C
- Status
C
cfrancis
Guest
What you’ve given is your interpretation of the passages we’ve discussed, as I have given mine. You don’t accept mine as I don’t accept yours. As I stated earlier, I’ve never heard the idea that Satan could enter heaven until you espoused it.
R
Redrum
Guest
I would like to address this 40,000 thing again because I finally clicked on your link. I looks like your reference is “World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions in the modern world”.
I now ask a simple question, is this your source?
C
cfrancis
Guest
CM,
I want to present my understanding of how Satan need not be in heaven (I believe he cannot be) in Job1:6-7 - Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
The LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?” Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.”
As there is nothing to imply or clearly state that this meeting took place in heaven; while it a possibility, it need not be the best one, especially when based on Scripture:
Genesis 18:22
The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD.
Exodus 16:9
Then Moses told Aaron, "Say to the entire Israelite community, ‘Come before the LORD, for he has heard your grumbling.’ "
Leviticus 1:5
He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then Aaron’s sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
Numbers 5:16
" 'The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD.
Deuteronomy 4:10
Remember the day you stood **before the LORD **your God at Horeb, when he said to me, “Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children.”
Joshua 7:23
They took the things from the tent, brought them to Joshua and all the Israelites and spread them out before the LORD.
Judges 11:11
So Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and commander over them. And he repeated all his words **before the LORD **in Mizpah.
Judges 20:23
The Israelites went up and wept **before the LORD **until evening, and they inquired of the LORD. They said, “Shall we go up again to battle against the Benjamites, our brothers?” The LORD answered, “Go up against them.”
1 Samuel 2:18
But Samuel was ministering **before the LORD **-a boy wearing a linen ephod.
Psalm 95:6
Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel **before the LORD **our Maker;
I can go on, but you get the point. Reading both Job 1:6 and 2:1, I have no problem with Satan being somewhere else and God and the angels being in heaven, and God being able to meet with all in some manner that maintains Rev 21:27.
I want to present my understanding of how Satan need not be in heaven (I believe he cannot be) in Job1:6-7 - Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
The LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?” Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.”
As there is nothing to imply or clearly state that this meeting took place in heaven; while it a possibility, it need not be the best one, especially when based on Scripture:
Genesis 18:22
The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD.
Exodus 16:9
Then Moses told Aaron, "Say to the entire Israelite community, ‘Come before the LORD, for he has heard your grumbling.’ "
Leviticus 1:5
He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then Aaron’s sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
Numbers 5:16
" 'The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD.
Deuteronomy 4:10
Remember the day you stood **before the LORD **your God at Horeb, when he said to me, “Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children.”
Joshua 7:23
They took the things from the tent, brought them to Joshua and all the Israelites and spread them out before the LORD.
Judges 11:11
So Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and commander over them. And he repeated all his words **before the LORD **in Mizpah.
Judges 20:23
The Israelites went up and wept **before the LORD **until evening, and they inquired of the LORD. They said, “Shall we go up again to battle against the Benjamites, our brothers?” The LORD answered, “Go up against them.”
1 Samuel 2:18
But Samuel was ministering **before the LORD **-a boy wearing a linen ephod.
Psalm 95:6
Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel **before the LORD **our Maker;
I can go on, but you get the point. Reading both Job 1:6 and 2:1, I have no problem with Satan being somewhere else and God and the angels being in heaven, and God being able to meet with all in some manner that maintains Rev 21:27.
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
The passages James White decided to use to establish the meaning of the Greek word translated as “he will suffer loss” in 1 Corinthians 3:15 stood out to me:
Now, the opposite of the reception of reward is to suffer loss. The Greek term that Paul uses, ζημιόωμαι or ζημιόω, is translated by the vast majority of recognized translations as “suffer loss,” and there is a reason for this. Despite the fact that you can render the term as “punish,” its normative meaning especially in the New Testament refers to experiencing the opposite of gain, that is loss, and often what is not gained is found in the immediate context of the words used. For example, in Philippians 3:8 Paul says, “More than that I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for Whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ.” Obviously this does not mean Paul has been punished, but has suffered the loss of all things. The same is true in Jesus’ use of the term in Matthew 16:26: “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul, or what will a man give in exchange for his soul.” In 1 Corinthians 3:15 the term is used in a context that provides a direct correlation to the term: the one whose work remains receives a reward, so the one whose work is burned up does not. Hence they “suffer loss.”
What struck me about these comparisons is that in the Philippians passage, Paul lost something of lower value in order to gain something of greater value. So when he “suffered the loss of all things” in order to gain Christ, it’s certainly not going to be perceived by him as suffering any form of punishment, or, better, as suffering the disciplinary love of our Father. Just the opposite!
And in Matthew, Jesus is telling us that it is better to save our soul from the hell of fire than to gain the whole world. Certainly, if we “forfeit” our soul it will be felt as suffering punishment! Ironically, Luke lets us in on the fact that Jesus gave us two ways of thinking about this loss of soul when He said this, making the loss here tantamount to its being destroyed: “For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and destroys or forfeits himself?” (Luke 9:25) These examples seem to work against Dr. White’s position. In the passage from Corinthians, the person didn’t lose one thing in order to gain something better (as in Philippians). No tradeoff of one thing for another. No compensation. He will just simply, suffer loss. And are we to think that the loss that the man will suffer is something akin to personal destruction (as in Matthew, whose meaning is illuminated by Luke)? We’ll come back to this.
James’ point is that the loss that is suffered is to be strictly compared with the reward that would be owed to us, rather than as being an expansion on what it feels like to have your work burned up. But this depends on restricting the objects that are both gained and lost to the representation of the same entity. That what is gained in the one case is nothing other than what is lost in the other. But in Matthew and Philippians, the objects gained and lost are two different entities. In Philippians, Christ is gained and all else is lost. In Matthew, the soul would be lost in order to gain the world. By appreciating this fact, we are led away from seeing the loss suffered in 1 Corinthians as referring back to the “gained” reward; rather, it refers us back to the painful experience of having the works themselves burned up, which is obviously a loss in itself. The loss of the work itself is the primary loss that is suffered since, in agreement with the other passages, the “work” is something other than the “reward.” This “loss” would of course include the loss of the reward that would have ensued upon this lost work, but the “loss” would not be limited to the reward or even pointing directly to it. Let’s continue to see why…
What did Paul lose in Philippians? He didn’t lose Christ, the One he gained! He lost the object immediately preceding the word translated as “I have suffered the loss”, i.e., “all things” (the order of the words that I mention here and following refers to the order in the Greek). And what would the man suffer the loss of in Matthew? He would suffer the loss of the object immediately preceding the word translated as “forfeits”: his soul. Not the world. What is the object immediately preceding the suffered loss in 1 Corinthians? The work being burned up! In addition, the other passages have us losing something that is already ours, not something that might potentially be ours. What do we already have to lose? The work! Finally, having compared Matthew with Luke, we saw that what was lost was what was destroyed. What was destroyed in 1 Corinthians? The work! Consequently, when we “suffer loss” in 1 Corinthians 3, our thoughts are turned back by these comparisons to the burned up work that was already ours and that immediately precedes the word meaning “he will suffer loss,” and not to the hypothetical reward of the previous sentence.
If we are to use these other passages of Scripture as keys of interpretation for the 1 Corinthians passage, then Paul seems to have more in view here than just the loss of reward by his use of ζημιωθήσεται. If
(1) the loss refers primarily to the burning up of the work, and, as we’ve previously tried to establish,
(2) the work is inextricably bound to our inner sanctification, then
(3) this loss must entail a purification and/or eradication of the impure purposes of the heart: purgatory.
By the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Pete
If everything that the Roman Catholic Church taught were true…
Now, the opposite of the reception of reward is to suffer loss. The Greek term that Paul uses, ζημιόωμαι or ζημιόω, is translated by the vast majority of recognized translations as “suffer loss,” and there is a reason for this. Despite the fact that you can render the term as “punish,” its normative meaning especially in the New Testament refers to experiencing the opposite of gain, that is loss, and often what is not gained is found in the immediate context of the words used. For example, in Philippians 3:8 Paul says, “More than that I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for Whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ.” Obviously this does not mean Paul has been punished, but has suffered the loss of all things. The same is true in Jesus’ use of the term in Matthew 16:26: “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul, or what will a man give in exchange for his soul.” In 1 Corinthians 3:15 the term is used in a context that provides a direct correlation to the term: the one whose work remains receives a reward, so the one whose work is burned up does not. Hence they “suffer loss.”
What struck me about these comparisons is that in the Philippians passage, Paul lost something of lower value in order to gain something of greater value. So when he “suffered the loss of all things” in order to gain Christ, it’s certainly not going to be perceived by him as suffering any form of punishment, or, better, as suffering the disciplinary love of our Father. Just the opposite!
And in Matthew, Jesus is telling us that it is better to save our soul from the hell of fire than to gain the whole world. Certainly, if we “forfeit” our soul it will be felt as suffering punishment! Ironically, Luke lets us in on the fact that Jesus gave us two ways of thinking about this loss of soul when He said this, making the loss here tantamount to its being destroyed: “For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and destroys or forfeits himself?” (Luke 9:25) These examples seem to work against Dr. White’s position. In the passage from Corinthians, the person didn’t lose one thing in order to gain something better (as in Philippians). No tradeoff of one thing for another. No compensation. He will just simply, suffer loss. And are we to think that the loss that the man will suffer is something akin to personal destruction (as in Matthew, whose meaning is illuminated by Luke)? We’ll come back to this.James’ point is that the loss that is suffered is to be strictly compared with the reward that would be owed to us, rather than as being an expansion on what it feels like to have your work burned up. But this depends on restricting the objects that are both gained and lost to the representation of the same entity. That what is gained in the one case is nothing other than what is lost in the other. But in Matthew and Philippians, the objects gained and lost are two different entities. In Philippians, Christ is gained and all else is lost. In Matthew, the soul would be lost in order to gain the world. By appreciating this fact, we are led away from seeing the loss suffered in 1 Corinthians as referring back to the “gained” reward; rather, it refers us back to the painful experience of having the works themselves burned up, which is obviously a loss in itself. The loss of the work itself is the primary loss that is suffered since, in agreement with the other passages, the “work” is something other than the “reward.” This “loss” would of course include the loss of the reward that would have ensued upon this lost work, but the “loss” would not be limited to the reward or even pointing directly to it. Let’s continue to see why…
What did Paul lose in Philippians? He didn’t lose Christ, the One he gained! He lost the object immediately preceding the word translated as “I have suffered the loss”, i.e., “all things” (the order of the words that I mention here and following refers to the order in the Greek). And what would the man suffer the loss of in Matthew? He would suffer the loss of the object immediately preceding the word translated as “forfeits”: his soul. Not the world. What is the object immediately preceding the suffered loss in 1 Corinthians? The work being burned up! In addition, the other passages have us losing something that is already ours, not something that might potentially be ours. What do we already have to lose? The work! Finally, having compared Matthew with Luke, we saw that what was lost was what was destroyed. What was destroyed in 1 Corinthians? The work! Consequently, when we “suffer loss” in 1 Corinthians 3, our thoughts are turned back by these comparisons to the burned up work that was already ours and that immediately precedes the word meaning “he will suffer loss,” and not to the hypothetical reward of the previous sentence.
If we are to use these other passages of Scripture as keys of interpretation for the 1 Corinthians passage, then Paul seems to have more in view here than just the loss of reward by his use of ζημιωθήσεται. If
(1) the loss refers primarily to the burning up of the work, and, as we’ve previously tried to establish,
(2) the work is inextricably bound to our inner sanctification, then
(3) this loss must entail a purification and/or eradication of the impure purposes of the heart: purgatory.
By the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Pete
If everything that the Roman Catholic Church taught were true…
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, it is a verse that is often misquoted by Protestants who have heard their pastor profess it as a proof text that Paul did not believe in Purgatory, yet these Protestants may have not actually read it in Scripture themselves.
St. Paul says he prefers to be away from his body and be present with the Lord.
That does not mean that once he’s away from his body he’s in heaven!
Just like if I say I **prefer **to be away from my office and be present on the beach, does not mean when I’m away from my office I’m at the beach. In fact, I may be in purgatory (read: traffic, the interminable lines at the license office, on hold on a call that’s “very important to us”…
)
P
PRmerger
Guest
My source is this here:
[SIGN1]Your Total “Christian Denominations” Count for today is 41390
Please pray for Christian unity (John 17; Eph 4:5; Matt 16:18)[/SIGN1]
P
PRmerger
Guest
B
brb3
Guest
Can we enter heaven with UNFORGIVEN venial sins ?
First your opinion. Then cite scriptures to back it up.
B
Byzman
Guest
You know…you think that you know all of history. Well…that’s fine! When you say that “as history shows, no one was required to follow their list,” I think I have to school you a little here. So here goes. The Council of Rome 382, the Council of Hippo 393, the Council of Carthage 419, the Council of Florence 1442, and the Council of Trent 1546, all defined the same lists of the Canon of Scripture.It doesn’t matter. They did not infallibly declare a canon that was to be followed by all, regardless of popes. And, as history shows, no one was required to follow their list.
CM
This is from the Council of Florence
Even after this Ecumenical Council there were some who doubted the Deuterocanonical Books, but this is a different topic for a different thread. Lets stay focused on Purgatory.
R
Redrum
Guest
Well, this source says 33,000 not 40,000.
C
Churchmouse
Guest
Well, don’t pigeonhole this into a “Satan in heaven” assertion. Again, Scripture says that unless one has holiness one can’t “see” the Lord. Satan evidently “sees” the Lord, thus the Catholic interpretation still doesn’t work.
CM
P
PRmerger
Guest
Did you read the entire article? Did you look at the bottom of the page, Red?
M
Monte1945
Guest
Do you accept scripture of implication?
Do you accept the idea that there is “consequence of sin” after forgiveness of sin?
If you will give me an idea of how you feel about these subject which relate to
what some of the scriptures might “indicate” regarding a saved person’s transfomation
from the current stage of their soul to the state it will be in over in Glory.
Do you accept the doctrine of "Growth of one’s Santification after one receives the
Grace of God until his death?
Do you believe in the Communion of Saints?
In order for one to even attempt to discuss the doctrine of Purgatory one has to set up the foundation to it with the above mentioned subjects… and then I shall go into scripture with you. The reason that I am saying this, is because unless you understand the Catholic
postion on:
- Receving Grace as an actual enitiy (through infusion)
- Santification during your earth life.
- Communion of Saints
- Consenquence of your sins.
to attempt to discuss ,through scripture, Purgatory with you.
I welcome the opportunity to talk this with you… and I will not ask you to acknowledge
what you believe at all. You are most certainly have the rights to your “opinion” as anyone
else. Though I do not rely on my knowledge, opinions or human instinct in order to hold my Faith for the obvious reasons.
C
Churchmouse
Guest
In each of these instances, you have human beings who, of course, reside in flesh and on earth. It doesn’t compare to “sons of God”, and Satan amongst them, meeting with God.
CM
C
Churchmouse
Guest
C
Churchmouse
Guest
The testament of history still opposes you. If a canon was truly finalized and Catholics had to follow it, they WHY was it still contested in Trent by Cardinal Seripando and his group? Trent was the council that finalized the canon for Catholics AFTER the Reformation, regardless of what any of these councils stated. Sorry but you can’t change what is so evident.
CM
B
brb3
Guest
Can we enter heaven with UNCONFESSED / UNFORGIVEN mortal sins ? Opinion, then scriptures to support.
M
Monte1945
Guest
Which “truth” are you asking for when you say which church is infallible?
I do not know of your personal understandings of what the Catholic Church
teaches in regard to what you find in error… but just off the top of my mind,
I will say… There are many different truths of God and I need to know which
truths are you talking about?
Within the Catholic Church she teaches, that all churches which teach the love
of God through the shed blood of Jesus the Christ has Salvation for any who respond
to that love and does so with Faith has the Salvation of God. This includes all kinds
of churches and religions through out the world.
Now that is what is called the Salvation Truth… I feel that most Christian churches
believe and teach that and if done so, then they all have the Salvatation Truth.
The differences between most chrisitan denominations are so minor that they do not
affect one’s Salvation… Most of the conflicts are of the “santification nature”…
So if you will kindly list what truths you are in conflict with we can move on.
I understand this is a purgatory issue… and I have another post on here to attempt to
begin a discussion from my point of view and understandings on it
As soon as I get some feed back I can move on… if you have a specific question I will
attempt to deal with it too…
T
Third_Day
Guest
Since this is supposed to be about the Staples-White debate here’s my 2 cents. Both men held their own debating over only 1 Cor. 3:11-15. However James White never did say what “saved by fire” means. If that doesn’t refer to purification, what does?
- Status