Staples White debate on Purgatory

[PRmerger]

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.

Indeed.

I would add that there’s a multitude of denominations which have quasi-trinitarian or binatarian or unitarian beliefs (after reading the very same Scripture verses mainline Christianity has used to declare the dogma of the Trinity, give or take a few books)

Christadelphian
apocalyptic, eschatological (i.e. “end times” Christians)
Divine Science
Gnostic, esoteric, anthroposophical
Holy Spirit Association for Unification of World Christianity
Jehovah’s Witnesses (or “Russellites”)
Latter-day Saints (Mormons), including Mormon schismatics
Liberal Catholic (Theosophical, Masonic, Gnostic)
schism from Orthodox, in marginal direction
Paulician, Bogomil
metaphysical science or “Divine/Religious Science”
Spiritualist, Spiritist, psychic, occult
Swedenborgian (Church of the New Jerusalem; spiritualistic)
Theosophist, Theosophical, synthesist
Unitarian, Universalist, Free Christian, Liberal Christian

 

[PRmerger]

I find it quite interesting that this past Sunday’s reading was from Isaiah, a “man of unclean lips”

What did God use to “purify” him? To cleanse him?

“Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar.”



An example in Scripture of a fire which purifies.

Didn’t James White say that there were no examples in Scripture of fire purifying anyone?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Didn’t James White say that there were no examples in Scripture of fire purifying anyone?

I don’t recall that he made that blanket of a statement. Perhaps one of his fans can clarify this.

 

[AwGusTeen]

I really wish that folks would stick to the theme of the thread.

Hey – this is my first post in this thread. However, it is clear that you played a large part in highjacking the topic, yet now you complain about it?

1. 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.

Nor does your argument from silence prove that they were not.

1. 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. .

Whether one can provide historical documentation of disagreement is simply moot. The fact that the Jewish Christians/Early Church were using the Septuagint canon of the Old Testament containing the deuteros, would indicate that most also accepted them. The Catholic Church kept the canon intact through the centuries. Why? Because they WERE the Early Church.

1. Luther was part of a tradition that persisted in the church.

Oh – now that’s rich.

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. .

I’m not blaming Luther. I am however, attempting to point out the fact that no matter what the personal opinions of Jerome or any group of Cardinals were (and the ECF’s debated the NT canon heavily), they eventually came together in agreement under the authority of the Catholic Church who established the New Testament canon through the process of debate and discussion. Luther, conversely, took it upon himself to not only remove the deuterocanonicals from the OT canon, but he also attempted to remove several books (I.e. Rev., Hebrews, and James) from the New Testament all of which, he was forced to restore. Further, he even added the word “alone” to James to bolster his man-made tradition of faith alone.

You assume too much.

So you say…

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.

I hope you can prove that – otherwise, its just rhetorical pap.

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.

That’s right – and that something included the deuteros in the form of the Septuagint.

I find it interesting on the one hand that Protestants can accept the canon of the New Testament created by the Catholic Church in the 4th century, thereby tacitly accepting the authority of that Church, yet on the otherhand reject parts of the OT canon based on the whim of Luther who was in all out rebellion with the Catholic Church. Does anyone else find this ironic – or is it just me?

Now, it would be nice to finish with purgatory before we move on. CM

Hey Churchmouse – would you like some cheese with that whine?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t recall that he made that blanket of a statement. Perhaps one of his fans can clarify this.

During JWs opening statement he states, "even* if *we could find places (and we can’t) in the Bible where the term fire is used of “purification…”

 

[Redrum]

Man this thing has really spun out of control since I checked it last!

Hopefully it’s making people think.

 

[PRmerger]

Hey – this is my first post in this thread. However, it is clear that you played a large part in highjacking the topic, yet now you complain about it?

Nor does your argument from silence prove that they were not.

Whether one can provide historical documentation of disagreement is simply moot. The fact that the Jewish Christians/Early Church were using the Septuagint canon of the Old Testament containing the deuteros, would indicate that most also accepted them. The Catholic Church kept the canon intact through the centuries. Why? Because they WERE the Early Church.

Oh – now that’s rich.

I’m not blaming Luther. I am however, attempting to point out the fact that no matter what the personal opinions of Jerome or any group of Cardinals were (and the ECF’s debated the NT canon heavily), they eventually came together in agreement under the authority of the Catholic Church who established the New Testament canon through the process of debate and discussion. Luther, conversely, took it upon himself to not only remove the deuterocanonicals from the OT canon, but he also attempted to remove several books (I.e. Rev., Hebrews, and James) from the New Testament all of which, he was forced to restore. Further, he even added the word “alone” to James to bolster his man-made tradition of faith alone.

So you say…

I hope you can prove that – otherwise, its just rhetorical pap.

That’s right – and that something included the deuteros in the form of the Septuagint.

I find it interesting on the one hand that Protestants can accept the canon of the New Testament created by the Catholic Church in the 4th century, thereby tacitly accepting the authority of that Church, yet on the otherhand reject parts of the OT canon based on the whim of Luther who was in all out rebellion with the Catholic Church. Does anyone else find this ironic – or is it just me?

Hey Churchmouse – would you like some cheese with that whine?

Indeed. Arguments from silence speak volumes! They scream: I don’t have an answer.

 

[Churchmouse]

Indeed. Arguments from silence speak volumes! They scream: I don’t have an answer.

Gee, PR, have you now resorted to trolling In case you don’t know it, sometimes “silence” IS an argument. I know that it’s fashionable to use “argument from silence” as an invalid argument, but sometimes, as you said, the fact that there is silence CAN be a valid point. It can scream.

CM

 

[PRmerger]

Gee, PR, have you now resorted to trolling In case you don’t know it, sometimes “silence” IS an argument. I know that it’s fashionable to use “argument from silence” as an invalid argument, but sometimes, as you said, the fact that there is silence CAN be a valid point. It can scream.

CM

Dern it! I thought you weren’t responding to me anymore. That gave me lots of room to have a little fun.

 

[Churchmouse]

Purgatory IS the transition.Yes, I see the snow…

Yet, you don’t say why it must be. What city are you in?

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.

There is a bit of a false dichotomy going on here. Why “must” it have to change in the middle? Again, I don’t see your point.

*That is if one denies any of the common Purgatory passages the Catholic Church understands as evidence of Purgatory…

Isn’t that the point. I don’t agree with purgatory, let alone any passages that is used to support purgatory. I don’t see purgatory as a valid doctrine but rather a doctrine made up by men. Hence, no offense, but when you continue to assert that it must be, I don’t see how you support that “middle ground.”

CM

 

[Redrum]

So church mouse are you ready to convert yet and become one of these kind and patient people?

 

[Churchmouse]

Dern it! I thought you weren’t responding to me anymore. That gave me lots of room to have a little fun.

Just correcting you, yet, I couldn’t do it silently, could I .

CM

 

[PRmerger]

Just correcting you, yet, I couldn’t do it silently, could I .

CM

So, are we friends again, dear brother in Christ?

 

[Churchmouse]

So church mouse are you ready to convert yet and become one of these kind and patient people?

You mean re-convert Red. Yeah, I have been victimized by so much love and kindness that I feel about as welcome as a mouse in a cat sanctuary . I feel the love.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

So, are we friends again, dear brother in Christ?

Who says we aren’t friends

CM

 

[Redrum]

You mean re-convert Red. Yeah, I have been victimized by so much love and kindness that I feel about as welcome as a mouse in a cat sanctuary . I feel the love.

Peace,
CM

Marco Polo seems like a good reasonable guy. I’m enjoying reading that exchange on purgatory.

 

[PRmerger]

Who says we aren’t friends

CM

Well, you ain’t one of my friends till you accept my friendship offer. Come on over to my house!

How’s *that? *

It would be pretty un-charitable to refuse my friendship request, now, wouldn’t it?

 

[Redrum]

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…

This cartoon assumes a causal relationship between the two states of being and I agree. I guess the disagreement is that we are under the impression that the middle part was Christ’s death on the cross? No more purging, suffering, or atoning necessary.

 

[Churchmouse]

Hey – this is my first post in this thread. However, it is clear that you played a large part in highjacking the topic, yet now you complain about it?

Where did I hijack? If you are going to make accusations, please substantiate them.

Nor does your argument from silence prove that they were not

.

As I already mentioned to PR, sometimes silence IS an argument. In this case you have Jews, Alexandrian and Palestinian, and there is nothing showing disagreement. Yet, when you look at the history of Jews and how some disagreed with books, such as Esther and Song of Solomon, and the sometimes violent debates over their canonicity, why is there silence over books which the Palestinians denied? Again, silence can be very effective.

Whether one can provide historical documentation of disagreement is simply moot. The fact that the Jewish Christians/Early Church were using the Septuagint canon of the Old Testament containing the deuteros, would indicate that most also accepted them.

WHERE is the evidence for this? You cannot prove that they were accepted as divinely inspired by their inclusion in a tome. Also, the earliest LXX manuscript is from the 4th century, how are you going to prove that their canon contained the books?

The Catholic Church kept the canon intact through the centuries. Why? Because they WERE the Early Church.

This is rhetoric. It proves nothing.

Oh – now that’s rich.

Evidently you’re not familiar with canon issues. If you look throughout the history of the church, you’ll see all sorts of disagreements on various books. Just the fact that the canon was still being argued at Trent goes to show you that nothing was clearly defined for Catholics UNTIL Trent. So, again, if you are going to interact than do so without the rhetoric.

I’m not blaming Luther. I am however, attempting to point out the fact that no matter what the personal opinions of Jerome or any group of Cardinals were (and the ECF’s debated the NT canon heavily), they eventually came together in agreement under the authority of the Catholic Church who established the New Testament canon through the process of debate and discussion.

AT TRENT!!! This was after the Reformation and after it was, allegedly, defined.

Luther, conversely, took it upon himself to not only remove the deuterocanonicals from the OT canon, but he also attempted to remove several books (I.e. Rev., Hebrews, and James) from the New Testament all of which, he was forced to restore. Further, he even added the word “alone” to James to bolster his man-made tradition of faith alone.

Your bias on Luther is showing. You evidently don’t know much about him and really cannot comment. Jim Swan has very clear articles that can show you how misinformed you are. The first (an answer to your claim that he removed the deuteros) is found here… ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm
…the second (on Luther adding the word “alone”) is found here… beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html Pay close attention to all those Catholics who saw the same thing Luther did WAY before he, supposedly, added it.

So you say…

But you do.

I hope you can prove that – otherwise, its just rhetorical pap.

Hey, let me give you one instance. What have you been claiming that Luther did? Do you think he did it on a whim OR because he was researching the same? The same thing goes throughout Reformation history. If you aren’t familiar with it then you really shouldn’t comment.

That’s right – and that something included the deuteros in the form of the Septuagint.

You haven’t proven that yet. Therefore, evidently this is just an assumption.

I find it interesting on the one hand that Protestants can accept the canon of the New Testament created by the Catholic Church in the 4th century, thereby tacitly accepting the authority of that Church,

You’re rambling and reasserting your prior error. Again, the Reformers didn’t look to the RCC but, very evidently, did their own research.

yet on the otherhand reject parts of the OT canon based on the whim of Luther who was in all out rebellion with the Catholic Church. Does anyone else find this ironic – or is it just me?

No, it’s just you and you’re simply repeating the same misinformation that I’ve seen from many others like you.

Hey Churchmouse – would you like some cheese with that whine?

Now that seems rather “grownup.” But I guess you’re a teen (I see it in your tag). Young person grow up!

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

This cartoon assumes a causal relationship between the two states of being and I agree. I guess the disagreement is that we are under the impression that the middle part was Christ’s death on the cross? No more purging, suffering, or atoning necessary.

Good stuff, dude. Why didn’t I think of that

CM