Staples White debate on Purgatory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholicdeacon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Churchmouse said:
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.”
Click to expand...
You can’t go from one condition to another without having an occasion of transition. It’s impossible.
 
PRmerger said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well, I’ve got my own house and it’s made without hands. You’re invited anytime. Open door policy.

CM
 
Redrum said:
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.
Click to expand...
Admit it, you LOVE my cartoon!!! 😃

But since no sanctification occurs apart from the power of the Cross, then you TOO can believe in a transitional event/encounter from the blemished state of this world to the perfect one in heaven. http://www.smileyhut.com/happy/happydance.gif
 
Churchmouse said:
WHY is it impossible? You’re looking at things from a very biased viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Well… I’m willing to entertain other postulates as to how something can go from A to B without ever undergoing a transformation.
 
cfrancis said:
Is there a reason you are unable/unwilling to answer this simple question?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I really wish you would get to the point. We can discuss, but I’m not going to be baited. There is no fear of compromise or whatnot. What is your point? Council declarations? Oral traditions? What?

CM
 
Thank you both for the polite words. I hope we can maintain it for however long or short the conversation goes from here.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Thank you both for the polite words. I hope we can maintain it for however long or short the conversation goes from here.
Click to expand...
I meant it. You do the folks here at Catholic Answers proud with your humble demeanor. I think Dr. White would have said the same had you come on the show :).

CM
 
Redrum said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, we Catholics agree that Christ is the One doing the purging, and that we are only able to be purged because of His life, death and resurrection.

I’m not so sure about the “No more purging, suffering, or atoning necessary” part, though.
Rom 8:17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, ***if indeed we suffer with Him ***so that we may also be glorified with Him.

Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.

If it’s not too much of a bother, would you mind providing the Scripture verses you feel support your belief that there is no transition, no purifying? Thanks!
 
Churchmouse said:
I really wish you would get to the point. We can discuss, but I’m not going to be baited. There is no fear of compromise or whatnot. What is your point? Council declarations? Oral traditions? What?

CM
Click to expand...
CM, my point is simple: do you believe in the Trinity as I defined it? This medium does communication an injustice, so I simply have to ask you accept that I sincerely want to know if you accept that understanding of the Trinity.

Because if you do, I think there is room for a common ground on the use of Scripture.
 
Churchmouse said:
WHY is it impossible? You’re looking at things from a very biased viewpoint.

CM
Click to expand...
Because in order to get from one state to another state, there must be a transition.

MarcoPolo you are doing a great job. You too, cfrancis!
 
cfrancis said:
Actually, we Catholics agree that Christ is the One doing the purging, and that we are only able to be purged because of His life, death and resurrection.

I’m not so sure about the “No more purging, suffering, or atoning necessary” part, though.
Rom 8:17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, ***if indeed we suffer with Him ***so that we may also be glorified with Him.

Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.

If it’s not too much of a bother, would you mind providing the Scripture verses you feel support your belief that there is no transition, no purifying? Thanks!
Click to expand...
Great verses. Peter has lots to say about suffering w/ Christ too. And Hebrews 12 always comes to my mind when God talks about disciplining His “sons” for the sake of their holiness. :o
 
cfrancis said:
CM, my point is simple: do you believe in the Trinity as I defined it? This medium does communication an injustice, so I simply have to ask you accept that I sincerely want to know if you accept that understanding of the Trinity.

Because if you do, I think there is room for a common ground on the use of Scripture.
Click to expand...
You originally stated…
To support your position, you need to provide Scripture that defines the Trinity as Three Divine Persons in One Divine Being, sharing one Divine Nature. I’m not aware of any that do this.

Okay. What now?
 
Byzman said:
Because in order to get from one state to another state, there must be a transition.

MarcoPolo you are doing a great job. You too, cfrancis!
Click to expand...
It doesn’t answer WHY the transition is purgatory. That is the question.

CM
 
Churchmouse said:
You originally stated…
To support your position, you need to provide Scripture that defines the Trinity as Three Divine Persons in One Divine Being, sharing one Divine Nature. I’m not aware of any that do this.

Okay. What now?
Click to expand...
Well, I wait for you to answer the question: do you believe in the Trinity as Three Divine Persons in One Divine Being, sharing one Divine Nature?
 
PRmerger said:
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…”
Click to expand...
Hello, my sister!

Actually, he said the opposite. 🙂

“Even if we could find places, as we can, in the Bible where the term fire is used of purification, is that how it’s being used here?”

Here is what he said in his 8 minute rebuttal:

“We can find other passages in the Bible where fire has something to do with purification; but we have not heard anything from Mr. Staples where this text mentions purification.”

And he pointed out that the passages that do deal with fire as a purifying agent pertain to a purification taking place in this life, and not postmortem:

“And so, for example, we saw Revelation 3 and Hebrews 12; but these are talking about sufferings and purifications in this life. They have nothing to do with the idea that before you enter into the presence of God, there’s going to have to be a postmortem cleansing or purification of your soul, before you can experience that”

And of Romans 8:17:

“This is talking about now. This isn’t talking about some postmortem experience of purification of the soul.”

But in his closing statement:

“Mr. Staples has failed to show us any purification in this text. He’s gone to all sorts of other texts, but he has not been able to demonstrate that any of those texts can be drawn back to First Corinthians Chapter 3, that overthrows the immediate context. Mr. Staples has failed to provide any contextually based connection between any of those other texts that he cited, most of which had to do with suffering in this life”

Because he said “most” in this last statement, it implies there was at least one Biblical passage he had in mind where he does see a postmortem purification as a possibility. I am guessing that he would say that he didn’t intend to imply this, and that he would be comfortable with replacing “most” with “all” in what he said. But I would wait for clarification before I asserted anything on this.

May the LORD be with you!

In Christ,
Pete
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top