Staples White debate on Purgatory

[MarcoPolo]

I’ve already gone through the verses in 1 Corinthians, exegeted them thoroughly, looked for its historical understanding, and do not see the Catholic interpretation as valid.

You deny that the passage has any reference to purification or you just disagree with the Catholic position that this passage is evidence for a Purgatory?

 

[Churchmouse]

You deny that the passage has any reference to purification or you just disagree with the Catholic position that this passage is evidence for a Purgatory?

Both. It just stands to reason that if the passage doesn’t reveal a purification process, one where the man is the subject of the fire and one where “the Day” isn’t attributed to the general judgment, then one really can’t claim it as evidence of a purgatory. Contextually, seeing that it is speaking of Christian leaders and building on the foundation of Christ, substantiated by the fact that one’s own merits (the wood and hay) cannot be used to build on this true Foundation, then to bring in purgatory seems rather eisegetical.

CM

 

[Michael96]

I just listened to the debate a second time. It’s remarkable if you play James White’s first section at half speed he speaks at the same rate as Tim Staples at normal speed! It’s worth slowing White down.

On second listening I was much more impressed than on first listening. I think both Staples and White actually did a good job and showed the two sides to judgement/purgatory. I was actually surprised at how much common ground there was between White’s views and Staple’s presentation of the “modern” understanding of purgatory (which seems very different to Dante’s image of purgatory).

 

[PRmerger]

In addition, what is it that you think the HS said in the debate?

'zactly!

And some interesting follow up questions: what was the first thing the HS said in the debate? What was the last thing the HS said? And how do you know?

 

[PRmerger]

However, being the “pillar and foundation of truth” doesn’t mean that she infallibly interprets the truth.

What does it mean, in your opinion?

Well, you said it: “What Church is the only one that CLAIMS to be…” Claiming to be doesn’t mean that she is "…the infallible guardian of God’s revelation.

So we have no infallible guardian of God’s revelation, then? God came, revealed his truths to us, and then left us to be tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming?

Mine isn’t any more infallible than yours…

As you wish.

Just remember, if you’re following your pastor’s interpretations of Scripture–a man who claims he’s fallible–then you ought to keep in the back of your mind, each and every time he preaches, “Hmmm…he’s fallible. That means he’s* going to be wrong* at some point. Is this one of those times?” And how will you know if he’s wrong, esp if he uses Scripture to back up his erroneous doctrines?

 

[mark_a]

Personnally, I’m waiting on that contraception debate.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you have a Scripture verse for this, CM, or is this another extra-biblical, man-made tradition that you’ve endorsed?

No, I don’t.

I appreciate your honesty. :tiphat:

I hope this serves as a reminder that you have some extra-biblical, man-made doctrines that you espouse; perhaps it will give you pause in your future discussions with Catholics in which you object to Catholic doctrines that you perceive are extra-biblical.

It’s just the obvious progression of God-breathed Scriptures as the only viable form of truth.

Obvious progression? Could you elaborate on this a little more, CM?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Both. It just stands to reason that if the passage doesn’t reveal a purification process, one where the man is the subject of the fire and one where “the Day” isn’t attributed to the general judgment, then one really can’t claim it as evidence of a purgatory. Contextually, seeing that it is speaking of Christian leaders and building on the foundation of Christ, substantiated by the fact that one’s own merits (the wood and hay) cannot be used to build on this true Foundation, then to bring in purgatory seems rather eisegetical.

CM

SInce I already gave my take, I’ll just ask you, do you think the numerous ECFs I cited who gave a “purification” translation of this verse just missed the boat?

 

[Churchmouse]

'zactly!

And some interesting follow up questions: what was the first thing the HS said in the debate? What was the last thing the HS said? And how do you know?

Already answered the question. We can’t pigeonhole the Holy Spirit. Debates are debates and you go with the proper exegesis of Scripture. I’m sure you would agree that one can only go by the presentation and proper exegesis. Therefore, it would seem that White did both properly (and I’m being unbiased). Again, you can’t pigeonhole the HS when we are called to rightly divide Scripture.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

What does it mean, in your opinion?

Well, opinions aren’t what matter. I believe that the testament of Scripture points to the Church upholding the truth, not necessarily defining it as one goes along.

So we have no infallible guardian of God’s revelation, then? God came, revealed his truths to us, and then left us to be tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming?

Who says we need an infallible interpreter? God has the ability to lead His own.

As you wish.

Just remember, if you’re following your pastor’s interpretations of Scripture–a man who claims he’s fallible–then you ought to keep in the back of your mind, each and every time he preaches, “Hmmm…he’s fallible. That means he’s* going to be wrong* at some point. Is this one of those times?” And how will you know if he’s wrong, esp if he uses Scripture to back up his erroneous doctrines?

LOL! My pastor doesn’t claim to be infallible, neither does he dictate what Scripture means. That’s why we trust God in leading His people. You see, you have a dilemma. The only reason why you believe in an infallible church is because they told you they were infallible. And to try to put that on me is a bit presumptious don’t you think.

CM

 

[Redrum]

You decide since you know so many.

I see where this went. Maybe I should have said ALL protestant DENOMINATIONS disagree with each other, instead of saying each and every single protestant individual.

I guess you could either start with the Paul reprimanding Peter or do something like the Great Schism. If our assertion is that a faction or a disagreement debunks credibility then it only takes one.

 

[Churchmouse]

I appreciate your honesty. :tiphat:

I hope this serves as a reminder that you have some extra-biblical, man-made doctrines that you espouse; perhaps it will give you pause in your future discussions with Catholics in which you object to Catholic doctrines that you perceive are extra-biblical.

Why do you separate the context in my responses? I qualified my words very succinctly. There is no reason to claim it is “extra-biblical” when it’s the natural progression of God’s truth to man.

Obvious progression? Could you elaborate on this a little more, CM?

It’s very simple. Is the Bible God’s word to man? Yes. Can we point to any other truth that is considered God-breathed? NO. Has God given books to us that function as coming from His very mouth? YES. Therefore, regardless of any attempt to disengage God’s word from viability as the highest infallible authority in matters of faith and practice, we don’t need a divine verification to absolve any dilemma. God gave it to us and we both know it.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

SInce I already gave my take, I’ll just ask you, do you think the numerous ECFs I cited who gave a “purification” translation of this verse just missed the boat?

Yes, they did. Purgatory wasn’t taught in the early church. It’s roots can be traced to two Alexandrian fathers, Clement and Origen. Ever read Jacques Le Goff’s The Birth of Purgatory? It’s amazing how the doctrine came about.

CM

 

[MarcoPolo]

Yes, they did. Purgatory wasn’t taught in the early church. It’s roots can be traced to two Alexandrian fathers, Clement and Origen. Ever read Jacques Le Goff’s The Birth of Purgatory? It’s amazing how the doctrine came about.

CM

I see. And no, I haven’t read Le Goff’s book — what’s his argument?

 

[Churchmouse]

I see. And no, I haven’t read Le Goff’s book — what’s his argument?

It’s not an argument. Le Goff is a medievel scholar and just presents his research. He traces it through other religions and claims that the Christian church finds its purgatorial roots through both these early Alexandrian fathers. There are too many historical nuances. My comments won’t do it justice.

CM

 

[PRmerger]

Already answered the question. We can’t pigeonhole the Holy Spirit.

Ah. So you’re saying that you don’t really know what the first thing the HS said in the debate then?

 

[Redrum]

Well, opinions aren’t what matter. I believe that the testament of Scripture points to the Church upholding the truth, not necessarily defining it as one goes along.

Who says we need an infallible interpreter? God has the ability to lead His own.

As you wish.

LOL! My pastor doesn’t claim to be infallible, neither does he dictate what Scripture means. That’s why we trust God in leading His people. You see, you have a dilemma. The only reason why you believe in an infallible church is because they told you they were infallible. And to try to put that on me is a bit presumptious don’t you think.

CM

I’ll add to this. The day you can show me an institution of men that is “infallible” (I’m guessing you looked this definition up as well in your dictionary) I’m all in. This includes my church as well.

If I were to write about some of the imperfections that I was around in catholic up bringing I would probably be deleted from this board. I’m not sure which part of the Church folks deem infallible but it takes some pretty extensive blinders to stand behind this one.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, opinions aren’t what matter. I believe that the testament of Scripture points to the Church upholding the truth, not necessarily defining it as one goes along.

So what’s an example of the Church upholding the truth and an example of the Church defining truth?

Who says we need an infallible interpreter? God has the ability to lead His own.

Without an infallible interpreter, what you have is an obscenely large number of Christian denominations–over 40,000 now– :bigyikes: each claiming God has led them to their doctrines. This, IMHO, is a paradigm created in hell.

LOL! My pastor doesn’t claim to be infallible,

'zactly! He’s prone to errors.

You ought to be quite skeptical about following a guy you know is going to make an error in his interpretation of Scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

Why do you separate the context in my responses? I qualified my words very succinctly. There is no reason to claim it is “extra-biblical” when it’s the natural progression of God’s truth to man.

It’s very simple. Is the Bible God’s word to man? Yes. Can we point to any other truth that is considered God-breathed? NO. Has God given books to us that function as coming from His very mouth? YES. Therefore, regardless of any attempt to disengage God’s word from viability as the highest infallible authority in matters of faith and practice, we don’t need a divine verification to absolve any dilemma. God gave it to us and we both know it.

CM

Sorry, this is nonsensical to me.

Essentially, you have acknowledged that you have no Scriptural basis for your claim.

By definition, then, that is an extra-biblical, man-made tradition that you are professing.

 

[Redrum]

So what’s an example of the Church upholding the truth and an example of the Church defining truth?

Without an infallible interpreter, what you have is an obscenely large number of Christian denominations–over 40,000 now– :bigyikes: each claiming God has led them to their doctrines. This, IMHO, is a paradigm created in hell.

'zactly! He’s prone to errors.

You ought to be quite skeptical about following a guy you know is going to make an error in his interpretation of Scriptures.

So, is an infallible interpretation subject to change? (don’t bust my chops)