M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Just want to put this link to comments on Le Goff’s book here for reference.
- Status
C
cfrancis
Guest
First, do you believe in the Trinity as I stated it?
If yes, please provide the Scriptures that defined this for you.
Very true, but not an answer to the question. Do infallible men, when being inspired to write by God (unless you believe they took dictation), need to be protected from error when writing His Word?
I did not say they had to be infallible to be moved by God; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul were not moved by God because they were infallible. But they were protected from writing and teaching error - that’s an issue with which you still have not dealt.
C
Churchmouse
Guest
I really wish that folks would stick to the theme of the thread.
- Whether or not the Alexandrian Jews saw the added books as Scripture is unknown. However, other factors imply that they were not (see #2). Inclusion into a set doesn’t mean they were viewed as Scripture.
- History doesn’t show any disagreements between the Alexandrian Jews and the Palestinian Jews. If one group viewed the added books as Scripture and the other didn’t, why is there no record of any disagreements.
- Luther was part of a tradition that persisted in the church. There were others before him who disagreed with the inclusion of these books. Jerome, Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan, to name a few. Even Cardinal Seripando led a small group of scholars against the Apocrypha during the council of Trent. So, although it is the norm to blame Luther, you may as well blame others who disagreed with their inclusion also.
You assume too much. Although Protestants and Catholics agree on the extent of NT books, history shows that it wasn’t a matter of “acception” from the Catholics. The Reformers followed the same criterions that were available to the church universal and drew the same conclusion. However, the OT was committed to the Jews (Romans 3:2). We are heirs to what was given them. Their opposition to Christ doesn’t impede what was given to them.Now here’s a question for you: Why do Protestants unquestionably accept the canon of the New Testament set forth by the Catholic Councils in the 4th century, yet reject the O.T. canon from that same Bible in favor of one codified by the Palestinian Jews – the very people who denied the Divinity of Jesus and crucified him?
Now, it would be nice to finish with purgatory before we move on.
CM
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I too believe we are saved by Christ, not our merits apart from Him. In reading your post, here’s where I see the disconnect:
You say you do sin, but in heaven you won’t, and yet you do not wish to identify any transitional period from one condition to the other. How am I making an assumption that there is such a transition??? There cannot NOT be such a transition.
When do you consider the moment Christ will “present you unblemished” to take place? You have already stated that you are a sinner now. Do you believe you will be “different” when Christ presents you unblemished?
C
Churchmouse
Guest
I asked you to school me. How were these defined? There is a reason why I’m not going to provide the Scriptures yet. We both know that Scripture defines Christ and the Fathers oneness, yet distinctualizes each as well. Again, you school me.
The question is loaded. God is giving His word through men. If God is doing it then it doesn’t merit that the men be “protected.” God in the beginning and God at the end. Man is just an instrument.
Again, you are dictating on how I should answer and it comes out rather loaded. Yes, these men weren’t infallible and God inspired them to write Scripture. It is infallible the minute it proceeded from His mouth. There doesn’t need to be some magical force imputed into these men for this to work. God is in the beginning and at the end regardless of man.
CM
C
Churchmouse
Guest
To all:
It is amazing to me how this has gone from one issue to another. Why is it that we cannot focus on one thing?
CM
It is amazing to me how this has gone from one issue to another. Why is it that we cannot focus on one thing?
CM
C
Churchmouse
Guest
I really don’t get your assumption. WHY can’t there be a transition from one to the other WITHOUT the need for purgatory? That’s where you got me completely befuddled. You believe it but you can’t tell me why.
Of course I will be different, but that doesn’t imply or prove that we must go through an afterlife purification. I still don’t get your premise or why you assume it just has to be.
Well, I gotta go. I’ll come back later to deal with what seems to be a very confusing and, in some ways, a corrupted thread. There is a lot of snow outside and I’ve got to get to it. Considering you are a fellow Illinoisian, I would assume you know what I’m talking about.
CM
C
cfrancis
Guest
I think it’s a fundamental difference in approach: for Catholics, all this is related: Purgatory, Salvation, the inspiration of Scripture, the protection of the Holy Spirit, etc…
Blanket answers such as, “God is in the beginning and at the end regardless of man” are believed by Catholics, too, but do not approach an answer that dignifies the rational nature of our God-created being.
God did not become incarnate just so we can sit back and attribute all that happens in teh universe to “God is in the beginning and at the end regardless of man.” If such was the case, there is no need for us to know anything about the nature of God.
So, how about you try again:
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, you did bring it up. Thank you for admitting that. :tiphat:
So, now to continues the discussion that you brought up, I will again point out that [SIGN]you do believe that men have been infallible
[/SIGN] when they wrote Scriptures, that men have been infallible at the Councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo, (and re-affirmed at Nicea, Florence and Trent) --whew! (that’s a lot of infalliblity going around our church history!)…so why did God suddenly stop using his Church to guide us under his infallible direction? Do you have any Scripture verses to show us that God would stop using his infallible direction to guide us?
M
Mickey
Guest
…or our relationship to Him.
At this point the Orthodox Christian would begin to talk about purification, illumination, and theosis.
C
Churchmouse
Guest
Yet, by the same token, you impose the question while giving a distinctive that I don’t see as valid, that there must be an alien “protection” for men to write Scripture. God is at the beginning and at the end, regardless of man, is a very valid and true statement and excludes men from having charisms tossed on them that God hasn’t given.
So, go back to my original statements and school me. I gotta go. The snow calls.
CM
C
cfrancis
Guest
C
cfrancis
Guest
:clapping::clapping::clapping:…or our relationship to Him.
At this point the Orthodox Christian would begin to talk about purification, illumination, and theosis.
C
Churchmouse
Guest
PRmerger, you really aren’t worth the time and the effort. It’s evident that you will see what you want to see and argue as you want to argue. I tire. Let the folks follow the threads and see who is pulling whose chain. I just hope that there are some here who are unbiased and objective. Thanks nonetheless.Yes, you did bring it up. Thank you for admitting that. :tiphat:
So, now to continues the discussion that you brought up, I will again point out that [sign]you do believe that men have been infallible
CM
C
Churchmouse
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is certainly permissible, at the discretion of the Moderator.
However, should this thread receive a warning from the Mod to return to topic there is no poster here that ought to feel exempt from that!
P
PRmerger
Guest
As you wish.
C
cfrancis
Guest
Is there a reason you are unable/unwilling to answer this simple question?
Surely you believe in the Trinity; I want to know if we share the same definition of the Trinity, for you know the Mormons and others do not either share our definition or believe in it.
So, given the rhetoric you’ve displayed in this thread, answering the above question should be well within your means.
And, once you do provide yor answer, you should be able to provide where in Scripture this definition rests.
Now, if you feel you cannot answer the question and provide the Scripture references because you feel it will compromise your position, just say so, and I’ll drop it.
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
God’s building is certainly God’s people. And the Corinthians are definitely Paul’s “workmanship in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 9:1). But the different materials listed in 3:12 are what are used to build the building. These things are not the building itself. They are the paint and the strokes used to create the painting. If you preach a message of wisdom to a people prepared only for milk (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:6, 3:2), then you are building with hay. If you empty the power of God by using “lofty speech” and “plausible words of wisdom” (1 Corinthians 2:1, 4), then you are building with straw. We should see in such activities an ostentation given at the expense of the hearers, perhaps a preaching out of rivalry, and as coming out of a self-seeking ministry (cf. Philippians 1:15; 2:21). But if you preach “Jesus Christ and Him crucified… in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Corinthians 2:2, 4), then you are building with gold!
The materials differ solely based on the level of care with which the person is building. If another person became “hay” because the servant did not take care how he built upon the foundation of Christ (1 Corinthians 3:10), then the servant would be directly responsible for and the sole cause of the destruction of his brother, and the person who does this is himself destroyed (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:17; 6:19). If the listed materials in 3:12 are people, you’ll have to explain how the minister of verse 15 who has built with wood, hay, and straw – all of which gets destroyed by the fire – can be saved. I don’t think that this can be done.
Again, the disclosing Day makes the “work” manifest through the revealing fire (1 Corinthians 3:13), and Paul tells us that it is “the purposes of the heart” that are thereby disclosed (1 Corinthians 4:5). The effecting means are what are being tested, not the effected ends.
This is a good point, but the entire metaphor is the “language” of purification. I think that it is not a word here or there that we should be looking for, but it is the overall picture or concept. We say that we ourselves pass through the fire on the basis that our works pass through the fire, and that these works are intrinsic to us and define our degree of inner sanctification. Our good works pass through the fire with us, and the bad works get fried. If you call the wood, hay, and straw building materials, then we’ve been “dematerialized.” But if you move past the words of “gold, wood, etc.” and you see the ones as pure and the others as impure – appreciating the fact that you are in the process of being brought into the presence of God through the judgment of His consuming fire, and that nothing impure can enter heaven – then you will see that a purification of the person himself is taking place through the removal of the “impure” wood, hay, and straw. The gold, etc. is not being purified. It is already pure in Paul’s metaphor as indicated by its survival. If you want to call it a “sanctification” rather than a “purification,” then that is fine too. We are in the final stage of being cleansed of the dishonorable wood and clay that is in us in order to be set apart as holy (cf. 2 Timothy 2:20-21).
We cannot use a metaphor to describe purification, and at the same time use explicit purification language. The existence of the one nullifies the possible existence of the other, or should at least lessen our expectation for finding both.
Paul goes on to say that he applied these things to himself and Apollos as a teaching aid and that what he said about himself is similarly true in the case of the Corinthians. “For who sees anything different in you?” (1 Corinthians 4:7). Paul received his gift from God and the Corinthians have each received theirs. These varying gifts are for the purpose of building up the Church. Paul is saying that as you Corinthians go about building up the church, each in his own way, see yourselves as being in my position in the picture that I just drew. “What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed” (1 Corinthians 3:5). “This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Corinthians 4:1), just as all believers are called to be “good stewards of God’s varied grace” (1 Peter 4:10) as the Spirit “apportions to each one individually as He wills” (1 Corinthians 12:11) so that “all things [can] be done for building up” (1 Corinthians 14:26). Paul and Apollos are God’s “fellow workers” (1 Corinthians 3:9); that is to say that they work, “struggling with all His energy that He powerfully works within [them]” (Colossians 1:29). In the same way, you Corinthians should be “always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:58). Because if you build with gold, silver, and precious stones, then your work will survive the testing by fire and you will receive an imperishable wreath (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:25).
Thank you for the exchange. You’ve made some very good points. I hope I didn’t bring any “hay” into the discussion, “but test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
Your brother in the Lord,
Pete
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Purgatory IS the transition.
Yes, I see the snow…
Perhaps this will help illustrate why I believe there must be a Purgatory and why it is necessarily deducible from Scripture*:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=7350&d=1265743263
Whatever one wants to “label” the middle stage does not change the absolute necessity of it being there.
*That is if one denies any of the common Purgatory passages the Catholic Church understands as evidence of Purgatory…
- Status