Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[ron77nyc]

Take an infant that has been baptized for instance. We believe at baptism original sin is washed away. It is impossible for an infant to commit a personal sin. Venial or mortal. If an infant dies after being properly baptized, we believe he/she rides the elevator straight up to Heaven without stopping! Isn’t that awesome?

That’s just one example that I thought of off the top of my head. Perhaps others have more examples. Have you read much on the doctrine of purgatory?(CATHOLIC documents that is)

Do you know that limbo has been eliminated from the catechism? This means that unbaptised infants also go to heaven.

 

[ron77nyc]

For the “some” that go to heaven directly, they have, through prayer and charity, completely ordered their will to God’s and have made full reparation for all the sins they had committed. My personal opinion it that very few manage to get to this state while alive.

If most people go to purgatory before heaven why didn’t Jesus and the apostles tell everyone about this when they were explaining the plan of salvation?

 

[Lampo]

Do you know that limbo has been eliminated from the catechism? This means that unbaptised infants also go to heaven.

Yes. I know that the Church’s teaching on unbaptized infants is that we must have hope in Jesus’ goodness, unending and ever enduring mercy and hope they have God’s light shine on them forever.

 

[cfrancis]

If most people go to purgatory before heaven why didn’t Jesus and the apostles tell everyone about this when they were explaining the plan of salvation?

With that logic, Christ should have simply handed the Bible to the Apostles as He ascended into heaven, or at least provided an inspired table of contents.
He even could have spelled out the doctrine of the Trinity, so the Church could have avoided Arius and Nestorius and their heresies and all those Church councils!

 

[Lampo]

If most people go to purgatory before heaven why didn’t Jesus and the apostles tell everyone about this when they were explaining the plan of salvation?

I guess because He thought it better not to.

 

[ron77nyc]

With that logic, Christ should have simply handed the Bible to the Apostles as He ascended into heaven, or at least provided an inspired table of contents.
He even could have spelled out the doctrine of the Trinity, so the Church could have avoided Arius and Nestorius and their heresies and all those Church councils!

Jesus said that all who believe in Him have eternal life. When anyone in the bible asked “What must I do to be saved?” the answer was never “Accept Me and the authority of Peter and the Church.” This was developed much later on and I see the necessity of it under the circumstances of the that particular time in history but the original gospel message has never changed. We are saved by grace through faith.

 

[cfrancis]

Jesus said that all who believe in Him have eternal life. When anyone in the bible asked “What must I do to be saved?” the answer was never “Accept Me and the authority of Peter and the Church.” This was developed much later on and I see the necessity of it under the circumstances of the that particular time in history but the original gospel message has never changed. We are saved by grace through faith.

Agree - saved by grace, which comes from faith - but that’s initial justification, not eternal salvation. And it’s really not the point.
You didn’t address the logic you’ve put forth: if Jesus wanted us to know it, He’d have said it.
Well, I provided examples of your logic applied, and the logic falls short.
Why didn’t Christ simply hand the Bible to the Apostles as He ascended into heaven, or at least provide an inspired table of contents.
Why didn’t He spell out the doctrine of the Trinity, so as to avoid the heresies that would ensue?

 

[ron77nyc]

Agree - saved by grace, which comes from faith - but that’s initial justification, not eternal salvation. And it’s really not the point.
You didn’t address the logic you’ve put forth: if Jesus wanted us to know it, He’d have said it.
Well, I provided examples of your logic applied, and the logic falls short.
Why didn’t Christ simply hand the Bible to the Apostles as He ascended into heaven, or at least provide an inspired table of contents.
Why didn’t He spell out the doctrine of the Trinity, so as to avoid the heresies that would ensue?

Are you saying these issues were not relevant at the time
and were developed later on out of necessity?

 

[cfrancis]

Are you saying these issues were not relevant at the time
and were developed later on out of necessity?

No. I’m saying the logic you are using is faulty.
You stated:

If most people go to purgatory before heaven why didn’t Jesus and the apostles tell everyone about this when they were explaining the plan of salvation?

I took your logic - if Christ wanted us to know, He’d have told us while He was on earth - and applied it to basic Christian beliefs:

With that logic, Christ should have simply handed the Bible to the Apostles as He ascended into heaven, or at least provided an inspired table of contents.
He even could have spelled out the doctrine of the Trinity, so the Church could have avoided Arius and Nestorius and their heresies and all those Church councils!

 

[twb1621]

"Now there is no need to pray for the dead who are in Heaven, for they are in no need; nor again for those who are in Hell, because they cannot be loosed from sins. Therefore after this life, there are some not yet loosed from sins, who can be loosed there from; and the like have charity, without which sins cannot be loosed, for ‘charity covereth all sins’ [Prov. 10:12]. Hence they will not be consigned to everlasting death, since ‘he that liveth and believeth in Me, shall not die for ever’ [Jn. 11:26]: nor will they obtain glory without being cleansed, because nothing unclean shall obtain it, as stated in the last chapter of the Apocalypse (verse 14). Therefore some kind of cleansing remains after this life.
If the debt of punishment is not paid in full after the stain of sin has been washed away by contrition, nor again are venial sins always removed when mortal sins are remitted, and if justice demands that sin be set in order by due punishment, it follows that one who after contrition for his fault and after being absolved, dies before making due satisfaction, is punished after this life. Wherefore those who deny Purgatory speak against the justice of God…” catscans.com/catholicsite/purgatry.htm

“To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the ‘eternal punishment’ of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the ‘temporal punishment’ of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain. [Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1712-1713; (1563): 1820.]”

 

[ron77nyc]

Who decides who is in purgatory and who is not and how long they stay there? How do we know when someone is released from purgatory?

 

[twb1621]

Who decides who is in purgatory and who is not and how long they stay there? How do we know when someone is released from purgatory?

God decides and knows, no one else,

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by ron77nyc View Post
I’m trying to understand purgatory at the moment. Is everyone going to purgatory before going to heaven or are some going directly to heaven?

Lampo
We believe that there are those that die without need of further purification and go directly to Heaven.

If you pray to someone in purgatory can they hear your prayers and pray for your from purgatory?

 

[guanophore]

The biblical evidence would be the nature of the writings themselves as being inspired-inerrant.

Again you are back to using the thing itself to prove itself. If you recall, this is the same logic you use to reject the authority of the Church. You seem to think that the Church testifies about herself, making the testimony invalid.

There were many books that claimed to be inspired-inerrant. Claiming it does not make it so. How was the distinction made which ones were, and which ones were not? Who determined “the nature of the writings themselves”? Have you figured out why the epistle of Barnabas was not included?

Secondly, there is no problem using a “tradition” if it is true.

And how is that determined?

Many of the letters of the NT would apply.

No. One does not “apply” the letter to the test, but the test to the letter. You are saying that one of the “tests” was that it had to have been written by an Apostle, or one close to an Apostle. How is this determined? Just because it is claimed does not make it so (as you are fond of pointing out). Who wrote Hebrews? Where do we find the author of Matthew?

We don’t. John would be one canidate though.

John was dead. How was he a “candidate” who could tell them in 384 who wrote which gospel?

By being associated with an apostle, were the writings accepted by the people of God, do the writings tell the truth about God are just some of the ways we could show these books are Scripture.

Here you note an essential element. Those that were “accepted by the people of God” were so because they were consistent with the Teachings of the Apostles that had been received. This is the essence of sacred tradition. A good example was given to you about making a recipe. If the recipe says “cream the butter and the sugar”, you may find what the butter and the sugar are in the scripture, but you may not know what it means to “cream” them unless you receive the sacred tradition. If sacred tradition is refused, all kinds of error results. We even have fundamentalists saying that baptism has nothing to do with water!

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4301398]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The biblical evidence would be the nature of the writings themselves as being inspired-inerrant.

guanophore
Again you are back to using the thing itself to prove itself. If you recall, this is the same logic you use to reject the authority of the Church. You seem to think that the Church testifies about herself, making the testimony invalid.

We have not only internal evidence the writings are (name removed by moderator)ired but external factors also. You don’t have that with the Catholic church. Internally it claims incapable of err but externally it is not supported in that it has erred in a number of areas.

There were many books that claimed to be inspired-inerrant. Claiming it does not make it so. How was the distinction made which ones were, and which ones were not? Who determined “the nature of the writings themselves”?

The church of the time used various tests as you know to determine this.

Have you figured out why the epistle of Barnabas was not included?

yes

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Secondly, there is no problem using a “tradition” if it is true.
guanophore
And how is that determined?

Depends of the nature of the tradition. For example (not sure of the name) Papias in the early second century mentions that Mark was a companion of Peter from whom he got the gospel from. Historians consider this to be reliable.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

CHESTERTONRULES;4298560:

We are never worthy of God’s presence. We are sinners from birth. The death of our body destroys the sin in us. Paul writes about this and does not include a purging stage.
! Corinthians 15
The Resurrection Body
35But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[f] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

I must say the way you have formatted and presented this post makes me appear to have said that I believe in Purgatory, and so on and so forth. Chesterton Rules said those things.

To any discerning reader who has taken the time and care to have read these posts, in context, I think will agree that I have argued against the notion of Purgatory whilst upholding a genuine esteem and love for Catholics who practise their faith.

I could not let this point go; the way this post outwardly reads does not do justice to me as a person or to the spirit in which I have expressed my views.

 

[guanophore]

By the time the NT was finalized the truth about God would have been known in the OT which was already recognized as Scripture by the Jews and Apostles.

Yes. This is why the Septuagint was canonized along with the NT.

 

[justasking4]

Yes. This is why the Septuagint was canonized along with the NT.

Do you know with certainity if the Septuagint of the 1st century had the DC"s?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

1. Are you perfect now?
2. Will you be perfect in Heaven? (assuming you make it to Heaven.)
3. If you answered no, then yes, what about you changed?

If you are not perfect now and you die now and are then perfect in Heaven, what changed in you between the time you died and when you arrive in Heaven?

I am happy to answer your questions.

Q1 No - I am not perfect now

Q2 Yes - I will be perfect in heaven

Q3 If I die now my redeemed spirit is separated from my body and goes to be with the Lord. All my earthly toils, struggles and labours are then over. My redeemed spirit is instantaneously and immediately made perfect, at that point, because of the finished work of Christ on the Cross.

If you still believe in Purgatory I am not saying this will affect your redeemed standing in God’s sight, if you are trusting in Christ for salvation.

It is for me, however, a matter of biblical accuracy that is at stake and, therefore, I maintain firmly that Purgatory does not have the express and authoritative stamp of Holy Writ.

 

[distracted]

Catholics believe in Purgatory. This is an “extra” added by the Church, based on tradition. There is no such spiritual state of reality in God’s created universe.

The Bible does not teach Purgatory. There is absolutely no evidence for such a state. Catholics teach there is a Purgatory; I disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches on this point.

The Church did not invent Purgatory… and if you are a member, you are required to believe what the Church teaches (dogma)… and the Bible Does teach Purg… (1 Cor 3:13… St. Mt 18:23, etc…). It just doesn’t mention the word… but the concept and reality of Purg is there… In fact, the NT is full of passages that allude to Purg. You just don’t (yet) know where they are at… Neither did i until i started studying the scirptures…