Staples White debate on Purgatory

[MarcoPolo]

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

It seems he is an agnostic. Would be interesting to see his Scriptural exegesis. If I get a chance to peruse his book, I will do so.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Why don’t you just tell us what “infallible interpretation” you’re assuming changed over the 2000 years of the CC’s existence, Red.

(And, are you talking about an “infallible interpretation” of* Scripture* that the CC has proclaimed?)

And, I already told you I will never bust your chops again. Although I grew up with 3 brothers and I could probably take you, if I had to, I am a lady first and foremost. :yup:

 

[Churchmouse]

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

Well, you are the one who keeps bringing the Holy Spirit as if there is some point. Just what is your point? As I stated earlier, debates are debates and one can judge on the basis of Scriptural exegesis. After all, the debate was on 1 Corinthians 3. You seem to think there is a point to all this, but I smell a straw man. Again, what is your point? If you can clear that up than maybe we can move on.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

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

The church upholds the Scriptures. The church doesn’t “define” truth, at least not in the sense that Roman Catholics claim it does. Again, what is the function of a foundation? It is a structure upon which a building is built. What is a pillar? It is a structure which holds up something. In both cases, they support a structure. They don’t define it. Tell me, how does a foundation and pillar factor into an infallible authority to define 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.

Therefore, according to your logic, a church which claims infallibility brings unity (considering that those submitted to the church must accept defined doctrine). However, does that mean that, therefore, the church is correct in doctrine? What makes you think so? How is that any different than a cult which would demand the same. As far as “40,000” denominations. Eric Svendsen shot that one down years ago (see ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm and ntrmin.org/30000denominationsrevisited.htm). Unless I miss my guess, you will say that he didn’t and I will know that he did and we’re right back in the middle of that dilemma once again.

'zactly! He’s prone to errors.

As is your pope. You seem to just skip by that fact.

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

And you should be skeptical of your pope and magisterium as well. Hence, you are only substantiating the fact that God has to lead His people, sans individuals who claim to speak for Him.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Sorry, this is nonsensical to me.

I’m not surprise that it is…to YOU, I mean. You don’t seem to be open to any understanding other than that which is comfortable for you.

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

And I don’t have to. Again, is it God’s Word or isn’t it? Did we receive it? Is it authoritative? To ask for “Scriptural basis” is a straw man.

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

Well, by your definition, but that’s where the straw man lies. To see your responses, one would think that the early church combatted heresy via an unspoken oral tradition. Seems to me that that oral tradition is nothing other that which was written.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

It seems he is an agnostic. Would be interesting to see his Scriptural exegesis. If I get a chance to peruse his book, I will do so.

Being an agnostic (and former Roman Catholic) doesn’t mean that he is wrong. The book isn’t necessarily a book on “Scriptural exegesis” as it is a book on the history of the belief and touches on some of the evidences Catholics claim, such as the Prayer of Abercius, the Passion of Felicitas and Perpetua, and the Acts of Paul and Thecla. It is well written and very well presented.

CM

 

[PRmerger]

Well, you are the one who keeps bringing the Holy Spirit as if there is some point. Just what is your point? As I stated earlier, debates are debates and one can judge on the basis of Scriptural exegesis. After all, the debate was on 1 Corinthians 3. You seem to think there is a point to all this, but I smell a straw man. Again, what is your point? If you can clear that up than maybe we can move on.

CM

You made this claim here, did you not? (bold mine)

I addressed human fallibilities and acknowledged that truth belongs to the unbiased seeker, via the Holy Spirit (from whence truth comes) through the only valid form of truth available, aka the Scriptures. Therefore, it is fallacious to ask “who demonstrated truth” but rather **“what is the Holy Spirit saying?” **If one wants to proceed than one must resolve the dilemma before asking the question. CM

So, all I’m doing is asking you to answer your own question, CM. What was the Holy Spirit saying in the debate?

Specifically, what was the *first thing *the HS said, and what was the last thing? And how do you know that it was the HS and not James White?

 

[PRmerger]

The church upholds the Scriptures. The church doesn’t “define” truth, at least not in the sense that Roman Catholics claim it does.

It would help in this discussion if you would tell us what you mean by the church “upholds” the Scriptures.

What does that look like? How does your church uphold the Scriptures but not define truth?

Therefore, according to your logic, a church which claims infallibility brings unity (considering that those submitted to the church must accept defined doctrine).

Amen!!

However, does that mean that, therefore, the church is correct in doctrine? What makes you think so? How is that any different than a cult which would demand the same.

It’s really not any different than your position, CM, which is that you (or perhaps your pastor?) are the final authority on Scripture interpretation.

Either you make yourself a mini-pope, or you acknowledge Pope B16’s supremacy.

 

[PRmerger]

http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm

[/URL]

and ntrmin.org/30000denominationsrevisited.htm).

Lest you think that it’s only Catholic sources that cite this statistic, here is an email from Gordon-Conwell seminary–a Protestant organization: (BB codes mine)

Email from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary “Global Christianity” to Ms. XXX, SFO (Secular Franciscan Order)
author of Lamp Unto My Feet to be published by PublishAmerica
Received 9/28/2007 11:17 a.m. MST

Hello Ms. XXX,

Thank you for your inquiry. I can assure you that[SIGN1] the figure of 39,000 is in no way inflated. [/SIGN1]This number represents our most current, up-to-date data. As we are constantly updating this figure, it is not published in print form. The figure of 33,800 from the year 2000 was printed in our book World Christian Trends, (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2001). Part 12 of World Christian Trends (WCT), Table 12-1 gives figures of denominational totals for all 238 countries of the world. These figures are also represented graphically in WCT on page 917, Global Map 14. The definition for denominations used in WCT, and also in our publication World Christian Encyclopedia (Oxford, 2001) is as follows:

“Any agency consisting of a number of congregations or churches voluntarily aligning themselves with it. As a statistical unit in this survey, a ‘denomination’ always refers to one single country. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world’s 238 countries.”

More precise listings of denominations can be found in the World Christian Encyclopedia, under the article for each country. These lists are not exhaustive, as there are too many small denominations to list separately, but they should help give a clearer picture. Furthermore, the Southern Baptist Convention has over 40,000 congregations in the US alone; not to mention the Baptist General Conference, Baptist Bible Fellowship International, etc. So we are definitely not counting each congregation as its own denomination. We are also not lumping all Baptists into a single denomination, but counting each organization separately. I hope this information helps.

Justin J. Evans
Research Assistant
Center for the Study of Global Christianity

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
130 Essex Street #228
South Hamilton, MA 01982 USA
E-mail: csgc@gcts.edu

www.WorldChristianDatabase.org
www.GlobalChristianity.org
www.GCTS.edu
World Christian Encyclopedia

 

[PRmerger]

Churchmouse;6260616:

As is your pope. You seem to just skip by that fact.

Ah. I see now where you are misunderstanding Catholic teaching. The CC does not claim that our pope is never going to err. However, *his office *is what has the gift of infallibility.

Incidentally, you believe that men have been infallible (in their office), too. I can name at least 4 men you believe were infallible in the first century.

Actually, you also believe men were infallible in the 5th century as well.

 

[Churchmouse]

You made this claim here, did you not? (bold mine)

So, all I’m doing is asking you to answer your own question, CM. What was the Holy Spirit saying in the debate?

Specifically, what was the *first thing *the HS said, and what was the last thing? And how do you know that it was the HS and not James White?

And, yet, you remove the context by keying in on one statement. Read it again (this time bold letters are mine)…

“I addressed human fallibilities and acknowledged that truth belongs to the unbiased seeker, via the Holy Spirit (from whence truth comes) through the only valid form of truth available, aka the Scriptures. Therefore, it is fallacious to ask “who demonstrated truth” but rather “what is the Holy Spirit saying?” If one wants to proceed than one must resolve the dilemma before asking the question.”

I have been saying that debates are debates and you accept the one who makes the better argument through Scriptural exegesis. Also, at the end I stated that “…one must resolve the dilemma before asking the question” to which you haven’t done so. Are you going to give it a shot or are you going to keep tossing red herrings to avoid questions?

CM

 

[PRmerger]

And, yet, you remove the context by keying in on one statement. Read it again (this time bold letters are mine)…

“I addressed human fallibilities and acknowledged that truth belongs to the unbiased seeker, via the Holy Spirit (from whence truth comes) through the only valid form of truth available, aka the Scriptures. Therefore, it is fallacious to ask “who demonstrated truth” but rather “what is the Holy Spirit saying?” If one wants to proceed than one must resolve the dilemma before asking the question.”

Also, at the end I stated that “…one must resolve the dilemma before asking the question” to which you haven’t done so. Are you going to give it a shot or are you going to keep tossing red herrings to avoid questions?

CM

I really don’t know why, after I’ve asked the questions pointedly multiple times, you cannot answer it.

What was the first thing the HS said in the debate, CM? And how do you know it was the HS and not White?

 

[Redrum]

Why don’t you just tell us what “infallible interpretation” you’re assuming changed over the 2000 years of the CC’s existence, Red.

(And, are you talking about an “infallible interpretation” of* Scripture* that the CC has proclaimed?)

And, I already told you I will never bust your chops again. Although I grew up with 3 brothers and I could probably take you, if I had to, I am a lady first and foremost. :yup:

Are you kidding? I’ll give you one over the past 2 years.

“Pope Benedict XVI Changes Catholic Church’s Stance on Unbaptized Babies and Limbo…”

I know that to a certain extent our discussions are in futility in regard to “The Church” because we already disagree on what the church is (and this is some of the disconnect that I’ve noticed between you and CM here as well), but explain please, what other parts of the Church claim to be infallible… for my own knowledge (Not being sarcastic I’m using this experience to learn, thanks).

 

[Redrum]

I really don’t know why, after I’ve asked the questions pointedly multiple times, you cannot answer it.

What was the first thing the HS said in the debate, CM? And how do you know it was the HS and not White?

I think I can help here.

This is a silly question, while God uses people to make his kingdom manifest (we all agree here?) I don’t think anyone here thinks the HS takes people over like a demon possession and “says things”.

That being said I have noticed the Holy Spirit brought up several times on this board though as if to push some sort of hot button. Is there some major view that I’m not aware of on the Holy Spirit?

 

[PRmerger]

I think I can help here.

This is a silly question, while God uses people to make his kingdom manifest (we all agree here?) I don’t think anyone here thinks the HS takes people over like a demon possession and “says things”.

That being said I have noticed the Holy Spirit brought up several times on this board though as if to push some sort of hot button. Is there some major view that I’m not aware of on the Holy Spirit?

Certainly the question is a rhetorical one.

It makes its point in being not answered.

CM claims that we can know what the HS says–and, as I’ve shown, there are now 40,000 different interpretations of what the HS says.

Clearly, without an infallible interpreter of what “the HS says” we are left with this obscenity. Just what the devil ordered, IMHO.

 

[Churchmouse]

It would help in this discussion if you would tell us what you mean by the church “upholds” the Scriptures.

Is this a discussion? It seems rather one-sided, don’t you think? Upholding means to defend the simple truth of Scripture. It doesn’t mean that we will agree on all things, considering the differences in understanding on certain things throughout history, but in the essential things needed for salvation.

What does that look like? How does your church uphold the Scriptures but not define truth?

Excuse me, I said not define it in the Roman Catholic sense, by which we get things like 1 Corinthians 3 mashed into a purgatory where the verse was never understood to be so (remember, that is the theme to this thread). We simply accept its simple teaching on salvation and uphold it.

Amen!!

“Amen” but you don’t elaborate on why you are right and I am wrong. You have a very convenient style of apologetics without the apologetics. The discussion bears no fruit if this is what you intend to do throughout it.

It’s really not any different than your position, CM, which is that you (or perhaps your pastor?) are the final authority on Scripture interpretation.

Either you make yourself a mini-pope, or you acknowledge Pope B16’s supremacy.

This is funny. The comparison you give assumes that the “pope” position is valid and then you judge my position by your assumption. Again, you seem to resolve truth for yourself via the assumptions you make. Just like your pope (even in matters of faith and practice), I am a fallible man who trusts in a merciful God who leads men to His truth.

CM

 

[PRmerger]

Are you kidding? I’ll give you one over the past 2 years.

“Pope Benedict XVI Changes Catholic Church’s Stance on Unbaptized Babies and Limbo…”

I know that to a certain extent our discussions are in futility in regard to “The Church” because we already disagree on what the church is (and this is some of the disconnect that I’ve noticed between you and CM here as well), but explain please, what other parts of the Church claim to be infallible… for my own knowledge (Not being sarcastic I’m using this experience to learn, thanks).

Hmmm…was the CC’s teaching on Limbo infallibly declared? If so, can you provide documentation of this, Red?

 

[Churchmouse]

I really don’t know why, after I’ve asked the questions pointedly multiple times, you cannot answer it.

If you cannot understand what I’m saying, maybe the problem lies on your part. Why not give me your understanding and we’ll go from there.

What was the first thing the HS said in the debate, CM? And how do you know it was the HS and not White?

You’re still pigeonholing. I already said that White made the better argument via Scriptural exegesis. Thus, because the Scriptures were properly exegeted, that would be a Holy Spirit action. Satisfied?

CM

 

[Vincent]

“Pope Benedict XVI Changes Catholic Church’s Stance on Unbaptized Babies and Limbo…”

Just to clarify.

“It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.”

“The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised”​

 

[Churchmouse]

I think I can help here.

This is a silly question, while God uses people to make his kingdom manifest (we all agree here?) I don’t think anyone here thinks the HS takes people over like a demon possession and “says things”.

That being said I have noticed the Holy Spirit brought up several times on this board though as if to push some sort of hot button. Is there some major view that I’m not aware of on the Holy Spirit?

Thanks Redrum, but my guess is that it will fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes considering the medium ),

CM