory worked out, but there are only three essential components of the doctrine: (1) that a purification after death exists, (2) that it involves some kind of pain, and (3) that the purification can be assisted by the prayers and offerings by the living to God. Other ideas, such that purgatory is a particular “place” in the afterlife or that it takes time to accomplish, are speculations rather than doctrines. * The Acts of Paul and Thecla “And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’” (Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]). * Abercius “The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste Shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed: Truly, I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius” (Epitaph of Abercius [A.D. 190]). * The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity “[T]hat very night, this was shown to me in a vision: I [Perpetua] saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid color, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with disease. . . . For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other . . . and * knew that my brother was in suffering. But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then . . . I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me. Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me: I saw that the place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. . . . [And] he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment” (The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity 2:3–4 [A.D. 202]). * Tertullian “We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into eternal life]” (The Crown 3:3 [A.D. 211]). “A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice” (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]). * Cyprian of Carthage “The strength of the truly believing remains unshaken; and with those who fear and love God with their whole heart, their integrity continues steady and strong. For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace * is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigor of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord” (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).**

Based on that logic; then we can toss out the entire OT…the Jews crucified Jesus because He claimed to be God and Christ; they did not believe Him or what was written about Him.

If you did not receive Maccabees as the inspired and authentic Word of God, which your church in haste, canonized that which contains error and therefore is not from God unless you believe the Bible contains error. Do you believe the Bible contains error? You say no, then why do teach others that it does? It was such practices and doctrines as praying to the dead and purgatory, that set off the reformation, clearly a divine act of used to purify His adulterated Word IMO and observations.

Here is the source you left out in your post for other to read.
catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp
 
Copid from a former post:thumbsup:
"Re: Purgatory: Explain Purgatory to an Evangelical

Hello,

I am a convert to Catholicism from Protestantism, and Purgatory is one of the first doctrines I accepted while still a Protestant. I hope I can be of some help.

C.S. Lewis gives an explanation something like this one:
When we die, we will stand before God and He will say to us, “You are free to enter here; no one will say anything about your condition, but would you like to clean up first?” We will look down and see that we are covered in dirt and scabs, that our clothes are torn and tattered, and (worst of all!) that our hair is an absolute mess. So, we will say, “Clean me, please!” The process of peeling off the dirty clothes, scouring off the grime and dirt, picking the scabs off the healed wounds, having our hair made neat, and being fitted with the finest clothing will be that process of purgatory.

No one is perfect when he dies, even though we all ought to strive for perfection in this life. Inevitably, bad habits formed and vices buried deep will not be gone at the moment of death. However, in Heaven we will all be perfect. Purgatory is the process of working out those imperfections. This is not a punishment any more than the training of a dog is a punishment; it is an education, and we will beg for it so that the lens through which we see God (nothing less than our whole soul) may be perfectly clean and bright in order that we may see Him as He really is.

As a Protestant, this explanation made a lot of sense to me. I hope it helps."

Darn good job:)
 
What do you suppose Philip answered; from the revelation of God? What is revelation from God? Scripture.

Tanner, you do not make sense. Philip did not tell him to just read the bible and all will be revealed. The scriptures were explained to him by Philip. So your statement does not address the text.
I suspect no one can answer a question that is sufficient for you; because you demonstrated no desire to learn what God has actually said; rather you prefer to make God say, based on preconceived notion, that you are correct and everyone else is wrong; including God.
 
Tanner, you do not make sense. Philip did not tell him to just read the bible and all will be revealed. The scriptures were explained to him by Philip. So your statement does not address the text.
Is scripture the revelation from God or not? Was Philip reiterating the revelation of God? Understand?
Actually I am very open to the advice and counsel of others. Just because someone disagrees with something you say, you resort to emotive attacks like “you demonstrate no desire to learn what Gd has actually said…”. It is a pity ***you are unwilling to debate intelligently ***and with charity. Bible verses are given to support a doctrine, yet you will not address the one verse that clearly wipes out your interpretation.
I provided you with what the word of God says and you reject it based on what? Rebuke of the truth? If you disagree with what was written, then you need to pull the versus back up and present them and point out the error. I can’t do the work for you; search and find and take no ones word.
Obviously not on your terms. It seems when you read 1 Cor you have fallen into that natural person you talk about, because only a natural person would be blind to the obvious meaning. 😉
There you go again. Not talking about the rewards. Talking about the loss suffered for those saved!
…and so, what church would you take it to to solve the disagreement? Tell me where in the bible does it tell us that we have to have a minimum of 2 passages, preferably 3 to prove or dispute? This will aid my future bible study if I can identify this foolproof solution to disagreement. Look forward to receiving such vital information.
Each passage must be in context of the topic to verify or dismiss based on the testimony of God; you will not see it explicitly, but God has certainly said quite a bit about the testimony needed to prove or disprove something. This is just an application of a truth presented all over Scripture. All I know is that a good % of the time when someone cites a single verse as support for their point; then either Scripture will validate it somewhere else as well or create an apparent contradiction to itself. I am not dogmatic about this at this point in my walk.

God reiterates over and over.
searchgodsword.org/desk/?language=en&query=two+witnesses&section=0&translation=nas&oq=2%2520witnesses&new=1&sr=1

searchgodsword.org/desk/?language=en&query=%22His+testimonies%22&section=0&translation=nas&oq=testimonies&new=1

John 5:31-47 -
31 "If I {alone} testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. 32 "There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true. 33 "You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 "But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.

Who is the Living Word?

35 "He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. 36 "But the testimony which I have is greater than {the testimony of} John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish–the very works that I do–testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 "And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. 38 "You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. 39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

God bless and thanks for the questions and comments.
 
If you did not receive Maccabees as the inspired and authentic Word of God, which your church in haste, canonized that which contains error and therefore is not from God unless you believe the Bible contains error.
In haste?

:rotfl:

The canon was not established until the LATE FOURTH century.

Boy, the ECF’s really rushed that through in a hurry!

The Canon and the Councils

Council of Rome (382 A.D.)


Convoked by Pope Damasus, this council produced the Roman Code. The Roman Code identified a list of scriptural books identical to the Council of Trent’s formally defined canon. Pope Damasus I approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting St. Athanasius’ list as divinely inspired, and indicated that if any bishop used a list of books inconsistent with the Roman canon he would need a convincing explanation.

Council of Hippo (393 A.D.)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.

First Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome and also affirmed the Decree of Damasus issued in 382 A.D… Carthage*, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification. *

Pope Innocent I (405 A.D.)

In a letter to Exsuperius, the Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent listed the same books established by the Council of Rome.
Pope Boniface (ca. 420 A.D.)
Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision of the first Council of Carthage and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate. Boniface also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide.


Second Council of Carthage (419 A.D.)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.

Second Council of Nicaea (787 A.D.)

This council formally ratified the African Code which contained the same list of books that Trent would name “canonical”.

Council of Florence (1441 A.D.)

This council defined a list of inspired books identical to those defined by the African Code and the Second Council of Nicaea.

Council of Trent (1546 A.D.)

On April 8, 1546, this council produced a decree, Sacrosancta, which was the first, formal canonical definition of Old and New Testament scripture. This was the third formal affirmation of the list by an ecumenical council and at least the eighth overall.
 
Randy,

I believe Tanner is familiar with that chronology 😉

again thank you I appreciate it

Tanner,

I pointed out to you before how the Eastern Orthodox and the Ethiopian Orthodox Canons include the Books that you dispute also and they had nothing to do w/ the Protestant Reformation.
 
40.png
Randy_Carson:
In haste?

:rotfl:

The canon was not established until the LATE FOURTH century.

Boy, the ECF’s really rushed that through in a hurry!

The Canon and the Councils

Council of Rome (382 A.D.)


Convoked by Pope Damasus, this council produced the Roman Code. The Roman Code identified a list of scriptural books identical to the Council of Trent’s formally defined canon. Pope Damasus I approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting St. Athanasius’ list as divinely inspired, and indicated that if any bishop used a list of books inconsistent with the Roman canon he would need a convincing explanation.

Council of Hippo (393 A.D.)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.

First Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome and also affirmed the Decree of Damasus issued in 382 A.D… Carthage*, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification. *

Pope Innocent I (405 A.D.)

In a letter to Exsuperius, the Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent listed the same books established by the Council of Rome.
Pope Boniface (ca. 420 A.D.)
Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision of the first Council of Carthage and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate. Boniface also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide.


Second Council of Carthage (419 A.D.)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.

Second Council of Nicaea (787 A.D.)

This council formally ratified the African Code which contained the same list of books that Trent would name “canonical”.

Council of Florence (1441 A.D.)

This council defined a list of inspired books identical to those defined by the African Code and the Second Council of Nicaea.

Council of Trent (1546 A.D.)

On April 8, 1546, this council produced a decree, Sacrosancta, which was the first, formal canonical definition of Old and New Testament scripture. This was the third formal affirmation of the list by an ecumenical council and at least the eighth overall.
You avoided the issue; so let’s cut to the chase. Do you believe the Bible is inerrant? If so; then why do you support books that contain error as inspired by God when you believe the Bible is inerrant? Which is it; you can’t have both for their is one truth.

May God bless you with a heart of sincerity.
 
Randy,

I believe Tanner is familiar with that chronology 😉

again thank you I appreciate it

Tanner,

I pointed out to you before how the Eastern Orthodox and the Ethiopian Orthodox Canons include the Books that you dispute also and they had nothing to do w/ the Protestant Reformation.
Do you believe the word of God is inerrant and infallible? Choice #1: Yes I do and therefore you are correct, Tanner, and I reject the books that contain error. or #2 I believe the Bible does contain error and is fallible; but I chose to believe books known to have error as the Word of God.

Which is it; their is no middle ground or wiggle room here. Tell the truth.

May God bless you in honesty and sincerity.
 
Is scripture the revelation from God or not? Was Philip reiterating the revelation of God? Understand?]
Tanner, my argument is not that God revealed Himself through scripture. The bible contains the inerrant Word of God which the Catholic Churches teaches and upholds. Philip did not need to reiterate the revelation of God. That is not the question. The question is, how can the man understand that which has been revealed.
I provided you with what the word of God says and you reject it based on what? Rebuke of the truth? If you disagree with what was written, then you need to pull the versus back up and present them and point out the error. I can’t do the work for you; search and find and take no ones word.
 
Do you believe the word of God is inerrant and infallible? Choice #1: Yes I do and therefore you are correct, Tanner, and I reject the books that contain error. or #2 I believe the Bible does contain error and is fallible; but I chose to believe books known to have error as the Word of God.

Which is it; their is no middle ground or wiggle room here. Tell the truth.
Just to placate you I choose No. 1. Yes, Tanner you are right:thumbsup: Problem is that your bible has some books missing. Did you know that Jesus used the Septuagint which contains those books you believe to contain error? A couple of scripture references (many more that could be cited) that make reference to those books in error.
I know this to be off topic so I will leave it at this.

Matt 2:16 - Herod’s slaying of the innocence prophesied in Wis 11:7

Matt 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is taken from 1 Macc 1:54 and 2 Macc 8:17.

John 10:36 - Jesus uses the analogy of Hanukkah consecration to His own to the Father in 1 Macc 4:36.

Rev 17:14 - describes Jesus on a white horse and follows the same description of the Lord in 2 Macc 3:25; 11:8

In my reading of the early Church Fathers, they also made reference to those books that supposedly contain error.
 
You avoided the issue; so let’s cut to the chase. Do you believe the Bible is inerrant? Yes.
If so; then why do you support books that contain error as inspired by God when you believe the Bible is inerrant?
Okay…I’ll bite…what is the error that you are referring to?

And YOU avoided the point of my post…namely, that the Catholic Church did NOT canonize anything in haste, did it?
 
Now who has avoided the issue?

So, let’s cut to the chase: Are you or are you not a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses?
I think Tanner is a member of the “I can post the most church”. Over 1,000 posts in a couple of months. WOW:hypno:
 
]
Tanner, my argument is not that God revealed Himself through scripture. The bible contains the inerrant Word of God which the Catholic Churches teaches and upholds. Philip did not need to reiterate the revelation of God. That is not the question. The question is, how can the man understand that which has been revealed.

Show me where I have rejected the Word f God. I only reject your limited interpretation of it. The verse in question is 1 Cor 3:14-15.

Tanner I understand the importance of context. There were more than one bible verse presented to you by myself and others. Your claim is invalid that that has not been provided. So I guess on that evidence, then the CCs interpretation is the correct one:thumbsup:

John 5:31-47 -
31 "If I {alone} testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. 32 "There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true. 33 "You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 "But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.


Amen. However, this text is not referring to interpretation of scripture.

35 "He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. 36 "But the testimony which I have is greater than {the testimony of} John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish–the very works that I do–testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 "And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. 38 "You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. 39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

Again, this text does not relate to the interpretation of scripture.

I don’t expect satisfactory reply. It is clear you see an anomaly with your interpretation and what the verse actually says. Otherwise you would have made an attempt to discuss what Paul means when he says that although one can be saved after death, he can still suffer loss.

Cheers

:banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top