C
- Status
C
Churchmouse
Guest
And you confuse the dialogue even more. You see a “discussion” involves more than one and there is an exchange, a tit for tat, pro and con. You seem to think that it’s a matter of asking questions, while you take a back seat. I can leave things as is and any unbiased person will see what I mean.That’s what the purpose is for the CAFs–questions/answers/dialogue/discussion.
If you feel that it’s wrong for me to pose questions to you, you have recourse to the Mods.
However, I suggest that you think twice about reporting me for asking questions…
CM
C
Churchmouse
Guest
So, PRmerger, when are you going to interact. Considering you’ve gone away from the theme, why not start there.
CM
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
I’m just saying, you believe men are capable of being infallible.
What criteria is that, CM, that your church used to determine what’s theopneustos?
[/quote]
B
brb3
Guest
Not sure if a winner has been selected yet. Too many pages to read thru.
White is a good debater, very quick of mind. But, he didn’t have much on Staples. Tim did very well, and his firm belief in the subject matter was clearly conveyed. White came across as in it for the polemics, to promote his Blog and fans.
Then again, its hard to be called the winner when you’re wrong on the facts. Tim Staples held opening serve, volley section was edge to Staples, and Staples had the better closing arguments. Victory goes to Staples by 2 to 1 margin.
You fans of White … need to invite him to come on CAF and banter with our experts.
White is a good debater, very quick of mind. But, he didn’t have much on Staples. Tim did very well, and his firm belief in the subject matter was clearly conveyed. White came across as in it for the polemics, to promote his Blog and fans.
Then again, its hard to be called the winner when you’re wrong on the facts. Tim Staples held opening serve, volley section was edge to Staples, and Staples had the better closing arguments. Victory goes to Staples by 2 to 1 margin.
You fans of White … need to invite him to come on CAF and banter with our experts.
J
Just_Me_Andrew
Guest
Greetings to all Christians in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:
I just wanted to comment on the whole Staples vs White issue and put on the side lines for a while the cheers and the jeers for either side.
I find it interesting that no Catholic on the board has mentioned that James White did a Dividing Line after the debate—> aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3753 where he showed that the Protestant scholars Staples used to bolster his argument were taken out of context and didn’t even support his position. Maybe some of you would like to comment on this development?
I wanted also to share a couple of points made when Dr. Walter Martin was alive and debated Mich Pacwa on Purgatory:
Martin: Primarily, because in biblical theology in the New Testament the doctrine of purgatory is unknown. It’s not mentioned. It was a later invention of Catholic theology. There is no suggestion of purgatory in Apostolic theology-there is no mention of the concept whatever. The only way you’re going to get it is to read into the passages, and it took them 500 years to read it into the passages. So I think it’s a little difficult for Protestants to swallow what turned out to be the biggest money-making proposition in the history of Roman Catholic doctrine-namely, to actually pay money for masses and sell indulgences. And, in fact, impute vicarious righteousness to people in a place that didn’t exist, except in the thought processes of Roman Catholic theologians.
Pacwa: Now, in terms of the Scriptures, you’re right, that we don’t have a text that explicitly mentions it. But we have texts that we have to deal with very seriously; and I must admit this, too–the more I study this–in preparation for this [discussion], the more I did see the connection between our understanding of purgatory and the Catholic understanding of Justification–that they do go hand-in-hand. No doubt.
Martin: In other words, purgatory itself doesn’t rest upon any series of verses which you can connect exegetically or hermeneutically. And really–and I think you’re going to have to admit this–it really rests upon the teaching magisterium of the Church. We are testing by Scripture, and you are testing by the Church’s authority. So, we’re challenging the Church’s authority to make those kind of interpretations because they violate the text and the context.
Pacwa: Okay. So that we don’t want to do at all. And the thing that we also know is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not spelled out anywhere in Scripture in the way that we see it in the Councils or the Creeds, right? But we know that the Councils and the Creeds, when they speak on the two natures of Christ, on the Threeness of God, that we know that they’re taking that from the sense of Scripture, okay? Without having Scriptures that explicitly spell it out. That same process went on, by the same people, in terms of the doctrine of purgatory. <—Now he goes into Matthew 5 and “the last penny”
Martin: Of course, Father. Pacwa is perfectly correct when he says that you don’t have to have the name of a specific doctrine for it to be there. Trinitarian theology is there in the text, even though the name “Trinity” doesn’t appear. The Theocratic Kingdom is there, even though the word “theocracy” doesn’t appear-we know that also. That isn’t really the issue.
The issue that we’re dealing with is the actual texts in their proper context. And in the Matthew 5 passage which he quoted, Jesus is, by no stretch of the imagination talking about the afterlife. He’s talking about how, as an illustration, people are to conduct their affairs in this life. And He says, “Because if you don’t do this, why, if you don’t settle your arguments quickly with people in this life, they’re going to throw you into prison. And you’re not going to get out until you pay the last nickel.” Which meant, quite obviously, “Pay your debts and try and come to an agreement with your adversary as quickly as possible.” To extrapolate to a purgatory after death is a classic non sequitur in logic. It doesn’t follow at all. Because the context isn’t even saying that. The context is talking about earth and not heaven. Now, if you wish to base your doctrine of purgatory on a conglomerate of verses, and then when you get finished say, “This is all talking about the same place,” you’ve got to begin at the place where it specifically states the doctrine. This doesn’t state the doctrine at all.
This my friends is the whole issue of the debate with White and Staples…Purgatory doesn’t rest on any series of verses you can connect exegetically or hermeneutically in their proper contexts. The doctrine rests on the teaching magesterium of the Catholic Church. Tim Staples failed to show how 1 Cor 3 in context supports the doctrine of Purgatory. I’ve seen also on this web board a few people post the Church fathers…I understand why you do that however that doesn’t help you to exegete the text.
GBU all my Christian friends…in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit AMEN
I just wanted to comment on the whole Staples vs White issue and put on the side lines for a while the cheers and the jeers for either side.
I find it interesting that no Catholic on the board has mentioned that James White did a Dividing Line after the debate—> aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3753 where he showed that the Protestant scholars Staples used to bolster his argument were taken out of context and didn’t even support his position. Maybe some of you would like to comment on this development?
I wanted also to share a couple of points made when Dr. Walter Martin was alive and debated Mich Pacwa on Purgatory:
Martin: Primarily, because in biblical theology in the New Testament the doctrine of purgatory is unknown. It’s not mentioned. It was a later invention of Catholic theology. There is no suggestion of purgatory in Apostolic theology-there is no mention of the concept whatever. The only way you’re going to get it is to read into the passages, and it took them 500 years to read it into the passages. So I think it’s a little difficult for Protestants to swallow what turned out to be the biggest money-making proposition in the history of Roman Catholic doctrine-namely, to actually pay money for masses and sell indulgences. And, in fact, impute vicarious righteousness to people in a place that didn’t exist, except in the thought processes of Roman Catholic theologians.
Pacwa: Now, in terms of the Scriptures, you’re right, that we don’t have a text that explicitly mentions it. But we have texts that we have to deal with very seriously; and I must admit this, too–the more I study this–in preparation for this [discussion], the more I did see the connection between our understanding of purgatory and the Catholic understanding of Justification–that they do go hand-in-hand. No doubt.
Martin: In other words, purgatory itself doesn’t rest upon any series of verses which you can connect exegetically or hermeneutically. And really–and I think you’re going to have to admit this–it really rests upon the teaching magisterium of the Church. We are testing by Scripture, and you are testing by the Church’s authority. So, we’re challenging the Church’s authority to make those kind of interpretations because they violate the text and the context.
Pacwa: Okay. So that we don’t want to do at all. And the thing that we also know is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not spelled out anywhere in Scripture in the way that we see it in the Councils or the Creeds, right? But we know that the Councils and the Creeds, when they speak on the two natures of Christ, on the Threeness of God, that we know that they’re taking that from the sense of Scripture, okay? Without having Scriptures that explicitly spell it out. That same process went on, by the same people, in terms of the doctrine of purgatory. <—Now he goes into Matthew 5 and “the last penny”
Martin: Of course, Father. Pacwa is perfectly correct when he says that you don’t have to have the name of a specific doctrine for it to be there. Trinitarian theology is there in the text, even though the name “Trinity” doesn’t appear. The Theocratic Kingdom is there, even though the word “theocracy” doesn’t appear-we know that also. That isn’t really the issue.
The issue that we’re dealing with is the actual texts in their proper context. And in the Matthew 5 passage which he quoted, Jesus is, by no stretch of the imagination talking about the afterlife. He’s talking about how, as an illustration, people are to conduct their affairs in this life. And He says, “Because if you don’t do this, why, if you don’t settle your arguments quickly with people in this life, they’re going to throw you into prison. And you’re not going to get out until you pay the last nickel.” Which meant, quite obviously, “Pay your debts and try and come to an agreement with your adversary as quickly as possible.” To extrapolate to a purgatory after death is a classic non sequitur in logic. It doesn’t follow at all. Because the context isn’t even saying that. The context is talking about earth and not heaven. Now, if you wish to base your doctrine of purgatory on a conglomerate of verses, and then when you get finished say, “This is all talking about the same place,” you’ve got to begin at the place where it specifically states the doctrine. This doesn’t state the doctrine at all.
This my friends is the whole issue of the debate with White and Staples…Purgatory doesn’t rest on any series of verses you can connect exegetically or hermeneutically in their proper contexts. The doctrine rests on the teaching magesterium of the Catholic Church. Tim Staples failed to show how 1 Cor 3 in context supports the doctrine of Purgatory. I’ve seen also on this web board a few people post the Church fathers…I understand why you do that however that doesn’t help you to exegete the text.
GBU all my Christian friends…in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit AMEN
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, that is correct.
Just like the doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t rest on any series of verses you can connect exegetically or hermeneutically in their proper contexts.
There are verses that support our understanding of Purgatory, and there are verses that support our understanding the Trinity.
“Proof texting”, IMHO, is just a waste of time. We must rely on the entire Word of God to understand His message–not just a text which seemingly proves a doctrine.
J
Just_Me_Andrew
Guest
PRmerger…
Amazing your reply to my post…Dr.Walter Martin addressed that in the quotes I gave from the debate. You must have skipped over his points:
*Martin: Of course, Father. Pacwa is perfectly correct when he says that you don’t have to have the name of a specific doctrine for it to be there. Trinitarian theology is there in the text, even though the name “Trinity” doesn’t appear. The Theocratic Kingdom is there, even though the word “theocracy” doesn’t appear-we know that also. That isn’t really the issue. *The issue that we’re dealing with is the actual texts in their proper context.
Now, if you wish to base your doctrine of purgatory on a conglomerate of verses, and then when you get finished say, “This is all talking about the same place,” you’ve got to begin at the place where it specifically states the doctrine.
The difference between your comment about the Trinity and exegesis and Purgatory is this: You can’t find any verses that deal specifically with the concept of purgatory never mind the fact of those verses being exegetically viable. The Trinity when all the evidence is brought out…verses about God, His nature, specific verses dealing with the nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit…The Trinity is perfectly defensible. Purgatory is NOT.
Lastly in your comment underlies a very important point. You essentially don’t believe there is contextual, exegetical support for the Trinity in Sacred Scripture alone. Which means your knowledge of the Trinity and why you believe it is essentially…The Church says it I believe it. Sola Ecclesia.
Have a wonderful day my Christian friends.
J
Just_Me_Andrew
Guest
Woops, I forgot something in my post…
*“Proof texting”, IMHO, is just a waste of time. We must rely on the entire Word of God to understand His message–not just a text which seemingly proves a doctrine. *
I agree “proof texting” is not a good way to defend what you believe we must examine the whole Word of God…However when people throw verses out there and say “see purgatory is biblical” Why can’t a person examine those verses in their contexts to see if its talking about the concept of Purgatory?
I would like to see a list from “the entire Word of God” showing the concept of Purgatory, when the verses are exegeted etc and then conclusion showing how there is no other conclusion that the doctrine is true. I don’t believe this will happen.
*“Proof texting”, IMHO, is just a waste of time. We must rely on the entire Word of God to understand His message–not just a text which seemingly proves a doctrine. *
I agree “proof texting” is not a good way to defend what you believe we must examine the whole Word of God…However when people throw verses out there and say “see purgatory is biblical” Why can’t a person examine those verses in their contexts to see if its talking about the concept of Purgatory?
I would like to see a list from “the entire Word of God” showing the concept of Purgatory, when the verses are exegeted etc and then conclusion showing how there is no other conclusion that the doctrine is true. I don’t believe this will happen.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Andrew, it is quite arguable that the “Scriptural evidence” for the Trinity is perfectly defensible–simply ask any Unitarian, Mormon, JW, or the hundreds of other denominations with varying (sometimes bizarre) understandings of this alleged “evidence”.
Clearly, one cannot look at the Scriptures and see the dogma of the Trinity. One must look to the entire Word of God in order to develop this understanding of the nature of God.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Certainly a person can–and ought–to examine those verses in their contexts to see if they’re talking about the concept of Purgatory.
I believe that’s what Tim Staples, Fr. Pacwa, Catholic Answers, the Magisterium, etc etc etc have done.
Andrew, the Word of God is a Person, not a list. We must examine ALL that he has revealed, not just the written Scriptures.
C
Churchmouse
Guest
Okay. Andrew brought up the debate between Martin and Pacwa. The latter bought up how the word “Trinity” isn’t found in Scripture as if Purgatory falls within the same criterions, which is a very common argument amongst the RC apologetic crowd. Well, considering that a concept doesn’t have to have a name for it to be valid, the Trinity is a logical extension of Scripture, of which both Catholics and Protestants agree. Yet, purgatory doesn’t have anything which even comes close to this extension. Couple that with the fact (as Martin rightly points out) that no one interpreted passages, such as 1 Corinthians 3, to imply purgatory for over 500 years. It seems there is much reading back (eisegesis) going on. This is one of the reasons why Staples faired no better than those before him.Alrighty, then!
Let’s discuss!
CM
C
Churchmouse
Guest
Of which leaves you with a dilemma consdiering you are a part of “fallible men” who “fallibly” decided to follow the RCC and its claims to infallibility.
It’s too long to discuss right now, but we agree that Scripture is theopneustos. Yet, we disagree on the content of it (Catholics including the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals). If Rome truly determined the canon for us then why this disagreement. Now, in the same way that Rome determined her books (i.e. apostolicity, universal acceptance, orthodoxy, etc.), the Reformers followed the same criterions. So, it can never be said that we follow a canon that the Roman Catholic church defined for us because it evidently wasn’t accepted hook, line, and sinker, but tested as well.What criteria is that, CM, that your church used to determine what’s theopneustos?
CM
C
Churchmouse
Guest
This I’ve got to jump on. Can you give us instances where the “entire Word of God” was used to define the concept of the Trinity? I recall Scripture being used during the Arian controversy and as the Nicene Creed and Athanasian creeds were formulated. This counts for the Scriptural aspect of the “entire Word of God” but what else was there? And how does this factor into purgatory?
Oddly, one of the best exegetical books on the subject, The Forgotten Trinity, is written by none other than Dr. James R. White and endorsed (on the back cover) by Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, who states…
“My church is entering the millennium with a three year focus on the Blessed Trinity. Dr. White highlights a vital truth: the Mystery of the Trinity is truly related to how we love God. Our faith in the Trinity is the same: one God, three coequal persons.”
CM
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
No, that’s not true. Aside from 1 Cor 3, or the Maccabees text, one of the reasons why C.S. Lewis, a non-Catholic, embraced Purgatory is because he recognized a few simple concepts easily derived from Scripture:
- There is not stain or blemish of sin of any kind in heaven where we are fully united with God.
- We still have sinful tendencies and habits and such in our lives here on earth.
- Thus prior to full entry into heaven, the imperfections must be removed from the soul—this purification, i.e. purging, is Purgatory.
p.s. I addressed White’s Monday “post-mortem” in post #84.
C
Churchmouse
Guest
I am familiar with Lewis’s “Letters to Malcolm” where he states his views on purgatory, but I am not familiar with the biblical verses by which he saw a purgatory. Do you have a more prima facie source on this? Also, if memory serves me correct, his view of purgatory “may” involve suffering, but he equates it to a “rinsing.”
CM
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I only referenced Lewis because he did not hold to Papal authority, and if nothing else, should give someone pause before embracing the idea that the Catholic Church “made it up.” If my post was not worded clearly, I was not indicating that my 3-point proof was something Lewis used himself (that I’m aware of), although his argument in the Malcolm letter closely resembles it. If someone was to deny that Purgatory is fairly deduced from Scripture, I think he has to deny one of the 3 points.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I disagree. While 1 Cor 3 is not a proof text, there is certainly a valid argument to be made that it does support the doctrine of Purgatory.
Purgatory, just like Trinity, is a “logical extension” of Scripture.
Do you really want to bring up history as a foundation for doctrines, CM? If you wouldn’t mind giving me a reference to your catechism, and then we can talk about how historical your views are. Do you believe in the Rapture? OSAS? Women’s ordination? Altar calls? Infant dedications? I am quite certain that you have a multitude of doctrines that were not held for over 500 years.
Once I know what it is your pastor believes–and that you accept–then we can discuss.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough.
But, you are agreed that men have been infallible in the past, yes?
I’d just like to know what criteria you used to determine that Scripture is theopneustos. My criteria is that which the CC declared–infallibly–in the 5th century.
You stated:
So, what are these criteria, CM?
- Status