Purgatory, the final santification process from your sins...or your sinful nature?

[Christianapologist]

You may want to check your facts… It wasn’t Peter that closed the Jerusalem meeting… *Acts 15: 13-19: After Paul and Barnabas had finished speaking, James responded, ~~ “Therefore, I have decided that we should not trouble these gentiles who are turning to God. *

 

[Gorgias]

You may want to check your facts…

You may want to check what I wrote.

Let’s go back to the text:

"After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them…

… The whole assembly fell silent." (Acts 15:7, 12)

As I said, Peter’s testimony closes the debate. You know, like as in “when EF Hutton talks, people listen!”…?

And by the way: James didn’t say, “Therefore I have decided…”. He said, “Therefore, I judge that…” (In the original Greek, it’s ἐγὼ κρίνω – “I judge”). You see, they came to James’ “court” – in the Church of Jerusalem – so James presides. If the POTUS walks into a courtroom, he doesn’t automatically become the presiding judge. The person who holds that role, in that jurisdiction, is the judge in that controversy. So, it’s the judge who passes down a ruling… but that doesn’t mean that he is of higher authority than the POTUS. Rather, it’s just that it’s his courtroom that the President has walked into.

 

[Christianapologist]

That wasn’t your statement… let me remind you. You said: “Peter’s testimony is the one that closes the debate at the Council of Jerusalem.”

So, why did you say he closed the debate, when he didn’t …???

 

[joecaro]

So - - where do souls go that have sinned, HELL? Because ALL (with few exceptions) souls are not pure enough to be with God in Heaven. The Immaculate Conception of Mary is a good example of a ‘sinless’ soul that would go to Heaven. Just a few small sins would keep you out of Heaven so your spiritual destination must then be Hell. Without Purgatory, Heaven would be quite a lonely place don’t you think? Perhaps what was once called Last Rites would forgive all remaining sins (if you happen to be seeing a Catholic Priest at the time of your demise) otherwise, you have left this mortal coil with sin on your soul - if you can’t go to heaven there is no other option except Hell!
Do you think God would be so narrow-minded?

 

[joecaro]

Oh, by the way . . . Before the sacrifice of Jesus, Original Sin existed from the Adam and Eve days. Are you saying that all of the souls of good people and saintly Jews (the chosen people) were all destined to go to hell without a chance of reprieve? To be in Heaven there can be no hint of sin and you can’t bring any with you. The punishment of Hell is quite permanent without release EVER! You can never be in the presence of God (which I believe, is hell itself) . So where did the TENS OF MILLIONS of Jews and Jewish babies go if not to a place that removes sin. Call it Purgatory or call it Newark, NJ, the end result is the same, you will be allowed in Heaven when your soul is pure.

 

[Gorgias]

That wasn’t your statement… let me remind you. You said: “Peter’s testimony is the one that closes the debate at the Council of Jerusalem.”

So, why did you say he closed the debate, when he didn’t …???

Because that’s what I meant, and it was true. What additional “debate” do you see in Acts 15, following Peter’s speech? All I see is Paul and Barnabas getting up and relating what happened in their experiences among the Gentiles. No debate. No argumentation. Their testimony – which supports Peter’s claims – and then James rules.

So… yeah. I meant what I wrote and I wrote what I meant. And Scripture, in its very words, supports the claim I made.

So - - where do souls go that have sinned, HELL?

Umm… I’m not sure I know why you’re quoting me, here. I’m arguing for purgation…

 

[Christianapologist]

You were trying to support a Petrine office with:

Gorgias: "Peter’s testimony is the one that closes the debate at the Council of Jerusalem.

Scripture: Paul and Barnabas had finish speaking, James responded, therefore I have decided.

Question: How did you get from James making the final closing statement, to “Peter closes the meeting”?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias: "Peter’s testimony is the one that closes the debate at the Council of Jerusalem.

Question: How did you get from James making the final closing statement, to “Peter closes the meeting”?

Counter-question: how is “closes the debate” the same as “closes the meeting”?

(Hint: the answer is “it ain’t.” )

To recap: Peter’s comments silenced the debate; Paul and Barnabas’ testimony supported Peter’s claims; James’ judgment affirmed Peter’s assertions.

 

[Christianapologist]

That’s nice, Peter closes a debate, and James, with his “authority” closes the meeting…
So with your logic… James is the pope…?

and… not reconciled yet:

You: "Peter is the one to whom Paul goes for
approval / assent of his new mission.

Scripture: I went up to Jerusalem to “become
acquainted” with Cephas.

Question: how did you get from become
acquainted to “Paul goes for
approval/assent”…?

 

[Christianapologist]

So, James, with his authority, closes the council of Jerusalem… and using your logic, why then isn’t James a pope, given that he is the leader of the Jerusalem church.?

Gorgias: “Peter’s comments silenced the debate”…

Well, here we go again… here is what scripture says:

Act’s 15:12: *The whole crowd was silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul tell about all the signs and wonders"~ * It wasn’t Peter, it was Barnabas and Paul who silenced the crowd.

And the one you’re avoiding:**

Gorgias: "Peter is the one to whom Paul goes for
approval / assent of his new mission.

Scripture: I went up to Jerusalem to “become acquainted” with
Cephas.

How did you get from “become acquainted”, to Paul “goes for approval/assent”…?

 

[Gorgias]

That’s nice, Peter closes a debate, and James, with his “authority” closes the meeting…
So with your logic… James is the pope…?

Nope. I guess you didn’t read my post:

You see, they came to James’ “court” – in the Church of Jerusalem – so James presides. If the POTUS walks into a courtroom, he doesn’t automatically become the presiding judge. The person who holds that role, in that jurisdiction, is the judge in that controversy. So, it’s the judge who passes down a ruling… but that doesn’t mean that he is of higher authority than the POTUS. Rather, it’s just that it’s his courtroom that the President has walked into.

Scripture: I went up to Jerusalem to “become
acquainted” with Cephas.

Actually… no. Let’s look at the definition of the actual Greek word being used here, according to Strong’s:

2477 historéō (from histōr ) – properly, learn by inquiring (doing a personal examination); to gain knowledge by " visiting " which conducts “a full interview .”

So… Paul goes to Peter to “learn by inquiring” or by “doing a personal examination”, in which he “gains knowledge” by a “full interview” during a (15 day!) visit.

You can spin that as you wish, but a reasonable person might ask the question “why did he go to Peter, of all the Apostles, in order to ‘gain knowledge’ in a 15-day ‘interview’?”

So, James, with his authority, closes the council of Jerusalem… and using your logic, why then isn’t James a pope, given that he is the leader of the Jerusalem church.?

Because he’s the elder in Jerusalem, not the leader of the Church by Jesus’ declaration. The former is what we call a “bishop”, and the latter, “the pope”.

And the one you’re avoiding:**

Not avoiding. Just getting around to it now.

 

[Christianapologist]

In summary: You offered the Petrine office as a defense. My question was: Where does God show He intended a Petrine office?

Gorgias - answered: Mt
16:19.

Mine: - Actually, the keys
were given to all the Apostles. In Jesus own Words: Matt 18:19 “I
tell all of you with certainty”

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias - answered: Mt
16:19.

Mine: - Actually, the keys
were given to all the Apostles. In Jesus own Words: Matt 18:19 “ I
tell all of you with certainty ”

Yes, there were two instances in which Jesus uses “bind and loose” language. They’re not identical, so let’s look at the differences between the two:

Matthew 16

• Context:
  • Peter answers Jesus’ question “who do you say I am?”
  • Jesus affirms that Peter’s answer is divinely inspired.
• Jesus’ assertions:
  • Peter (singular) receives “keys to the kingdom”.
    • Check out your Bible – this is a reference to Isaiah 22:22, in which this is the language that is used to refer to the ‘steward’ of the household, who is given authority in the absence of the king (NB: Jesus isn’t referencing the ‘length of term’ found in Is 22:22; He is citing the office to which Peter is being assigned.)
  • Peter (singular) is given authority to “bind and loose”
• Conclusion:
  • Peter’s authority, given by Christ, is to lead the Church as Jesus’ vicar

Matthew 18

• Context:
  • Jesus is discussing how to deal with a person who is in a state of sin
• Jesus’ assertion:
  • Apostles (plural) are given authority to “bind and loose”
  • no “keys to the kingdom” language
• Conclusion:
  • Jesus is giving authority to the apostles to resolve matters of discipline within the Church

So, two thoughts here:

• you are factually incorrect in stating that “the keys were given to all the apostles.” The reference to the keys only appears in Mt 16, in which Jesus is addressing Peter alone.
• The reference to “binding and loosing” appears both in Mt 16 and Mt 18. In the latter, both the context (disciplinary authority) and audience (all the apostles) are different than in Mt 16.

 

[Christianapologist]

Your assumptions don’t align with the context… once again…

Feel free to show an exegesis, vs. your eisegesis.

Or refer to my summary…

 

[Gorgias]

Your assumptions don’t align with the context…

I provided context. Please demonstrate how it is mistaken. Otherwise, your “exegesis / eisegesis” assertion doesn’t hold up.

Or refer to my summary…

I did. And I pointed out how it doesn’t match the Scriptural text. Or did you miss that part?

 

[Christianapologist]

In short, your opinion contradicts scripture…

1. God’s Word cannot contradict itself, and thus Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.

2. Jesus had an inner circle of church leaders (plural). Galatians 2:9 James and Cephas and John.

3. The beginning of the Church, in “Acts”, and throughout the NT, it only describes a plurality of church leadership: Acts 11:30; Acts 15:2; Acts 15:4; Acts 15:6; Acts 15:22-23; Acts 16:4 and Eph 4:11 - And he ( Jesus ) gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ

4. Jesus’s replacement wasn’t Peter, it was the Holy Spirit. John 14: 16 - The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

**[John 15:26] When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me .

John 16:13-14 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.

5 . Church leaders rely on the Holy Spirit’s direction, not on man’s direction. Phil 3:3; 1 Cor 2:10; 2 Timothy 2:7; 1 Cor 2:4 and, 1 Cor 2:13; And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

6. The Apostles argue over who is the leader: Luke 22:24-30 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest.

7. Matthew’s reference to Petra is reference to Peter the man, who just confessed Jesus as Messiah. Only through a play on words, does is simulate a small stone.

8. Right from Peter: To the Elders and the Flock, To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder 1 Peter 5:1

9. Of the four Gospels, this play on words is not mentioned in Mark, Luke or John.

10 . Peter was rebuked immediately after being called to be a leader in the church: vs 23 - But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me.

11 . God tells us not to trust man. Psalm 146:3 Do not trust in mortal man, in who there is no salvation. Acts 5:29 - Peter and the Apostles replied, we mush obey God rather than human beings . Colossians 3:23-24 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men. 1 Corinthians 2:4 your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God

 

[Gorgias]

In short, your opinion contradicts scripture…

It doesn’t. Let’s look at your assertions…

3. The beginning of the Church, in “Acts”, and throughout the NT, it only describes a plurality of church leadership: Acts 11:30; Acts 15:2; Acts 15:4; Acts 15:6; Acts 15:22-23; Acts 16:4 and Eph 4:11 - And he ( Jesus ) gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ

Are all of these listed as having been granted equal authority? That’s what you’re asserting. Please demonstrate that this is the case.

4. Jesus’s replacement wasn’t Peter, it was the Holy Spirit. John 14: 16 - The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

That the Holy Spirit “teaches” and “reminds” does not usurp Jesus’ grant of authority in Mt 16. If you think it does, please show the evidence.

5 . Church leaders rely on the Holy Spirit’s direction, not on man’s direction.

Fair enough. But, Church leaders are ‘leaders’ who are ‘men’. Their word, when imparted on the Church, is authoritative. Please show otherwise.

6. The Apostles argue over who is the leader: Luke 22:24-30 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest.

The fact that the apostles argued – even in the context of the question of the betrayer! – doesn’t contradict the fact that Jesus had already answered the question of leadership earlier.

7. Matthew’s reference to Petra is reference to Peter the man, who just confessed Jesus as Messiah. Only through a play on words, does is simulate a small stone.

Scriptural scholars generally disagree with you.

8. Right from Peter: To the Elders and the Flock, To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder 1 Peter 5:1

The fact that Peter was a “fellow elder” does not contradict that he was the first among equals.

continued…

 

[Gorgias]

9. Of the four Gospels, this play on words is not mentioned in Mark, Luke or John.

Oh. So… you’re willing to nullify the Word of God in the Gospel of Matthew? OK. I think I understand your perspective better, now.

10 . Peter was rebuked immediately after being called to be a leader in the church: vs 23 - But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me.

The fact that Peter wasn’t perfect doesn’t mean that he didn’t have authority. Jesus Himself affirmed this fact of Peter’s unique leadership role in John 21:15-19.

11 . God tells us not to trust man. Psalm 146:3 Do not trust in mortal man, in who there is no salvation. Acts 5:29 - Peter and the Apostles replied, we mush obey God rather than human beings . Colossians 3:23-24 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men. 1 Corinthians 2:4 your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God

Our faith isn’t in the “wisdom of men”, but in the “power of God”. Jesus ensured that the “power of God” would be expressed through the Church. I don’t trust the pope because of his “wisdom [among] men”, but because of the “power of God” that has been entrusted in him.

Nice try, but… your assertions don’t hold up to scrutiny. Both logical and Scriptural.

 

[Christianapologist]

Regarding your “equal authority” question… I’m not sure why that’s relevant. Those passages were just some of endless scripture that describe God’s intention for a plurality of leadership within His church…

Re: your Holy Spirit vs. Mt 16 mention. For me to usurp the authority in Mt 16, I’d have to believe that this passage gives Peter a single point leadership position. I don’t… because it would contradict the passages mentioned. Let’s try a different angle… and say Peter became the single point leader for the Eastern Orthodox church… how would you correct me…??

Church leaders speak only the authority of scripture. Men in by themselves do not have authority… as the shared scriptures explain.

If Peter was the single leader, the apostles would not had that discussion in Luke 22.

The only scriptural scholars who would disagree with me, on Petra vs. Petros are Catholic… Hmmm…

 

[Gorgias]

Regarding your “equal authority” question… I’m not sure why that’s relevant.

Because authority was vested in Peter in a special way. They were all “equals”, but they didn’t have “equal authority”. Peter – in his role that Jesus gave him – was authorized to lead the apostles. So, your examples show apostolic authority… but not authority over Peter. That’s why it’s relevant.

For me to usurp the authority in Mt 16, I’d have to believe that this passage gives Peter a single point leadership position. I don’t… because it would contradict the passages mentioned.

No, it doesn’t, for the reasons I’ve mentioned.

Church leaders speak only the authority of scripture.

Huh? No they don’t! Not in their own writings. Not even in Scripture itself! Paul himself says “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours”…! (2 Thess 2:15). There was no NT at that time, so the authority isn’t Scripture, it’s apostolic teaching! (And, that authority remains to this day!)

If Peter was the single leader

I’m not claiming he’s the single leader; I’m claiming that, among the apostles, he’s the divinely-installed leader with primacy.