purgatory

[AmbroseSJ]

ncgolf:

How does this eliminate Purgatory? We agree it is Christ doing the purgation … what’s the beef? The timing … we say if it is not complete in our earthly lifetimes it will be before entering heaven? I don’t think Scripture is adamant about the timing of said perfecting.

The issue is becoming cloudy. Purgatory is for purifying the temporal punishment due to sins; sins that were already forgiven by the blood of Christ. Purgatory is not finishing the work of Jesus on the Cross. That is what the evangelicals are thinking Catholics believe, which we don’t.

Purgatory, as was pointed out earlier, does cleanse venial sins according to the CCC, but that is immaterial to this discussion. Evangelicals and even we Catholics believe that we are saved entirely and perfectly by the blood of Jesus on the Cross. Purgatory is for the damage to our own souls due to sin, or temporal punishment. This is theological language as was also pointed out earlier to articulate the teachings of the Church and her Scriptures.

Evangelicals DO NOT understand the notion of “perfecting.” They confuse it with salvation. However our salvation was indeed won entirely by Jesus on the Cross. Our perfecting is a work of grace and penance in this life, and purgatory in the next.

 

[SteveGC]

Can you show me unanimous consent of the early church “fathers” on the belief of purgatory? And I don’t mean find just 3 fathers who believed in it.

Unlike Protestantism, Truth is not based on democracy, or the majority vote. ECF records do not prove definitively a doctrine of the Church. They work aggregately to form a picture of early Christianity, and allow one to recognize, when looked at and analyzed in this comprehensive time frame, that a visible, heirarchical, authoritative Church did exist from as early as the apostolic era, that these fathers did channel their faith in Christ through this Church, and that there were beliefs that existed among them that continue today in a visible, hierarchical Church which professes to be the Church which has evolved in an unbroken fashion since Pentecost. One of those beliefs is, in fact, purgatory…the belief that saved souls must be transformed into pure beings fit for eternal exposure to God.

Jesus said unless you are born-again, you cannot see the kingdom Anyone can call themselves a “Christian,” but it isn’t enough just belonging to a church and following the rules and rituals of that church. of God.

You’re right. Good thing Catholics don’t just do that. And good thing it’s not just any old church we’re talking about here.

Jesus said unless you are born-again, you cannot see the kingdom of God.

He said alot more than that about our capacity to see the kingdom of God, but being born again is a great start…we agree. A prerequisite faith moving us to valid baptism is what begins this journey toward eternal life. But there’s much more to the story.

The world cannot understand the things of God because only the truly born again Christian receives the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Since the Bible teaches this, how do you feel about the fact that the catholic church teaches that you cannot understand the Scriptures on your own; that you need the church to interpret it for you? If you are regenerate, born from above and thus a child of God, then why is it your church says you can’t understand and interpret the Scriptures?

Yankee, I’ve addressed this in reply to you in another thread a week or so ago…perhaps you did not see it. Here’s a link to it. This seems to be a difficult thing for non-Catholics to grasp about the Catholic Church and scripture interpretation. Admittedly, many Catholics don’t do a very good job explaining it to our separated brethren, mostly because they focus on interpretation reserved for the Church (via the Holy Spirit)…and that is, infallible promulgation of matters pertaining specifically to faith (the lifelong process of salvation) and morals (discernment and guidance related to sin as culture evolves). As they focus on that, they forget that lay Catholics are indeed encouraged to read Scripture, and yes, interpret it. Indeed, we must interpret what we read. Reading and interpreting are inseparable, unless we’re just reading to regurgitate words. And so, the Church understands fully that the faithful are touched and blessed by the Spirit through personal and communal readings of Scripture, and so the Church guides us through the classical methodologies of properly interpreting what we read, in context. The Catechism devotes an entire article to this reality. As we interpret, however, it is critical to understand what **the outcome **of this interpretation is designed to be. What we receive from our reading is NOT to be an exploration to discover doctrinal truths about the faith, or determinations of morality of a given act. These things have already been revealed to the Church during Christ’s ministry, and further in the life of the Church as Christ summoned the Spirit to be with Her in His absence, until His return. So, we are to remain within the framework of established truths as revealed in what is called the sacred deposit of faith. Within that framework, we are free to prayerfully and with spiritual maturity read Scripture and allow the Spirit to reveal to us practical application and understanding of these truths for our personal state in life, our personal walk with Christ. For example, we aren’t supposed to go looking for whether or not baptism is required for salvation. It is. That was revealed to the Church since Christ’s earthly ministry. Rather, we are free to reflect on and absorb the realities of the power of baptism in our lives, as Scripture leads us through the accounts of it.

So, it’s not a matter of being prohibited from reading and interpreting Scripture. It’s a matter of reading and interpreting while remaining within the Apostolic faith as it has been revealed to the Church.

…Ambrose, your post #823 was very well articulated…well done!

 

[Carlan]

Unlike Protestantism, Truth is not based on democracy, or the majority vote. ECF records do not prove definitively a doctrine of the Church. They work aggregately to form a picture of early Christianity, and allow one to recognize, when looked at and analyzed in this comprehensive time frame, that a visible, heirarchical, authoritative Church did exist from as early as the apostolic era, that these fathers did channel their faith in Christ through this Church, and that there were beliefs that existed among them that continue today in a visible, hierarchical Church which professes to be the Church which has evolved in an unbroken fashion since Pentecost. One of those beliefs is, in fact, purgatory…the belief that saved souls must be transformed into pure beings fit for eternal exposure to God.

You’re right. Good thing Catholics don’t just do that. And good thing it’s not just any old church we’re talking about here. He said alot more than that about our capacity to see the kingdom of God, but being born again is a great start…we agree. A prerequisite faith moving us to valid baptism is what begins this journey toward eternal life. But there’s much more to the story.

Yankee, I’ve addressed this in reply to you in another thread a week or so ago…perhaps you did not see it. Here’s a link to it. This seems to be a difficult thing for non-Catholics to grasp about the Catholic Church and scripture interpretation. Admittedly, many Catholics don’t do a very good job explaining it to our separated brethren, mostly because they focus on interpretation reserved for the Church (via the Holy Spirit)…and that is, infallible promulgation of matters pertaining specifically to faith (the lifelong process of salvation) and morals (discernment and guidance related to sin as culture evolves). As they focus on that, they forget that lay Catholics are indeed encouraged to read Scripture, and yes, interpret it. Indeed, we must interpret what we read. Reading and interpreting are inseparable, unless we’re just reading to regurgitate words. And so, the Church understands fully that the faithful are touched and blessed by the Spirit through personal and communal readings of Scripture, and so the Church guides us through the classical methodologies of properly interpreting what we read, in context. The Catechism devotes an entire article to this reality. As we interpret, however, it is critical to understand what **the outcome **of this interpretation is designed to be. What we receive from our reading is NOT to be an exploration to discover doctrinal truths about the faith, or determinations of morality of a given act. These things have already been revealed to the Church during Christ’s ministry, and further in the life of the Church as Christ summoned the Spirit to be with Her in His absence, until His return. So, we are to remain within the framework of established truths as revealed in what is called the sacred deposit of faith. Within that framework, we are free to prayerfully and with spiritual maturity read Scripture and allow the Spirit to reveal to us practical application and understanding of these truths for our personal state in life, our personal walk with Christ. For example, we aren’t supposed to go looking for whether or not baptism is required for salvation. It is. That was revealed to the Church since Christ’s earthly ministry. Rather, we are free to reflect on and absorb the realities of the power of baptism in our lives, as Scripture leads us through the accounts of it.

So, it’s not a matter of being prohibited from reading and interpreting Scripture. It’s a matter of reading and interpreting while remaining within the Apostolic faith as it has been revealed to the Church.

…Ambrose, your post #823 was very well articulated…well done!

And thank you for this post Steve, It is going in my place of special teachings:thumbsup:Carlan

 

[Randy_Carson]

Still waiting for someone to show me where the apostles ever taught purgatory…

Answered previously and repeatedly. Paul taught purgatory here:

[1 Corinthians 3:15](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+3:15&version=NIV)
If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

The Scriptures forbid the drinking of blood. (Gen 9:4; Leviticus 7:26; Leviticus 17:10-14; Acts 15:28-29). Even the Gentile Christians after the resurrection of Christ were to abstain from eating blood. If Christ was asking believers to eat His flesh and blood, He would be going against the clear teaching of scripture in numerous places.

Off topic as usual.

Why should Truth be unanimous?? There is only one absolute Truth. How can we know what is truth if people are divided on what it is? Jesus said thy Word is Truth. If you quote church fathers and 3 agree with what the Scripture teaches and 3 others disagree, then what does that tell you? They all do not have the truth.

Right. None of the fathers was individually infallible (except for those like Clement who was also pope). That is why the Jesus left the Church to infallibly choose between them.

As you said, there is one absolute Truth.

One Lord. One faith. One baptism. One flock. One Shepherd.

That is why Protestantism is a tragedy…so many conflicting and contradictory positions about what the Truth is…so many denominations claiming to go by the Bible Alone…so many claiming to be led by the Spirit into all truth…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Still waiting for someone to show me where the apostles ever taught purgatory…

Extending and revising my previous post…

1 Corinthians 3:10-15
10* According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. 11* For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- 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. 15* If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Matthew 12:31-32
31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Matthew 18:23-35
23* “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. 24 When he began the reckoning, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents; * 25* and as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26* So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27 And out of pity for him the lord of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; * and seizing him by the throat he said, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down and besought him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ 30 He refused and went and put him in prison till he should pay the debt. 31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. 32 Then his lord summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; 33 and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, * till he should pay all his debt. 35* So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m going to continue to disagree on this point. Differing opinions, even numerous ones, regarding an interpretation does not mean that the text is insufficiently clear. It is possible (and in this case, I think likely) that people are doing more reading their own opinions into the text than actually figuring out what it says.

I know there are people who deny it, but there are some central points that are so well supported that they are very hard to deny:

God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth
God has set a standard for man to follow
Man has fallen short of that standard, and deserves the eternal death penalty
God made it possible for man to receive salvation anyway
This was accomplished by God sending His son to become man
His son had a virgin birth, lived a sinless life, was unjustly crucified, and resurrected after three days
This pays the penalty for the sinfulness of man

Yeah, there are lots of things that aren’t so clear. And some of these have been denied, but I don’t think they’ve been denied by any responsible biblical interpreters. They’re still clearly there, no matter how many idiots have started their own denomination.

James_N-

Idiots starting their own denominations is not what Jesus intended.

He promised to build one Church upon Peter, the rock, and that Church still stands.

 

[moondweller]

The issue is becoming cloudy.

How could it ever not be cloudy since none of it has any revelation behind it?

Purgatory is for purifying the temporal punishment due to sins; sins that were already forgiven by the blood of Christ. Purgatory is not finishing the work of Jesus on the Cross. That is what the evangelicals are thinking Catholics believe, which we don’t.

Your doctrine certainly doesn’t state that your horrific sufferings in purgatory “finish” the work of Christ on the cross, but what it does state is that the work of Christ on the cross, and His shed blood to cleanse the believer of all sins, is insufficient. It states that you too must personally suffer severely for cleansing to occur. Praise God such a doctrine cannot be found in His revealed Word!!! Remember, the church is to be the “pillar” (support) of truth, not present its own ideas.

Purgatory, as was pointed out earlier, does cleanse venial sins according to the CCC, but that is immaterial to this discussion. Evangelicals and even we Catholics believe that we are saved entirely and perfectly by the blood of Jesus on the Cross.

No you don’t. One un-confessed, so-called mortal sin destroys it. If a Catholic dies with a mortal sin on the soul, he’s out. Catholicism has no concept of “saved.” It only speaks of potential salvation, not a true, present, eternal reality.

Purgatory is for the damage to our own souls due to sin, or temporal punishment. This is theological language as was also pointed out earlier to articulate the teachings of the Church and her Scriptures.

It is the language and teachings of your church but it’s not the language of the Scriptures. It’s simply not there!!

Evangelicals DO NOT understand the notion of “perfecting.”

Oh sure we do, but we understand according to the language of the Scriptures:Heb 10:14 "For by one offering He has perfected for all time (in perpetuity) those who are sanctified."Your doctrine of purgatory refuses to believe this Divinely revealed truth.

They confuse it with salvation.

Having been cleansed of all unrighteousness is what salvation means, ASJ. Like I said, Catholicism has no concept of the word “SAVED.”

However our salvation was indeed won entirely by Jesus on the Cross. Our perfecting is a work of grace and penance in this life, and purgatory in the next.

Lots of contraction here. Your salvation wasn’t won entirely by Jesus on the cross if your “perfecting” is won by YOU through penance in this life and purgatory in the next. And your “perfecting” is not a work of God’s grace if its done by YOU both in this life and the next.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Pssst, PR, you keep missing the point. I have yet to see where “Purgatory,” “Temporal Punishment,” and “Indulgences” are revealed and taught in Scripture. Don’t you think they should be Divinely revealed before men attempt to explain them.

Let me take a different approach to this…

Suppose that A is divinely revealed in scripture.
Suppose further that B is also revealed in scripture.

Is it acceptable for Christians to say, “Because A and B are both divinely revealed, it follows that C must be true also; thus, C is divinely revealed”?

Consider the following examples:

Example 1

1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. God is one.
   Therefore, the one God must be a trinity of persons.

Scripture reveals 1, 2, 3, & 4; we derive the conclusion abouth the Trinity.

Example 2

1. Jesus is God.
2. Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
   Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

Scripture reveals 1 & 2; we derive the conclusion about Mary, Mother of God.

Regardless of whether you accept both of these examples, would you at least accept the principle that we can combine known truths to discover hidden truths that have been present in what was revealed all along? (If not, please explain how you discover the Trinity since no verse explicity teaches that doctrine.)

If so, is it possible that Purgatory can be derived from other divinely revealed truths?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The issue is becoming cloudy. Purgatory is for purifying the temporal punishment due to sins; sins that were already forgiven by the blood of Christ. Purgatory is not finishing the work of Jesus on the Cross. That is what the evangelicals are thinking Catholics believe, which we don’t.

Purgatory, as was pointed out earlier, does cleanse venial sins according to the CCC, but that is immaterial to this discussion. Evangelicals and even we Catholics believe that we are saved entirely and perfectly by the blood of Jesus on the Cross. Purgatory is for the damage to our own souls due to sin, or temporal punishment. This is theological language as was also pointed out earlier to articulate the teachings of the Church and her Scriptures.

Evangelicals DO NOT understand the notion of “perfecting.” They confuse it with salvation. However our salvation was indeed won entirely by Jesus on the Cross. Our perfecting is a work of grace and penance in this life, and purgatory in the next.

Moondweller has been told all this repeatedly. He’s simply filibustering at this point.

 

[Des]

Heb 10:14 "For by one offering He has perfected for all time (in perpetuity) those who are sanctified.

One has to be Sanctified for this to be true. Made Holy, righteous, set aside for God. That verse goes quite well with Catholic teaching.

I likewise disbelieve that you are currently a righteous individual, set apart or made Holy, if mortal sin resides in you at this or any moment of your life.

I reject your personal doctrine of Sanctification.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

moondweller:

Lots of contraction here. Your salvation wasn’t won entirely by Jesus on the cross if your “perfecting” is won by YOU through penance in this life and purgatory in the next. And your “perfecting” is not a work of God’s grace if its done by YOU both in this life and the next.

It appears to me that you will not, in all honesty, try to understand what is being said. You really seem to be deliberately misunderstanding things to support your untenable position. ***I just said you confuse perfecting with salvation, and you just proved my point above. *** You baldly assert that perfecting is not a work of God’s grace, just because it is a work we do (penance.) That is non-Scriptural. We are unable to do anything without God’s grace, including Penance according to St. Paul. But then you insist that if we do anything at all, it is NOT a work of God’s grace, and not as Scripture has it, that it is grace that enables our works.

You obviously have only a very dim understanding of Scripture, and therefore an even dimmer understanding of what the Church teaches. Your “theology” can be summed up in the classic “Faith alone” and “Once Saved Aways Saved” of the modern bac. It is a very convenient, comfortable and easy road. A wide and crowded road if you please. But Catholicism is the straight and narrow road.

I don’t blame you for fearing Catholicism. It is the Gospel in all its rigor. Not all soft and fuzzy the way bacs would rather have it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Romans 7:15-25
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Why does Paul struggle with sin?

Why does he say that he continues to do the very things he hates?

If Paul sins, is he innocent of that sin because it’s not really him doing the sinning?

Now, if Paul can claim to be a prisoner of the law of sin at work within his flesh, how much more do those of us who are less holy need to be freed from the attractions of the flesh, the devil and the world?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Heb 10:14 “For by one offering He has perfected for all time (in perpetuity) those who are sanctified.”

Salvation and Justification are not one-time events, and the verse is better translated as:

“For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being sanctified.”

You have been shown this previously.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Isaiah 6:5-7
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.”
6 Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

Another example of cleansing by fire.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Malachi 3

1Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
2But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap: 3And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.

 

[brb2]

Isaiah 6:5-7
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.”
6 Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

Another example of cleansing by fire.

Yes, but I think we can safely assume that Isaiah is ALREADY a believer when he writes this. He is not speaking of his original sin or pre-faith sins. Purgatory is not for our pre-justification sins … but, for those after we come to faith/salvation.

When we are first baptized into Christ by H.S. … all pre-faith sins are completely forgiven and covered by blood of Christ. Purgatory has its proper ‘temporal’ place in the life of a convert … and it is for the 1.) post-faith venial sins we neglect to confess and for the 2.) mortal sins we do confess, but need purgation from in this life … so we don’t so easily repeat.

 

[brb2]

Evangelicals DO NOT understand the notion of “perfecting.” They confuse it with salvation. However our salvation was indeed won entirely by Jesus on the Cross. Our perfecting is a work of grace and penance in this life, and purgatory in the next.

Yes, in the next … but, much purgation can occur in this life and MUST, if we are to be perfected.

I think some Protestants realize this must be the case … they just can’t put the Catholic term Purgation to what must happen to them. Let them call it something else … if they must, as long as they do Confess on regular basis, and grieve for their post-faith mistakes.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, but I think we can safely assume that Isaiah is ALREADY a believer when he writes this. He is not speaking of his original sin or pre-faith sins. Purgatory is not for our pre-justification sins … but, for those after we come to faith/salvation.

When we are first baptized into Christ by H.S. … all pre-faith sins are completely forgiven and covered by blood of Christ. Purgatory has its proper ‘temporal’ place in the life of a convert … and it is for the 1.) post-faith venial sins we neglect to confess and for the 2.) mortal sins we do confess, but need purgation from in this life … so we don’t so easily repeat.

I agree.

 

[guanophore]

Rome has a theology? Does London? Or maybe Budapest, I’d like to know what Budapest’s theology is.

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Moon has been unable to accept that the Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

 

[SteveGC]

Your doctrine certainly doesn’t state that your horrific sufferings in purgatory “finish” the work of Christ on the cross, but what it does state is that the work of Christ on the cross, and His shed blood to cleanse the believer of all sins, is insufficient. It states that you too must personally suffer severely for cleansing to occur. Praise God such a doctrine cannot be found in His revealed Word!!!

Your tendency to use words such as “horrific” and “severe” paint a fairly clear picture of an underlying, yet significant, reason you hate the doctrine of purgatory. Certainly you feel you have the authority to define doctrine as you think you are led by the Spirit through Scripture (a huge mistake). And certainly you have a bone to pick with the Church’s claim to earthly authority in Christ’s earthly absence. But I personally believe it’s also because you’re afraid of suffering - As ASJ rightly put it>>>

You obviously have only a very dim understanding of Scripture, and therefore an even dimmer understanding of what the Church teaches. Your “theology” can be summed up in the classic “Faith alone” and “Once Saved Aways Saved” of the modern bac. It is a very convenient, comfortable and easy road. A wide and crowded road if you please. But Catholicism is the straight and narrow road. I don’t blame you for fearing Catholicism. It is the Gospel in all its rigor. Not all soft and fuzzy the way bacs would rather have it.

And I don’t blame you either. I think it’s a natural instinct to recoil and flinch at the reality that we will undergo potentially painful suffering at the conclusion of our earthly lives before we enter the eternal Kingdom. Catholics embrace this, however, realizing the sublime beauty of its necessity for most of us. I personally don’t need biblical proof for this doctrine (although it does exist)…but it just doesn’t make sense that we continue to sin and are somehow not held accountable for unrighteousness, and God (although undeniably capable of doing it) actually grants us entry into His eternal Kingdom with the stain of sins we’ve continued to commit against Him…without a final cleansing. Of course, your belief that He does this stems from your distorted view of what “saved” means…expounded upon below.

moondweller:

Catholicism has no concept of “saved.” It only speaks of potential salvation, not a true, present, eternal reality. It is the language and teachings of your church but it’s not the language of the Scriptures. Your doctrine of purgatory refuses to believe this Divinely revealed truth. Having been cleansed of all unrighteousness is what salvation means, ASJ. Like I said, Catholicism has no concept of the word “SAVED.”

Moon, you’re half right. We have a concept of “saved”. We just don’t have your unbiblical concept of it. Saved does NOT exclusively mean inevitably bound for eternal life in heaven. You believe in OSAS, a man-made doctrine unsupported by contextual interpretations of Scripture. Hence, it is actually you, ironically, that has “no concept of ‘saved’”. You believe God’s gift is nullified if you don’t believe in OSAS, but that’s not true. Believing in OSAS actually demonstrates an ignorance of what the gift is. You are flat out wrong in your belief that God grants us eternal life in heaven regardless of what we do after our profession of faith in Him. You are flat our wrong by believing salvation is not a process. Flat out wrong. Not your fault, though. Just like it wasn’t MY fault that I was brought up under erroneous “reformed” Christianity. You are deeply biased and brainwashed by these distorted, anti-Catholic teachings, and Catholics like us actually pray for those like you to discover the truth of Catholicism.

In the meantime, you obstinately demand that God teaches us something that He does not…you deny His Church. You come onto this forum to proclaim the error of Catholicism, and the ONLY reason you are remotely tolerable with this stubborn narrow-mindedness and modernistic man-made teaching, is because we know that you are ignorant of the true faith, and also because we know that others reading all this, who do not bring the baggage of bias with them, who genuinely seek God, can see the gross error of post-Reformative theology as it is overwhelmingly and undeniably refuted by Catholics here.