Faith Alone, Equivalent to Nothing?

[steved12345]

You’re welcome.

I hope that this thread has helped you see that you are following a man-made rule that’s not found anywhere in the Bible: “Everything I believe about God can only be found in the Bible.”

But, I’ve just been delaying the Scripture verses that refer to purgatory and Mary’s assumption because it’s a false rule you’ve been following. At any rate, here are some of the Scripture verses that support the Church’s teachings on purgatory.


Heb. 12:29 - God is a consuming fire (of love in heaven, of purgation in purgatory, or of suffering and damnation in hell).

1 Cor. 3:10-15 - works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation).

1 Cor. 3:15 – “if any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” The phrase for “suffer loss” in the Greek is “zemiothesetai.” The root word is “zemioo” which also refers to punishment. The construction “zemiothesetai” is used in Ex. 21:22 and Prov. 19:19 which refers to punishment (from the Hebrew “anash” meaning “punish” or “penalty”). Hence, this verse proves that there is an expiation of temporal punishment after our death, but the person is still saved. This cannot mean heaven (there is no punishment in heaven) and this cannot mean hell (the possibility of expiation no longer exists and the person is not saved).

1 Cor. 3:15 – further, Paul writes “he himself will be saved, “but only” (or “yet so”) as through fire.” “He will be saved” in the Greek is “sothesetai” (which means eternal salvation). The phrase “but only” (or “yet so”) in the Greek is “houtos” which means “in the same manner.” This means that man is both eternally rewarded and eternally saved in the same manner by fire.

1 Cor. 3:13 - when Paul writes about God revealing the quality of each man’s work by fire and purifying him, this purification relates to his sins (not just his good works). Protestants, in attempting to disprove the reality of purgatory, argue that Paul was only writing about rewarding good works, and not punishing sins (because punishing and purifying a man from sins would be admitting that there is a purgatory).

1 Cor. 3:17 - but this verse proves that the purgation after death deals with punishing sin. That is, destroying God’s temple is a bad work, which is a mortal sin, which leads to death. 1 Cor. 3:14,15,17 - purgatory thus reveals the state of righteousness (v.14), state of venial sin (v.15) and the state of mortal sin (v.17), all of which are judged after death.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter refers to this purgatorial fire to test the fruits of our faith.

Again lots of assumption that does make sense to me… so thank you… can I ask a serius honest question… why didnt God and the early church writers make it so much clearer to understand the truth rather then leaving it up to interpret. Why couldnt they just explain purgatory or the assumption of Mary in detail… you see, the protestants and others can debate back and forth all these very same issues with their reasoning. Why isnt the bible so much more clearer and less cryptic in describing purgatory, assumption of Mary, the need to confess mortal sins to a priest for salvation (yet mentions salvation only thru Christ in other parts, etc)

 

[steved12345]

Well, now you can’t say that purgatory and Mary’s assumption aren’t in the Bible.

No the eact mention of it in detail is not in the bible… it is left open to assumption of what it means. Why couldnt God be more clearer and state exactly what it meant… But I do see your reasoning behind all of these verses. and this makes it clearer to me as to why the catholic religion beleives these to be truths.

 

[Nicea325]

Indeed.

And I would add…where does Jesus teach:

-having a steeple on your church?
-having a wedding on a beach?
-altar calls?
-folding your hands when praying to God?
-Wednesday evening Bible studies?

All of those have been added to Christians’ practices…yet none are in the Bible.

Exactly! The funny thing about “Bible-Only” Christians is that they attack Catholics for man-made teachings/traditions and yet they themselves are full of them too. Go figure.

 

[PRmerger]

Why couldnt God be more clearer and state exactly what it meant.

Because the Bible was never meant to be a full compendium of the faith.

That’s a rule you’ve been duped into believing.

God left us a Church to be the full compendium of the faith. It is, as you know, the pillar and foundation of Truth (see 1 Tim 3:15).

 

[steved12345]

Exactly! The funny thing about “Bible-Only” Christians is that they attack Catholics for man-made teachings/traditions and yet they themselves are full of them too. Go figure.

I got to agree with you there !!! Why couldnt God make this so much more easier for all to understand… .all seem to love Jesus and want to love God.

thanks again for all your help… It makes more sense to me know the “reason” behind the teachings - back up by biblical writings. I may not sincerely beleive whole heartly yet. but I see the reasoning behind it all… and love your analogy that if I beleive in the NT and who told us the NT was inspired by God (catholic leaders), then i really am in no position to question other church teachings that do have some sound reasoning behind it (as you mention in your examples).

 

[Nicea325]

Because the Bible was never meant to be a full compendium of the faith.

That’s a rule you’ve been duped into believing.

God left us a Church to be the full compendium of the faith. It is, as you know, the pillar and foundation of Truth (see 1 Tim 3:15).

Isn’t is amazing how 1 Tim 3:15 is rarely quoted by Sola Scriptura advocates?

 

[Nicea325]

I got to agree with you there !!! Why couldnt God make this so much more easier for all to understand… .all seem to love Jesus and want to love God.

thanks again for all your help… It makes more sense to me know the “reason” behind the teachings - back up by biblical writings. I may not sincerely beleive whole heartly yet. but I see the reasoning behind it all… and love your analogy that if I beleive in the NT and who told us the NT was inspired by God (catholic leaders), then i really am in no position to question other church teachings that do have some sound reasoning behind it (as you mention in your examples).

Conversion of mind and heart is an on-going life time process my friend. We are not a faith of instant gratification.

 

[steved12345]

Isn’t is amazing how 1 Tim 3:15 is rarely quoted by Sola Scriptura advocates?

Actually they do mention it… they just claim the catholic are now teaching false doctorine that the early church leaders never taught… They state that from the Passage you wrote that " Every believer is to bring honor to God but it is especially important for church leaders to provide stellar example of faith in action. - Paul was writing to Timothy here on conduct he should follow in teaching the church.

you see this all adds to my confusion… the catholic interpretation on some passages in the bible differs now then other christian denominations - based on what the early church teaches taught. Other christain denomination are saying that the catholic religion today inteprets scripture differently today then exactly what early church leaders taught and believe. (thus why I guess they broke away from the catholic faith).

In any case, I do not want to debate… .I want to thank everyone, especially PR for their help. I understand the reasoning behind the catholic church doctorine that I have some confusion of belief on… with Jesus help and understanding, I am sure he will show me the path of truth.

God Bless

 

[Nicea325]

Actually they do mention it… they just claim the catholic are now teaching false doctorine that the early church leaders never taught… They state that from the Passage you wrote that " Every believer is to bring honor to God but it is especially important for church leaders to provide stellar example of faith in action.

you see this all adds to my confusion… the catholic interpretation on some passages in the bible differs now then other christian denominations - based on what the early church teaches taught

Ah no my friend! Who you are going to believe? Pastors who are living 2,000 years separated from Christ or the very men who lived much closer to Christ and have passed on orthodox teachings down 2,000 years? You decide.

 

[Denise1957]

Again lots of assumption that does make sense to me… so thank you… can I ask a serius honest question… why didnt God and the early church writers make it so much clearer to understand the truth rather then leaving it up to interpret. Why couldnt they just explain purgatory or the assumption of Mary in detail… you see, the protestants and others can debate back and forth all these very same issues with their reasoning. Why isnt the bible so much more clearer and less cryptic in describing purgatory, assumption of Mary, the need to confess mortal sins to a priest for salvation (yet mentions salvation only thru Christ in other parts, etc)

Regarding Purgatory, there is a website that compiles some of the writings of the early Church’s view of Purgatory, though I’m not sure if Purgatory is mentioned specifically, but it does give a view that Purgatory existed in the minds of the early Church Fathers:

scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

(Scroll down about halfway way down the page to view the writings of the early Church).

 

[JustaServant]

Steve, maybe this will help you:

One of the areas of Church history that has always fascinated me is the study of New Testament era chronology.
Protestants act as if the Bible was written like a modern novel. Starting with Matthew on. However, the writing of the New Testament was not that cut and dry.
As one puts together a timeline of Church history, including in that works written that are not included in the New Testament, one must reach a conclusion that the early Church was indeed Catholic.
By the time the Gospel of John was written for example, the Church was already 50 years old (which forces a Catholic view of John 6). But more importantly, the Christians that lived at the time all have very Catholic views. Not a Baptist among them.
I have concocted a timeline here deliberately within a 100 year period between the Resurrection of Christ to Justin Martyr (roughly 33 to 133 AD.) Think of it from World War 2 on. There are people still alive to remember the events.
I do not claim this timeline to be exact, but its pretty close:

c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians
c. 50-53 - Paul’s second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s -** Mark** written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 60-70 - The Didache is written.
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century -** 1, 2, and 3 John**
95- The Epistle of Clement is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
c. 105- The Epistles of Ignatius are written as he heads for Rome for execution.
c. 105-125- The Epistle of Polycarp is written.
c. 125-130- The Letter to Diognetus is written.
c. 125-130- The Epistle of Aristides is written.
c. 130- The Martyrdom of Polycarp is written.
c. 130-150- The Shepherd of Hermas is written.
c.100-165- The writings of Justin Martyr, much of it written in the 130s.

**Within a 100 year **period, the Church looks alful Catholic

Happy reading.

 

[steved12345]

Steve, maybe this will help you:

One of the areas of Church history that has always fascinated me is the study of New Testament era chronology.
Protestants act as if the Bible was written like a modern novel. Starting with Matthew on. However, the writing of the New Testament was not that cut and dry.
As one puts together a timeline of Church history, including in that works written that are not included in the New Testament, one must reach a conclusion that the early Church was indeed Catholic.
By the time the Gospel of John was written for example, the Church was already 50 years old (which forces a Catholic view of John 6). But more importantly, the Christians that lived at the time all have very Catholic views. Not a Baptist among them.
I have concocted a timeline here deliberately within a 100 year period between the Resurrection of Christ to Justin Martyr (roughly 33 to 133 AD.) Think of it from World War 2 on. There are people still alive to remember the events.
I do not claim this timeline to be exact, but its pretty close:

c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians
c. 50-53 - Paul’s second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s -** Mark** written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 60-70 - The Didache is written.
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century -** 1, 2, and 3 John**
95- The Epistle of Clement is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
c. 105- The Epistles of Ignatius are written as he heads for Rome for execution.
c. 105-125- The Epistle of Polycarp is written.
c. 125-130- The Letter to Diognetus is written.
c. 125-130- The Epistle of Aristides is written.
c. 130- The Martyrdom of Polycarp is written.
c. 130-150- The Shepherd of Hermas is written.
c.100-165- The writings of Justin Martyr, much of it written in the 130s.

**Within a 100 year **period, the Church looks alful Catholic

Happy reading.

Thank you so much - iam exciting to get started reading the non NT writings as those I am not familar with (and could be the missing link for me)… i guess the challenge I have is I stopped reading after the book of revelation. I guess I need to read those Epistles you listed. Question - why didnt the church include these Epistles as part of the NT ?

 

[Nicea325]

Thank you so much - iam exciting to get started reading the non NT writings as those I am not familar with (and could be the missing link for me)… i guess the challenge I have is I stopped reading after the book of revelation. I guess I need to read those Epistles you listed. Question - why didnt the church include these Epistles as part of the NT ?

For a lot of long and complex reasons.

 

[JustaServant]

Thank you so much… i guess the challenge I have is I stopped reading after the book of revelation. I guess I need to read those Epistles you listed. Question - why didnt the church include these Epistles as part of the NT ?

The canon of Scripture was not decided until around the 4th century. And there were specific criteria they used. But takes us off topic from the OP. Feel free to start a thread asking that question.

 

[PRmerger]

Question - why didnt the church include these Epistles as part of the NT ?

Because they contained things that were not taught by Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Tradition came first. Then the Church put into a codex all the writings which supported the doctrines already proclaimed by the Church.

 

[Third_Day]

=steved12345;10611800]But everyone but Jesus sins.

Not everyone commits “mortal” sins. Everyone commits venial sins. We need to focus on these mortal sins you are talking about.

And this does not me you and I do not love Jesus.

Do you believe that there is such a thing as a mortal and a venial sin?

Until we get to heaven we have a sinful nature. And battle between our spirit and fleshly desire. So what you responded is not accurate or even compassionate.

The sinful nature doesn’t lead one to commit adultery or fornication. The sinful nature that is attracted to mortal sins is conquered by God’s grace.

I recognize my sin nature. And try and work hard not to continuie to sin. I do it for my love of Jesus over catholic church rules… Yet I do make sure o follow church rules and go to confession when this happens.

But if you are continuing to commit “mortal” sins then you are continuing to reject God’s grace. You need to make a real commitment.

And to think a loving God would send me to hell because I am confused and seeking thr truth - and may question certain man made rules of the catholic faith.

WHy are you confused? What “man-made” rules are you talking about?

Where does it say you go to hell for committing a mortal sin.

Paul continually says that Christians that commit sins like adultery, fornication, theft etc will not “inherit the kingdom of God.” That is Paul saying you will go to hell for those unrepentant sins. Read Jude 1 :7. Those people are in eternal fire for committing immoral acts thus mortal sins

Where does it clrearly define mowhat mortsal sin is in the bible.

Start with the Ten Commandments.

Where does it say or where and whom did St Paul confess his sins too. Why didn’t Paul or even Peter write about this in their letters ?

They would have confessed their sins to those whom they ordained. The bible wasn’t meant to give every single detail. The book of Acts covers decades yet it can be read in a few hours.

See why I am confused… I know the bible , I am catholic. And question some of its rules… Where in bible does it say Maty was assumed after death into heaven.

.Revelation 12

Where does it explain the catholic doctorine of purgatory ?

1 Corinthians 3: 11-15

So my question is according to the ctholic church teaching and rulkes. Am I going to hell

If you die and you are not in the state of grace then yes. God will be the final judge but I would advise that you get a spiritual advisor at your local parish and resolve all your issues and finally open up your heart totally to God’s grace

 

[DavidWJackson]

Just to be clear: we are not certain who the inspired author of Hebrews is. It does not appear to be St. Paul, according to most Scripture scholars.

Incidentally, the questionable authorship ought to be very, very troubling to those who reject the authority of the CC.

For if one does not know who wrote Hebrews, how does he know that he was inspired? How does he know if the author actually witnessed the Resurrection or spoke with those who did?

The answer for Catholics is: we don’t know. That’s why we submit to the authority of the CC to discern for us that this book is indeed* theopneustos.*

Not to brow beat, but to justify my use as St. Paul as the author. The Eastren Catholic Church has held on to Paul as the author to this date since the second century. The Latin Rite Church was just fine with this from the forth century until the fifteen hundreds. As you say, it now does not appear to be St. Paul according to most Scripture scholars. I find no fault with going with Catholic Church tradition as St. Paul being the author of Hebrews until the whole of the Catholic Church doctrinally says otherwise. And, to placre the whole of the book of Hebrews in question after about seventeen hundred years of inclusion in the Christian cannon is pretty bold. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.
As for sin, even mortal sin being a complete exclusion factor from Heaven, hog wash. Did anyone who ever missed a Holy day of obligation just waste their time in confession?

 

[PRmerger]

Not to brow beat, but to justify my use as St. Paul as the author. The Eastren Catholic Church has held on to Paul as the author to this date since the second century.

Could you provide your source for this, please?

The Latin Rite Church was just fine with this from the forth century until the fifteen hundreds.

Source for this as well, please.

I find no fault with going with Catholic Church tradition as St. Paul being the author of Hebrews until the whole of the Catholic Church doctrinally says otherwise.

Source for this, too! Where has the CC tradition proclaimed St. Paul to be the author?

I am not necessarily doubting the reliability of this. I just don’t know. Haven’t read anywhere where the Church has declared St. Paul to be the author of Hebrews.

 

[PRmerger]

And, to placre the whole of the book of Hebrews in question after about seventeen hundred years of inclusion in the Christian cannon is pretty bold.

David, it would help if you learned to use all the quote features so we know to what you are addressing specifically.

As such, I am quite perplexed about the above comment and to whom it was directed.

As for sin, even mortal sin being a complete exclusion factor from Heaven, hog wash. Did anyone who ever missed a Holy day of obligation just waste their time in confession?

As well as this. What comment prompts this response of yours?

 

[Harry1941]

Out of all the doctrines in the Christian Church, the doctrine of charity is the greatest.

Harry