Name 3 reasons you are not Catholic (yet).

[Mannyfit75]

The holy and great Synod therefore says, that the only begotten Son, born according to nature of God the Father, very God of very God, Light of Light, by whom the Father made all things, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven. These words and these decrees we ought to follow, considering what is meant by the Word of God being incarnate and made man. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was called the Son of Man, not merely as willing or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a person, but because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union. So then he who had an existence before all ages and was born of the Father, is said to have been born according to the flesh of a woman, not as though his divine nature received its beginning of existence in the holy Virgin, for it needed not any second generation after that of the Father (for it would be absurd and foolish to say that he who existed before all ages, coeternal with the Father, needed any second beginning of existence), but since, for us and for our salvation, he personally united to himself an human body, and came forth of a woman, he is in this way said to be born after the flesh; for he was not first born a common man of the holy Virgin, and then the Word came down and entered into him, but the union being made in the womb itself, he is said to endure a birth after the flesh, ascribing to himself the birth of his own flesh.

 

[Mannyfit75]

On this account we say that he suffered and rose again; not as if God the Word suffered in his own nature stripes, or the piercing of the nails, or any other wounds, for the Divine nature is incapable of suffering, inasmuch as it is incorporeal, but since that which had become his own body suffered in this way, he is also said to suffer for us; for he who is in himself incapable of suffering was in a suffering body. In the same manner also we conceive respecting his dying; for the Word of God is by nature immortal and incorruptible, and life and life-giving; since, however, his own body did, as Paul says, by the grace of God taste death for every man, he himself is said to have suffered death for us, not as if he had any experience of death in his own nature (for it would be madness to say or think this), but because, as I have just said, his flesh tasted death. In like manner his flesh being raised again, it is spoken of as his resurrection, not as if he had fallen into corruption (God forbid), but because his own body was raised again. We, therefore, confess one Christ and Lord, not as worshipping. a man with the Word (lest this expression “with the Word” should suggest to the mind the idea of division), but worshipping him as one and the same, forasmuch as the body of the Word, with which he sits with the Father, is not separated from the Word himself, not as if two sons were sitting with him, but one by the union with the flesh. If, however, we reject the personal union as impossible or unbecoming, we fall into the error of speaking of two sons, for it will be necessary to distinguish, and to say, that he who was properly man was honoured with the appellation of Son, and that he who is properly the Word of God, has by nature both the name and the reality of Sonship. We must not, therefore, divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into two Sons. Neither will it at all avail to a sound faith to hold, as some do, an union of persons; for the Scripture has not said that the Word united to himself the person of man, but that he was made flesh.

This expression, however, “the Word was made flesh,” can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin, the Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word being personally united is said to be born according to the flesh. These things, therefore, I now write unto you for the love of Christ, beseeching you as a brother, and testifying to you before Christ and the elect angels, that you would both think and teach these things with us, that the peace of the Churches may be preserved and the bond of concord and love continue unbroken amongst the Priests of God.

newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

Today, Catholics, Orthodoxs and some Protestants affirmed that Mary is the Mother of God (Second Person of the Trinity). Most Evangelicals Christians have a difficult understanding of this because their minds are finite and not infinite. I don’t understand it either. Just as the Council of Jerusalem said that Gentile cannot be circumcised, so in this Council I trust the Church guided by the Holy Spirit to teach all Truths.

I also like to state that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth stated in 1 Tim 3:15.

 

[Mannyfit75]

In the Douy Rheims it states,
1 Tim 3:15

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Commentary: 15 “The pillar and ground of the truth”… Therefore the church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry.

 

[Mannyfit75]

sam:

1. To God ALL sins are bad and they are all equal.)

Perhaps you overlook one passage in 1 John 5:16-17.

16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a** sin unto death**: for that I say not that any man ask. 17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

RSV Bible 1 John 5:16-17

16] If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. [17] All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal

Sin which is not to death is venial according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. When John said, “there is a sin unto death” this sin is mortal.

Sins are not equal. All sin is wrongdoing but like John said, there is sin which is not mortal, or serious. This sin is venial.

 

[smolderingwick]

LutheranDK:
It would take me a long time to answer all these issues. It would be better for you to attend an RCIA class at a good Catholic Church. I know u probably don’t feel inclined to do that because you may be like a lot of people i know (self included) who don’t want to undergo any changes in their beliefs… it may cause confusion and none of us wants to be confused… We all want to be sure of what we believe in…
Even so, most people teaching RCIA know & teach the TRUE Catholic faith (not all, unfortunately) & can answer these questions and any others you have.
One thing though: Mary and the saints are not “dead”. They are in Heaven. Even if some of the saints went through Purgatory, most are out of there by now…
PUrgatory is not mentioned by that name in the Scriptures but the concept of a place of purging of our sins is… 1 Cor. 3:13- , Matthew 12:32 (forgiveness in the “next age”), Matt . 18:23, etc…
Saints are just human beings who overcame satan as we are called to do… We pray to them because they can relate to our struggles… and help us (if in no other way than to just be our friends/companions along this narrow way…)
I have answers for everything u bring up, but don’t have much more time here and now…
God bless…

 

[Bennie_P]

1. I am a Lutheran pastor and I have yet to be convinced that Lutheranism is less valid than Catholicism.
2. I have some difficulties with Marian devotion – this does not mean that I have a problem with honoring Mary as the Mother of God.
3. The Lutheran pastor who confirmed me (some 50 years ago) would roll over in his grave if I became a Catholic. On the other hand, he’s probably rolling over anyway because I even speak civilly to Catholics.:bigyikes:

Well, that’s two serious reasons and one that really did affect my view of Catholicism for many years. I now am committed to working to increase understanding between Lutherans and Catholics – a challenge at times as I know some Lutherans who remain very anti-Catholic (and I’ve run across a few of their Catholic counterparts, too).

God’s blessing to you, brothers and sisters in Christ.

For Reason # 2 may I suggest that you read this article FYI
**Evangelicals and the Mother of God :yup: **

Reason # 3 that Pastor is most likely praying for your conversion right now, why do you think you have been lead to CAF?
**The Communion of Saints:angel1: **

As for reason # 1 we do have a priest shortage.
How Newman Convinced me of the Apostolicity of the Catholic Church

Understanding each other is Good. :grouphug:

 

[guanophore]

Abraham was with the Old Covenant, set by God. Mary is part of the New. The New Covenant standard was set by Jesus: all have sinned, all need a Savior. Jesus died for the virgin who said “let it be according to Your will.” It was God’s Will that His Messiah be born from a virgin. (Look it up in the Old Testament)

Mary was not part of the New Covenant. She was born under the old covenant. The new covenant was not established until the last supper, and the consummation at the crucifixion.

She was saved just as Abraham was, by grace, through faith, demonstrated in her works!

It was NOT God’s Will to “lift up” the virgin; that’s man’s idea.

Does that mean you believe this part of scripture is “man’s idea” and not inspired by the HS?!

Luke 1:45-55
45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." 46 And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; 49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation. 51 He has shown strength with his arm,he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, 52 he has put down the mighty from their thrones,and exalted those of low degree; 53 he has filled the hungry with good things,and the rich he has sent empty away. 54 He has helped his servant Israel,in remembrance of his mercy, 55 as he spoke to our fathers,to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.”

Or do you think that Mary is speaking of someone else when she says “exalted those of low degree”?

 

[Lively_Stone]

PUrgatory is not mentioned by that name in the Scriptures but the concept of a place of purging of our sins is… 1 Cor. 3:13- , Matthew 12:32 (forgiveness in the “next age”), Matt . 18:23, etc…
Saints are just human beings who overcame satan as we are called to do… We pray to them because they can relate to our struggles… and help us (if in no other way than to just be our friends/companions along this narrow way…)

I will never get used to this line of thinking. It so foreign to everything I hold sacred. My King James Bible does not say the above, and it comes from majority Byzantine text of over 5,000 text and your Bible comes from the minority Alexandrian, Vaticanus text of around 44 text making up only less than 1% of the extant text in existance. How can one justify not using the Majority text. The minority text does not even agree with each other and were corrupted by the likes of Origen that believed Joseph was the litteral father of Jesus. He was a gnostic. He also loved Platonism. How can you get Holy Scripture from corrupt text?

Purgatory is not mentioned in scripture because it is not true.
The book of Revelation says we wil be judged for our sins at the white throne judgement, There would be no need for this judgement if our sins are already purged.

 

[Contarini]

I will never get used to this line of thinking. It so foreign to everything I hold sacred. My King James Bible does not say the above,

Doesn’t say what? It says “world to come” instead of “next age”–is that what you are talking about? What difference does it make?

and it comes from majority Byzantine text of over 5,000 text

The text here doesn’t make any difference. The Textus Receptus reads: "oute en toutw tw aiwni oute en tw mellonti. which the KJV translates as “neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”

Or are you thinking of another passage?

and your Bible comes from the minority Alexandrian, Vaticanus text of around 44 text making up only less than 1% of the extant text in existance. How can one justify not using the Majority text.

Because textual criticism is not a democratic process!

However, this is somewhat of a red herring–there are Catholic versions based on the Textus Receptus and others based on the more modern critical text. The Catholic Church certainly does not condemn textual criticism, but I don’t think a Catholic would get in trouble for relying on the majority text. Generally speaking, the KJV argument has a lot in common with Catholicism in its emphasis on the preservation of the text. In fact, it was reading KJV-only polemic that convinced me of the folly of the “inerrant autograph” view and began to push me toward a more Catholic understanding of the role of Scripture.

The minority text does not even agree with each other

Nor do the manuscripts falling into the “majority” tradition.

and were corrupted by the likes of Origen that believed Joseph was the litteral father of Jesus.

No, he didn’t.

He was a gnostic.

Define “gnostic.” He believed that God the Father created the world and inspired the Old Testament, and he believed in the literal birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus, so by my definition he was not a Gnostic. But you may be defining the term differently.

He also loved Platonism.

That’s true.

How can you get Holy Scripture from corrupt text?

You are exaggerating Origen’s role, and you have not proven that he corrupted the text. I have read the arguments and they are unsound.

BTW, I did answer your post on Gothic in its own thread, but it may be best to let the debate drop!

Edwin

 

[Ahimsa]

[Origen] was a gnostic.

Now I’ve heard everything.

 

[MHalsey]

Some days, I feel on the verge of that myself.

I often suspect the Roman Church of, in effect, substituting the Virgin Mary for the Holy Spirit. After Augustine reduced the Holy Spirit to a kind of by-product of love between the Father and the Son (instead of a Person who proceeds from the Father only), there didn’t seem to be much role for the Holy Spirit in the Western Church. Roman Catholics claim that is not true. Yet, have you ever noticed how infrequently the Three Persons of the Trinity --Father, Son and Holy Spirit-- are mentioned in the Roman Catholic Mass ?

Hmm, Let’s see:

Beginning of Mass, celebrant, “we begin in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

The Gloria:
…You alone are the Holy One, You alone are the Lord, You alone are the Most High, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen

Concluding the opening prayer
We ask you this, through our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever. Amen.

The Creed:
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, and with the Father and Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.

Liturgy of the Eucharist.
And so Father we bring You these gifts.Make them Holy by the power of Your Spirit.

Final Blessing:
May the Lord bless you, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Yeah, the Holy Spirit is never mentioned at Mass.

I may have missed a few references, anyone care to add some?

 

[water]

Hmm, Let’s see:

I may have missed a few references, anyone care to add some?

Thanks for pointing out that the Holy Spirit mentioned in the Mass.

In fact, the Holy Spirit mentioned throughout the mass.

adding to your list, we also have prayers that ending with the Trinity. We also make the Cross. We also make the Cross to our forhead, mouth, and chest.

What else can we do without the Holy Spirit.
harmon3110, We are not subsituting Virgin Mary for the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Hmm, Let’s see:

Yeah, the Holy Spirit is never mentioned at Mass.

I may have missed a few references, anyone care to add some?

I think you got them all.

Off course there are also the Scripture Readings… So the Scripture Readings may also mention the Holy Spirit. It just depends on what the reading is for today.

This link will show the daily Scripture Readings: usccb.org/nab/index.shtml

Of course anyone can see for themselves the wording for the Mass via this link: catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Mass.htm

And if anyone really wanted to know why Catholic use the words they do use during the Mass they can check out this link: catholic-resources.org/Bible/Biblical_Mass_Texts.htm (Note how the words come from Scripture)

It just might surprise you how much of the Catholic Mass actually comes from Scripture.

 

[Contarini]

Nevertheless, I often suspect the Roman Church of, in effect, substituting the Virgin Mary for the Holy Spirit. After Augustine reduced the Holy Spirit to a kind of by-product of love between the Father and the Son (instead of a Person who proceeds from the Father only), there didn’t seem to be much role for the Holy Spirit in the Western Church. Roman Catholics claim that is not true. Yet, have you ever noticed how infrequently the Three Persons of the Trinity --Father, Son and Holy Spirit-- are mentioned in the Roman Catholic Mass ? (I didn’t notice that till I attended the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the usual form of worship in the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church and in the Orthodox Church.) .

Presumably you also noticed how often the Virgin Mary is mentioned: “O Theotokos, save us,” etc. The Eastern Liturgy is a lot wordier–everything gets mentioned more. The Western Liturgy doesn’t mention the BVM anywhere near as often as the East does–most Western Marian piety is extraliturgical.

For me, Mary is very much a factor that attracts me to Catholicism rather than repelling me, so I have trouble sympathizing with your sentiments here, although at one time I would have done so.

I can’t see that Catholicism downplays the Holy Spirit. I hear about the Holy Spirit all the time from Catholics. I think one mistake of Pentecostals (not that you are a Pentecostal) is thinking that the Holy Spirit has to be emphasized in His own right. I remember Gordon Fee, the great Pentecostal Biblical scholar, saying in a talk at Duke that Catholics had subsumed the Spirit under the Church and Protestants under Scripture. This seems like exactly the right thing to do, to me. Both Scripture and Church are products of the Holy Spirit. That makes the Holy Spirit pretty important!

Edwin

Edwin

 

[Lively_Stone]

Doesn’t say what? It says “world to come” instead of “next age”–is that what you are talking about? What difference does it make?

I really was concered about the teaching of purgatory. It seem you read between the lines a bit much.

The text here doesn’t make any difference. The Textus Receptus reads: "oute en toutw tw aiwni oute en tw mellonti. which the KJV translates as “neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”

Word and age are two different words with two different meanings.

Or are you thinking of another passage?

Because textual criticism is not a democratic process!

That is one major differerence between you and I. I don’t believe in textual critisism of the Holy Bible. God wrote what He wrote to correct us not for you or anyone else to correct Him. If there is no preserved word of God that is infallable then we have no standard and God could not preserve His word as He said He would do through divine inspiration. Just anyone these days writes a Bible and thinks himself a higher critic… Over 200 English versions and rising.

However, this is somewhat of a red herring–there are Catholic versions based on the Textus Receptus and others based on the more modern critical text. The Catholic Church certainly does not condemn textual criticism, but I don’t think a Catholic would get in trouble for relying on the majority text. Generally speaking, the KJV argument has a lot in common with Catholicism in its emphasis on the preservation of the text. In fact, it was reading KJV-only polemic that convinced me of the folly of the “inerrant autograph” view and began to push me toward a more Catholic understanding of the role of Scripture.

That sure is a lot of confusion, and we all know who causes that.

I believe textual criticism condemns itself, by men believing they know more than God. All higher criticism does is destroy faith by making people doubt that there is a Bible that is true and reliable and then they must rely on some other source or man that is the opinion of man to recieve the Word Of The Lord.

Nor do the manuscripts falling into the “majority” tradition.

No, he didn’t.

Define “gnostic.” He believed that God the Father created the world and inspired the Old Testament, and he believed in the literal birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus, so by my definition he was not a Gnostic. But you may be defining the term differently.

GNOS’TIC, n. nostic. [L. gnosticus; Gr. to know.]
The Gnostics were a sect of philosophers that arose in the first ages of christianity, who pretended they were the only men who had a true knowledge of the christian religion. They formed for themselves a system of theology, agreeable to the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato, to which they accommodated their interpretations of scripture. They held that all natures, intelligible, intellectual and material, are derived by successive emanations from the infinite fountain of deity. These emanations they called oeons. These doctrines were derived from the oriental philosophy.

That’s true.

You are exaggerating Origen’s role, and you have not proven that he corrupted the text. I have read the arguments and they are unsound.

You are underestimating his role.

BTW, I did answer your post on Gothic in its own thread, but it may be best to let the debate drop!

I answered your Gothic request on this forum since your challenge was on this forum. Thought I did a good job and proved to you where the English language had its origens and that the Goths were much older than you thought.
Edwin

I see that anything I say will be challenged by you. All I can say is look it up for yourself. I was talking about the fact there is not a single reference to doctrine of purgatory in the word of God… Someone made that up. I sure you as a semi-Catholic know who. I don’t know and I don’t care who made it up. It is simply wrong to think you can spend your life sinning, spend some time in purgatory and then get a free pass to to pass go. My Bible doesn’t say that.

Which manuscript from the Textus Receptus are you refering to. Erasmus’s Greek or what. I believe the majority text to be correct and the minority text to be corrupt and no argument will change my mind. I’ve research it and that is my final conclusion. Do you have access to the text you quote. If so which ones.

 

[water]

It is simply wrong to think you can spend your life sinning, spend some time in purgatory and then get a free pass to to pass go

. My Bible doesn’t say that.

The Catholic church doesn’t teach that either; it looks to me you got it from someone who doesn’t know what Catholics actually teaches.

I completely understand that you don’t believe it and don’t know about it; however, when you say you don’t know, then you might want to read about what Catholics believe before you think you know what we believe.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a “purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven,” which is experienced by those “who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified” (CCC 1030). It notes that “this final purification of the elect . . . is entirely different from the punishment of the damned” (CCC 1031).

see part in bold

read the rest here: catholic.com/library/purgatory.asp

 

[Contarini]

I see that anything I say will be challenged by you.

For a guy on a debate forum (maintaining a position strongly opposed to the one that dominates the forum) you have a very thin skin. Yes, I disagree with you theologically about as much as it’s possible for one Trinitarian Christian to disagree with another! That doesn’t mean that I have anything against you personally. But if you express opinions that I think are way off base, I’m going to say so. Feel free to do the same.

All I can say is look it up for yourself.

Look what up? I have studied these matters already. It is rude to assume that the people you are talking to are ignorant. If you make assertions, you need to be prepared to defend them.

I was talking about the fact there is not a single reference to doctrine of purgatory in the word of God…

You were given several passages. Suppose you discuss them as you find them in the KJV?

Someone made that up. I sure you as a semi-Catholic know who.

Read Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory. He defines the term a bit too narrowly, but it’s basically a good book. I also recommend this article by Jerry Walls, a Methodist theologian/philosopher and professor at Asbury, defending the idea of Purgatory from a Catholic point of view (and I know for a fact that Walls has no intention whatever of ever becoming Catholic–he doesn’t find Roman Catholicism persuasive at all).

I don’t know and I don’t care who made it up. It is simply wrong to think you can spend your life sinning, spend some time in purgatory and then get a free pass to to pass go. My Bible doesn’t say that.

So you do not believe someone can repent toward the end of their life? How soon before one’s death must a sinner repent in order to be forgiven by God? A month? A year? Ten years?

By denying that someone can repent after a lifetime of sin, aren’t you denying God’s grace and teaching salvation by works?

If you think that Purgatory in Catholic theology is for people who have not repented of their sins in life (although they may have waited until the very moment of death), then you completely misunderstand it.

Which manuscript from the Textus Receptus are you refering to.

In which part of my post? My quotation was from an online text that claims to be the Textus Receptus (it’s on a Messianic Jewish website). I don’t know which manuscripts. My remarks about the majority text disagreeing within itself referred to the Byzantine tradition that lies behind Erasmus and pretty much every other version until the late 19th century.

I believe the majority text to be correct and the minority text to be corrupt and no argument will change my mind.

Well, that’s as may be. But I’m still going to challenge you when you make false claims. Perhaps someone less confirmed in error will read the discussion and see the flaws of the fundamentalist position. You never know.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Techno2000]

PUrgatory is not mentioned by that name in the Scriptures but the concept of a place of purging of our sins is… 1 Cor. 3:13- , Matthew 12:32 (forgiveness in the “next age”), Matt . 18:23, etc…
Saints are just human beings who overcame satan as we are called to do… We pray to them because they can relate to our struggles… and help us (if in no other way than to just be our friends/companions along this narrow way…)

I will never get used to this line of thinking. It so foreign to everything I hold sacred. My King James Bible does not say the above, and it comes from majority Byzantine text of over 5,000 text and your Bible comes from the minority Alexandrian, Vaticanus text of around 44 text making up only less than 1% of the extant text in existance. How can one justify not using the Majority text. The minority text does not even agree with each other and were corrupted by the likes of Origen that believed Joseph was the litteral father of Jesus. He was a gnostic. He also loved Platonism. How can you get Holy Scripture from corrupt text?

Purgatory is not mentioned in scripture because it is not true.
The book of Revelation says we wil be judged for our sins at the white throne judgement, There would be no need for this judgement if our sins are already purged.

46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. - 2 Machabees 12:46

 

[Lively_Stone]

For a guy on a debate forum (maintaining a position strongly opposed to the one that dominates the forum) you have a very thin skin. Yes, I disagree with you theologically about as much as it’s possible for one Trinitarian Christian to disagree with another! That doesn’t mean that I have anything against you personally. But if you express opinions that I think are way off base, I’m going to say so. Feel free to do the same.

Look what up? I have studied these matters already. It is rude to assume that the people you are talking to are ignorant. If you make assertions, you need to be prepared to defend them.

You were given several passages. Suppose you discuss them as you find them in the KJV?

Read Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory. He defines the term a bit too narrowly, but it’s basically a good book. I also recommend this article by Jerry Walls, a Methodist theologian/philosopher and professor at Asbury, defending the idea of Purgatory from a Catholic point of view (and I know for a fact that Walls has no intention whatever of ever becoming Catholic–he doesn’t find Roman Catholicism persuasive at all).

So you do not believe someone can repent toward the end of their life? How soon before one’s death must a sinner repent in order to be forgiven by God? A month? A year? Ten years?

By denying that someone can repent after a lifetime of sin, aren’t you denying God’s grace and teaching salvation by works?

If you think that Purgatory in Catholic theology is for people who have not repented of their sins in life (although they may have waited until the very moment of death), then you completely misunderstand it.

In which part of my post? My quotation was from an online text that claims to be the Textus Receptus (it’s on a Messianic Jewish website). I don’t know which manuscripts. My remarks about the majority text disagreeing within itself referred to the Byzantine tradition that lies behind Erasmus and pretty much every other version until the late 19th century.

Well, that’s as may be. But I’m still going to challenge you when you make false claims. Perhaps someone less confirmed in error will read the discussion and see the flaws of the fundamentalist position. You never know.

In Christ,

Edwin

So every thing I say you look it up on the interner and I am suppose to spend all my time on the defensive answering your questions because you don’t agree. No matter what a non, or the great unwashed say on this forum, it is simply going to be dismissed, challenged, ridiculed, debased, debunced, ratted on and opined to death. What an unproductive place this has been. I think I will get on to something more productive with my time. Like studying the word, writing music, worshipping and praying to the Lord Jesus. Thanks to Contrary I now have a lower opiniion of the doctrines of the Catholic Church than ever. I may have a thin skin but his thick head more than makes up for it. This will be my last post. I don’t care for any more of this rediculous bickering that leads to fleshy entanglements and no spiritual enlightenment what so ever. I have learned nothing except Catholics believe they are superior. I pray to God they never get power again like they once had.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Purgatory:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1624412&postcount=6

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1553871&postcount=19