Wednesday, July 11, 2012

"You have received an infraction at Catholic Answers Forums"

Well, it was bound to happen, I was cited with a 10 point infraction on the Catholic Answers Forums.


 Today, 8:03 am
Moderator
Join Date: September 30, 2009
Location: Non-Catholic Religions
Posts: 3,781
Religion: Catholic
Default You have received an infraction at Catholic Answers Forums

Dear TertiumQuid,

You have received an infraction at Catholic Answers Forums.

Reason: Contempt for Catholicism
-------
Contempt for Catholicism
-------

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9508522
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel Serafin View Post
Dear Mr. Swan, I'm sorry if my comments offended you; I was simply responding to the post in this thread. You are free to disagree with me, but .
The use of "but" negates the apology.

Is this typical of Roman Catholics, that they can compare something I wrote to the defense of a murderer? Recall it was stated of my blog entry, that I used the "same skill that O.J. Simpson attorneys rationalized away all the damning and obvious evidence".

This is truly offensive, and if it were up to me, you would be banned.

I assume because I'm Protestant, no one will call you out on this, and will simply let you get away with it.

This is yet another reason why I will never convert to your religion.

James Swan
All the best,
Catholic Answers Forums
__________________
Forum Rules and guidelines



Addendum
In fairness to Catholic Answers:

They've allowed me on their forums since May 2004. Granted, I don't post all that often, so there's less opportunity for me to express my "contempt" for Romanism (I mean that in a humorous way). A fair amount of links back to this blog site (and alos aomin.org) have been posted on the Catholic Answers forums (most not by me), and to my knowledge, they have never deleted one of these links.

In this particular instance, a Roman Catholic compared my link about Luther and Romans 3:28 to the reasoning of O.J. Simpson's lawyers. Typically, I'd simply get a chuckle out of something like this and move on. This time, after the chuckle, I decided to experiment and ask the Roman Catholic saying this for an apology. He gave me the "I apologize... but" speech. In other words, he didn't apologize, nor did anyone else come to my defense.

So, after a few sips of coffee the other morning, with one eye open, I penned the comment that was given the infraction. What I think provoked the infraction was my final line: "This is yet another reason why I will never convert to your religion." And I do mean this. Other than a few people over the years, the majority of Roman advocates I've come across are the real anti-Catholics. More often than not, their demeanor is entirely like the zealot on the forum that provoked my ire.

In fairness again to the Catholic Answer moderator, he did remove the posts I took offense to as well. I'm not sure if the other person received an infraction or not. Let us keep this final thing in mind: Romanism has come a long way. Back in the 15th Century, they could've ripped out my tongue for alleged expressing "contempt" for Romanism.

54 comments:

Martin Yee said...

Another act of tyranny from Romanists.

Keep up the good work James!

Long live the Reformation!

Regards,
Martin

EA said...

This must add to your time in purgatory, James. Any idea how much?

Digital4n6 said...

Well, if you would have not made such a general remark... that only brings you down to the level that poster was.

Tom R said...

Time to purchase some indulgences, methinks...

steelikat said...

That doesn't make sense. Eric Hilbert says you are the recipient, not the agent, of an infraction. So who gets the 10 points, you or Gabriel Serafin? Are points a good thing to have or a bad thing? Or is he saying that you committed the infraction against yourself (making you both agent and recipient). If that's the case, you can have the "points" (demerits, really) removed by simply assuring Eric Hilbert that you were in no sense harmed, that you don't feel that you received anything negative from the so-called "infraction." Of course if you want the points, if they are a badge of honor for you, you won't complain.

Or maybe it's the points that are infractions. In that case, E. H. should have said you received ten of them, not one.

James Swan said...

In fairness to Catholic Answers:

They've allowed me on their forums since May 2004. Granted, I don't post all that often, so there's less opportunity for me to express my "contempt" for Romanism (I mean that in a humorous way).

A fair amount of links back to this blog site have been posted on the Catholic Answers forums (most not by me), and to my knowledge, they have never deleted one of these links.

In this particular instance, a Roman Catholic compared my link about Luther and Romans 3:28 to the reason of O.J. Simpson's lawyers.

Typically, I'd simply get a chuckle out of something like this and move on. This time, after the chuckle, I decided to experiment and ask the Roman Catholic saying this for an apology.

He gave me the "I apologize... but" speech. In other words, he didn't apologize, nor did anyone else come to my defense.

So, after a few sips of coffee the other morning, with one eye open, I penned the comment that was given the infraction. What I think provoked the infraction was my final line: "This is yet another reason why I will never convert to your religion." And I do mean this. Other than a few people over the years, the majority of Roman advocates I've come across are the real anti-Catholics. More often than not, their demeanor is entirely like the zealot on the forum that provoked my ire.

In fairness again to the Catholic Answer moderator, he did remove the posts I took offense to as well. I'm not sure if the other person received an infraction or not.

Let us keep this final thing in mind: Romanism has come a long way. Back in the 15th Century, they could've ripped out my tongue for alleged expressing "contempt" for Romanism.

Ken Abbott said...

Well, at least you didn't get the soft cushions or the comfy chair. Count your blessings!

Pete Holter said...

James wrote, “Let us keep this final thing in mind: Romanism has come a long way. Back in the 15th Century, they could've ripped out my tongue for alleged expressing ‘contempt’ for Romanism.”

This is actually the next step up after the 10 point deal. Ha.

If it’s any consolation, I’ve received a 10 point infraction too, and a warning.

I’m sorry for our offenses against you. A Catholic shouldn’t object to Luther’s insertion of “alone” in Romans 3:28, but should repeat with Pope Benedict:

“Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: ‘faith alone’ is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14)” (General Audience, 11/19/2008).

I see a lot of Catholics get confused by this and think that the pope is addressing Luther’s doctrine of faith alone when he says that “Luther’s phrase: ‘faith alone’ is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.” But the pope is specifically addressing whether it is correct to add “alone” to Romans 3:28 so as to end up with the “phrase: ‘faith alone’.” He had mentioned this at the beginning of his talk and had indicated that this was precisely what he was going to come back to at the end: Paul “adds ‘we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law’ (Romans 3:28). At this point Luther translated: ‘justified by faith alone.’ I shall return to this point at the end of the Catechesis.”

With love in Christ,
Pete

steelikat said...

Has the meaning of the word "infraction" changed? When I was growing up, people committed infractions. I suppose sometimes people (the victims not the perpetrators) received infractions too but usually the recipient of the infraction was no one or nothing but the rules themselves.

Please let me make sure I am understanding you. When you and Catholic Answers say you "received" an infraction you mean that you broke a rule, right? Or do you mean that somebody else broke a rule and you were the victim in some sense of that rule-breaking?

PeaceByJesus said...

Very surprised you lasted that long (i was banned for life after exposing the fallacies of a rant against Protestants for 2 days), which i think was due to you being a notable blogger who could expose the typical touchiness so many RCAs exhibit at anything that impugns Rome, one of which is taking offense at the use of "Rome" as short for the Roman Catholic Church, and even then you can be chastened for specifying Roman, as if that was not often necessary.

If i post statistics that reveal that most of Catholics are liberal, more so than evangelicals, then they are attacked as being part of a conspiracy to attack the Church.

Or the liberals are all excommunicated by Rome's zealous defenders, regardless that she treats them as members in life and in death.

There are other examples of overreaction to real or perceived offenses against the RCC which are almost like the overzealous Jewish man who charged that eating a hot dog in public was antisemitic.

Gabriel said...

Dear Mr. Swan,

It was brought to my attention that you were discussing my recent post on CAF. Since it seems to have caused you such a commotion, I would simply like to make known that my post in the CAF was not responding to your article, but rather to someone else's post which stated:

QUOTE: "to be sure, Luther could be harsh, abrasive, even vulgar, and I am in no way defending that, even though it was a different era. He was also apt to use sarcasm and hyperbole. So one must even more carefully use context."

To that post I made my reply. I gave you an apology simply because I didn't mean to offend anybody. I was simply being sincere: I happen to believe that people have become proficient in spinning and rationalizing defenses for many of Luther's vile and erratic writings with the same skill that defense attorneys spin evidence to rationalize anything they set their minds to.

Martin Luther is still excommunicated from the Catholic Church, so his teachings are not always going to be greeted with joy on a Catholic forum, since he was fond of calling the pope the anti-Christ and often laced his attacks with references to excrement and farts, but especially because he took it upon himself to discard ancient Church teachings, and was irreverent, to say the least, about certain books of Sacred Scripture which he though were worthless.

As for my comment being just another reason for you to never join my religion, well, I don't think that's the way to seek the truth. Never mind my views about Luther's vile and insulting writings; instead, be open to the truth wherever God leads you. The key is to not take ourselves too seriously and be humble about seeking God. The language of God is silence, thus we must shut down the noise in our hearts and the pride in our minds to allow Him to speak to us in truth through the Sacred Scriptures and the teachings of the Church.

As for living in the 16th century and having your tongue pulled out, well, just be grateful that we live in different times--and thank goodness--since Catholics were being drawn and quartered and having their heads jammed atop wooden stakes by 16th century anti-Catholic Protestants.

The good news is that all those past generations have long been dead and subsequently judged by a just judge. Today, nobody on this planet even existed 150 years ago, yet Jesus Christ is still the Head of His Mystical Body, and the Holy Spirit is still guiding the Church throughout the ages, despite all the liars, hypocrites, thieves, traitors, perverts and all sorts of scoundrels who were, are, and always will be among members of both the clergy and the laity of the Church. After all, Christ Himself chose Judas Iscariot as one of the 12 apostles.

The Church is an instrument of God, not of man; thus it is that despite the corruption of man, the Church will always speak the truth with authority and infallibility. Therefore, realize the danger posed by those who teach in the name of Christ without having the authority to teach. A good example of this is recorded in Acts 15 when early Christians taught without authority and began misleading people.

Every generation faces the dangers posed by self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters who appoint themselves teachers and "pastors" of souls, teaching their opinions, when in reality, they have no authority whatsoever to teach in the name of Jesus Christ.

Pride always blinds the mind..

"I can with good conscience consider him [the pope] a fart-ass and an enemy of God. He cannot consider me an ass, for he knows that I...am more learned in the Scriptures than he and all his asses are.”--Martin Luther

PeaceByJesus said...

While many Catholics seem to think we follow Luther like a pope, and that finding fault with him, and which we do, negates his doctrine, though they themselves do not operate under that premise when faced with fornicating popes, etc.

But the fact is that we reject many things he said, as a theologian who was yet working thru his theology, as well as a man who was exasperated by an apparently arrogant and unlovable Jewish society.

But the focus on Luther takes away from the deeper issue, as the reason we hold or reject anything - whether it be doctrines Luther held to or Rome - must be based upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, but which is not required for the teachings of the latter.

Instead, Rome infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares in support.

Nowhere in Scripture is the assured formulaic infallibility of Rome promised, that the church always will be infallible whenever it speaks universally on faith and morals, nor was that necessary for writings to be established as Scripture, and truth preserved, and for souls to have assurance of truth.

As for teaching without authority, that was not the issue in Acts 15, as the whole church was preaching the word on their initiative, (Acts 8:4) with apostolic leadership only getting involved when they found out. (Acts 11:19-23)

Instead, the issue was the content of what was being taught, and the veracity of the decision therein was not based upon the premise of Rome's infallibility, but upon Scripture, in text and in power. (Acts 15:4-20; Amos 9:11-12; Gn. 9:4; 34:1,2,15-16,31; 35:2; Ex. 20:3; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Ezek. 30:30,31)

And it was upon Scriptural substantiation that the Lord Jesus established His claims, as did the apostles and early church, with Scripture being the supreme transcendent standard for obedience and testing truth claims. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12 etc.)

As for Rome, she presumes to autocratically decree what truth is, for according to her "interpretation," only what she decrees can be correct in any conflict, if she does say so herself. And for the RC real assurance of truth is based upon that circularity.

In addition, if teaching contrary to established authority is wrong, then you cannot have the church, as it began in dissent from those who were inheritors of promises of Divine presence and preservation, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6), conditional (as submission to men always is in Scripture) being affirmed by the Lord Himself. (Mt. 23:2)

And thus, like Rome would have, they rejected the Itinerant Preacher of Nazareth (Mk. 8:31; 11:28-33) who reproved them by (supernaturally established) Scripture, as they presumed a level of assured veracity above that which was written, thus teaching for doctrines the mere "tradition of the elders." (Mk. 7:3-16)

As Rome does and other sola ecclesia churches in their various divisions, which the noble Bereans would have rejected, and so must we, while seeking to persuade men after the apostolic manner of "manifestation of the Truth," (2Cor. 4:2) though we are not their equal in so doing, much less Rome.

PeaceByJesus said...

As for living in the 16th century and having your tongue pulled out, well, just be grateful that we live in different times--and thank goodness--since Catholics were being drawn and quartered and having their heads jammed atop wooden stakes by 16th century anti-Catholic Protestants.

Yes, the Reformation was a work in progress (and still must continue), as there was much to unlearn from Rome. And in using the unScriptural means of using the sword of men to deal with theological opponents, with papal sanction of torture and death, Rome has no equal.

And to which use she owes much of her conquests, and she still would be using if she were not countered by the Reformation and its effects, and by countries who grew weary of her.

And she still claimed power to carry out its decision, if necessary, by suitable means of compulsion, and to punish members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to its laws, by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction. — Catholic Encyclopedia Jurisdiction

Such is just one example of pride blinding the eyes, even to a pope autocratically asserting, "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.." (Praeclara Gratulationis Publica) and “It is I who am Caesar..." (Boniface VIII, as he rode thru the city, carrying sword, globe and sceptre. - ”Rome and its story”, p. 241, by Welbore St. Clair Baddeley, Lina Duff Gordon)

Now after advocating that governments ensure or provide universal health care, she may be on the other end of forced submission.

RPV said...

"since Catholics were being drawn and quartered and having their heads jammed atop wooden stakes by 16th century anti-Catholic Protestants"

Really? Care to substantiate?

RPV said...

"since Catholics were being drawn and quartered and having their heads jammed atop wooden stakes by 16th century anti-Catholic Protestants"

What no takers on backing this up? What's the matter?
The servers are down over at CatholicAnswers or CTC?

James Swan said...

"It was brought to my attention that you were discussing my recent post on CAF. Since it seems to have caused you such a commotion, I would simply like to make known that my post in the CAF was not responding to your article, but rather to someone else's post"

I did not save your post, but your OJ comment was certainly directly made to the posting of my link.

James Swan said...

I...am more learned in the Scriptures than he and all his asses are.”--Martin Luther

I would agree. Luther certainly knew the Bible a lot better than the ruling popes of his day and many of the Vatican officials.

Gabriel said...

PeaceByJesus,
Luther's doctrines are just that: [i]His doctrines,[/i] which you are free to follow. But Christ warned that we must not call any man "teacher" or "father--meaning that we must not follow the teaching of individual men; but rather the teaching of Christ as He speaks through His Church.(Luke 10:16)

Luther is the Father of Protestantism, but who used the excuse of individual clerical abuses is Germany to appoint himself Bible interpreter and freelance designer of doctrines.

As for fornicating popes, understand that popes are men who can lose their souls just like any other man. What God will not allow is for them to teach false doctrines on faith and morals. And all popes are sinners, including our first pope, who denied Christ three times; yet Simon Peter went on to write inerrant Scripture.

What's more, no pope ever taught that fornication was not okay. On the other hand, it was Martin Luther who said:

QUOTE:"No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day."--END QUOTE.

Realize that most popes have been holy men, and many were martyrs for the faith. There have been bad popes, but the number of them can be counted on one hand.

As for Sola Scriptura, please tell me where the Bible teaches this? What's more, the Church was established and teaching with authority long before the New Testament was even written down.

As for teaching without authority, the Church has defined its dogmas in the face of heresies which poured out of the mouths of self-appointed freelance doctrine designers who read passages of the Sacred Texts and thought they knew better than the Holy Spirit.

As for the noble Bereans, here is an example of you unwittingly twisting the Scriptures to fit your mindset. The Bereans searched the Scriptures to verify the prophecies which Paul said Christ fulfilled. Once they realized Jesus fulfilled Scriptural prophecies, they put their faith in Christ and the new teachings of His Church. They had no Bible to search about the Trinity, the new means of salvation, etc. etc. What's more, St. John himself tells us that Jesus did so many things that the world itself would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Thus it is that the Church has always taught through both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture--not one or the other but both. The problem is that you seem to not be trusting Christ's promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church throughout the ages..

As for the Reformation, what it should really be called is the De-formation. Protestantism has ushered in division, confusion, and contradiction of doctrines, leading to false or grossly incomplete Christianity.

PeaceByJesus said...

James, you are not alone, nor is this an anomaly, See http://churchmouse57.blogspot.com/2010/02/banned-from-catholic-answers-happy-to.html

Also, http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-warner/catholics_in_new_media_catholic_answers

PeaceByJesus said...

Gabriel said...

PeaceByJesus,
Luther's doctrines are just that: His doctrines, which you are free to follow.


Rather, Rome's unScriptural doctrines are just that, as are some of Luther's which were holdovers from Rome, and we are not free in obedience to God to follow anything Luther taught unless it is justified by the weight of Scriptural substantiation. Thus, while most are held to, some certain things are overall rejected, while others fall into the class of teaching which allow some disagreement, as is the case in Rome's “hierarchy of truths.”

But your response here overall ignores much of what i said, including that the focus on Luther takes away from the deeper issue, that of the reason we hold or reject anything, and why the incessant argument by assertions of Roman supremacy are rejected. RCs want to use Luther's contemporary use of vulgarity, and or out of context quotes to nuke or faults to nuke Protestantism, arguing that Luther is its father, while we Scripturally reject such a basis, and yet know the Lord can use even a Samson, while RCs uphold obedience to even wicked popes, and reject that the institutional and personal faults of its leaders molded Rome into its heretical form.

But Christ warned that we must not call any man "teacher" or "father--meaning that we must not follow the teaching of individual men; but rather the teaching of Christ as He speaks through His Church.(Luke 10:16)

Rather, this is just another case of a Roman Catholic following the practice of his church in declaring truth by assertion, in this case wresting Mt. 23:9 to support Rome. But which text is not about following individual men versus the Roman magisterium, but is actually censorious of what Rome has done, that of exalting men above what is written, (1Cor. 4:6) rather than being humble servants as brethren.

For in context this is what the Lord is does (in condemning the Jewish practice of the magisterium):

"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." (Matthew 23:8-12)

The approved commentary of your official church Bible for America states,

While only the title ‘Rabbi’ has been said to be used in addressing the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 23:7), the implication is that Father and ‘Master’ also were. The prohibition of these titles to the disciples suggests that their use was present in Matthew’s church. The Matthean Jesus forbids not only the titles but the spirit of superiority and pride that is shown by their acceptance. Whoever exalts…will be exalted: cf. Lk 14:11.

While it is permissible to recognize one who was instrumental in your salvation and growth as a spiritual father, (1Cor. 4:15) besides the fact that there was not separate class of (mostly celibate) clergy called priests the idea that the whole church looked to Peter as an exalted magistrate in Rome and possessing the assured formulaic infallibility she has infallibly defined his successors as having is without real evidence. Not even one of the church epistles reminds the the church to look to or even pray for the holy father in Rome, nor does Peter (“an elder, “a servant”) and the closest thing you may get to is one that lists Peter second as a group of 3 pillars, and with language that hardly supports the demigod-type status popes have historically been given, (Gal. 2: 9-13) including men bowing down to them, which Peter refused, (Acts 10:36) nor in any other place does any believer do so to another.

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 2

Luther is the Father of Protestantism, but who used the excuse of individual clerical abuses is Germany to appoint himself Bible interpreter and freelance designer of doctrines.

And likewise say Jews about Jesus, but the fact is that writings were established as Scripture (Lk. 24:44) and God preserved Truth without an assuredly infallible magisterium by the time of Christ. For while the magisterium was instrumental, it was not assuredly infallible, and as needed, God raised up men from without it to correct it, including when they presumed a level of assured veracity above that which was written.

And thus God raised up “prophets, and wise men, and scribes” (Mt. 23:34) to reprove them, and thus, as said, the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, by an Itinerant Preacher who reproved them by Scripture, (Mk. 7:3-16) but whose authority, like Rome does, they rejected as not having their sanction, though their office was valid.

But according to the same principle the church is preserved by salvific faith in the Divine Son of God, faith being how it exists and overcomes, (Mt. 16:16-18; 1Jn. 5:11) while Rome fosters confidence in one's own merit and the self-proclaimed power of herself.

Luther was just one of many imperfect men who looked past the accumulated trappings of institutionalized religion to place all his faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save him by His sinless shed blood, as a damned and destitute sinner, which many may do today in such churches, rather than hoping their own merits and or the power of their church will gain them eternal life, along with some mercy. But it was Luther's open rebuke due to the excesses of Rome that threatened Rome.

Nor was Rome completely unified in its soteriology before Trent, and between extremes “were many combinations,” and in condemning sola fide (which is not an inert faith)”What had been previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden.” (Jaroslav Pelikan The Riddle of Roman Catholicism) (More

And yet today the Roman Catholic reaction to Luther and to sola fide in higher levels today can seem overall quite moderate, and often nuanced in allowing justification by faith, but not by a faith apart from works, which was not the faith Luther and Reformer actually taught, despite the assertions of many ill-informed Catholics.

As for fornicating popes, understand that popes are men who can lose their souls just like any other man. What God will not allow is for them to teach false doctrines on faith and morals. ....

The premise of Rome is that she is only infallible when teaching in accordance with her infallibly defined scope and subject-based criteria, but otherwise she can err but not in a way that would lead souls into damnation. However, both beliefs are just that, and assurance for her veracity is self-referencing, while the reality is that by what she officially teaches and effectually conveys, she has tragically become as the gates of Hell for multitudes.

What's more, no pope ever taught that fornication was not okay. On the other hand, it was Martin Luther who said:

QUOTE:"No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day."--END QUOTE


Popes did teach so by example, which is more weighty than words. But again, to reject Luther's teaching based upon personal faults is a double standard in the light of wicked popes.

As for your Luther quote, this, as well as your overall argumentation, is typical of the assertions resulting from hearing only side of an issue, and if you want to better understand Luther and avoid mischaracterization of his words (though that is hardly relevant to whether we believe something) then you have come to the right place.

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 3

As concerns this quote, that is part of the hyperbolic argumentation of Luther, and is not advocating antinomianism (whom he opposed — which Paul was also charged with by his out-of-context accusers), and is clearly contrary to what he wrote as concerns what manner of faith is salvific. See the response of James here and more quotes by Reformers as regards sola fide and works here .

As Luther wrote, “those who glory that they are Christians and do not show this faith by such works, as this sinful woman does, but persist up to the present and live in open sins, in whoring and adultery, are not Christians at all.” — Luther’s Works, English edition, 34:161

And one Roman Catholic writer states: “Luther never meant that a habitual adulterer, murderer, liar, could be justified by faith alone. Otherwise he would not have opposed Karlstadt, Agricola and other easy-believers of his time”’ (Gerstner, JH, Rome Not Home in Justification by Faith Alone, Soli Deo Gloria, 1995, p. 176).

As for Sola Scriptura, please tell me where the Bible teaches this?

That is simple. A complete list of books therein is no more necessary than all the names of the angels, but as the Scriptures materially provide for the recognition of writings as Scripture, so in principle it provides for a canon of Scripture. Scripture abundantly evidences that writing were established as being Divine, based upon their Heavenly qualities and attestation, (Ps. 19:7-11; 119; Heb. 2:3,4) and thus most of what we hold as Scripture was recognized as such by the time of Christ, with over 250 quotations and hundreds of allusions in the New Testament to them. And as progressively written, it was the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the assured Word of God, with additional writings being added in conflation with and complementarity to what was previously established. And as writings were recognized as Scripture in time, so was the lack of any more books like them.

Conciliar decrees, as right and helpful as they can be, neither make a man a true man of God nor writings of God to be so, and it is under sola ecclesia that spurious writings can easily be established to be Scripture.

What's more, the Church was established and teaching with authority long before the New Testament was even written down.

Which presumes what is not proved, that the New Testament church is the RCC, while the Scriptural fact is that even being the instrument and steward of Holy Writ, and inheritors Divine promises, etc., does not provide perpetual assuredly infallibility of office, nor is it needed.

As for teaching without authority, the Church has defined its dogmas in the face of heresies which poured out of the mouths of self-appointed freelance doctrine designers who read passages of the Sacred Texts and thought they knew better than the Holy Spirit.

It is Rome who effectively autocratically presumes to act as if she knew better than the Holy Spirit, and has defined dogmas in the face of Scriptural refutation or lack of Scriptural warrant, which she does not even need, while the EOs contend (as regards papal infallibility, Rome's purgatory and other things) some are contrary to Tradition and history. Although Rome may invoke such for support, they only mean what she says them mean, as she has (conditionally) infallibly defined that she cannot be in error.

In addition, under the Roman means for providing Truth, in which a office of the church is the supreme authority, are the most egregious errors taught, as Mormonism, etc. examples.

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 4

As for the noble Bereans, here is an example of you unwittingly twisting the Scriptures to fit your mindset. The Bereans searched the Scriptures to verify the prophecies which Paul said Christ fulfilled. Once they realized Jesus fulfilled Scriptural prophecies, they put their faith in Christ and the new teachings of His Church. They had no Bible to search about the Trinity, the new means of salvation, etc. etc. What's more, St. John himself tells us that Jesus did so many things that the world itself would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Rather, in Acts 17:11 you have noble souls searching the Scripture for verification and assurance that they may believe, which is contrary to the premise behind the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome, and which a Roman Catholic is not to do once he submits to Rome.

In addition, your premise that once they found the apostolic preaching to be Scriptural, they thus submitted to the RCC after the RC is to do, rendering implicit assent of faith based upon the premise of Rome's assuredly infallibility, and no longer verifying they had arrant by Scripture, is not what Scripture supports.

Souls believed on the Lord Jesus despite what their magisterium said, whom prophets also had reproved, because He established His authority by Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the NT church, rather than defining that they were infallible whenever they spoke universally in faith and morals. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39, 14:11; Acts 17:2,11; Rm. 15:19; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12.) And this substantiation includes Acts 15 (Acts 15::6-12, 20,29; cf. 21:25; Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14; Mk. 16:20; Heb. 2:3,4) And thus obedience was based upon Scriptural warrant, as seen by the abundant references to Scripture, even before there was a N.T.

In addition, certain members of the NT church were Divinely inspired writers of Scripture, and unlike the Tradition of Rome, what they wrote as such was Scripture. Not all that can be known is written, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) but Scripture is the assured established Word of God and judges all teaching, and differentiates between fables and Truth.

However, like the Jewish magisterium, Rome presumes it can selectively teach as doctrines the “tradition of the elders, (Mk. 7:3-16) even if her Catholic counterparts differ with her in part, and in so doing she effectively adds to the canon. And Rome's “apostles” are a far cry from those of Scripture (2Cor. 4:2; 6:1-10; 12:12; Acts 15:12) and those who "mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ" (Acts 18:28) with the heavenly affirmation given the gospel. (Mk. 16:20; 1Ths. 1:5-9)

Moreover, under SS the church can teach Scriptural truths, such as the Trinity and other core truths which the evangelical type church has historically contended for, but the veracity of such is based upon Scriptural warrant, not the premise of assured infallibility.

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 5

Thus it is that the Church has always taught through both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture--not one or the other but both. The problem is that you seem to not be trusting Christ's promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church throughout the ages..

The problem is your premise is based upon presumption. True Sacred Tradition is transmission such as the oral preaching that was supernaturally established as Divine and written as Scripture, but which establishment separates the chaff from the wheat, while Rome argues they both came from the same ground and autocratically declares them both as equal. And yet she effectively claims to be the supreme authority over both, and who can not be wrong when she authoritatively declares she is right! Such was essentially the error of the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, which necessitated reproof by Scripture, and likewise does the presumption from Rome.

And is the preaching to the historical evangelical gospel that effects manifest regeneration, attestive to the truth of the gospel, versus the deadness of the institutionalized church.

As for the Reformation, what it should really be called is the De-formation. Protestantism has ushered in division, confusion, and contradiction of doctrines, leading to false or grossly incomplete Christianity.

Rather, the Reformation needs to further refuse conformity with Rome as well as “Egypt,” as the former is manifestly an ecclesiastical deformation in contrast to the NT church, more than its SS-type counterpart.

As for unity, as i have elsewhere expressed, the contrast is not between one particular church versus a group of others, but between SS-type and sola ecclesia type churches. And both Catholic and SS-type churches have overall historically held to certain core teachings, which is partly manifest by a common front against those who deny them (cults), as well as against Rome's products of sola ecclesia. These churches also see divisions and disagreements, but which are also a reality under sola ecclesia, the differences being a matter of degrees.

Roman Catholicism also abounds in things her members can and do disagree in, from how many infallible pronouncements there are, to which class other teachings belong in, and how much dissent is allowed. As well as aspects of their meaning and the meaning of Scripture texts used in support of Rome as they understand her, which can vary as RCs do not have an assuredly infallible interpreter of their supreme authority any more than we do.

In addition is the wide divergence in moral and doctrinal views, and in which she testifies to fostering far more disunity and liberalism in key views than her evangelicals counterparts, and which Rome effectually promotes by unScripturally treating even “notorious sinners” as members in life and in death, Ted Kennedy being just one example.

And Catholicism also has its divisions, including Roman schisms resulting from her modern redefinitions of teachings, and who claim Rome is the one in schism, based upon their interpretation of Tradition, Scripture and history. And indeed, Rome is effectively one Catholic denomination among others, despite her presumption to universal jurisdiction, and whose unity is not necessarily superior than other particular churches, while her cultic unity (implicit assent of faith) is inferior to that realized by the Scriptural Berean-type heart and means, in quality if not in quantity,

Comfort said...

More time in Purgatory??? No, of course not. James can provide the requisite amount of alms and never have to worry about spending a day in the 'hot place'. As Father Stravinskas said so eloquently: "Pay me now, or pay me later". Gotta love those Catholics. They are never without an escape hatch.

Gabriel Serafin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gabriel Serafin said...

PeaceByJesus, You argue with the same skill that Mormons argue Moronism and atheists argue atheism. Anything can be rationalized, even the most egregious lies, and advertised as truth. When individuals appoint themselves teachers of Christianity they rationalize their own ideas and lead others into error.

You are in error simply because you insist on thinking that Christianity is a religion based on a Book. Understand once and for all that the Church was teaching with authority long before the New Testament was written down, and centuries before the gospels and epistles were assembled into the collection of writings we call the Bible. What's more, the gospels and letters were written for different audiences in different places at different times.

Instead of glossing over to formulate an automatic response, I would suggest you ponder the fact that without Church authority, you have no Bible. Without Church authority, you have no defined doctrine.

Ask yourself, for what purpose did Jesus change Simon's name to "Peter"? Why did Jesus tell Peter to feed and tend His sheep, if anyone could come along and read the Scriptures and appoint themselves shepherds?

Realize that the Church has always dogmatically defined its doctrines in the face of heresy which coming from members inside the Church. We see this beginning in the first century as described in Acts 15 with the Council of Jerusalem, and continuing through the centuries. And the Church has been correcting the errors by individuals who who thought they knew better than the Church. Ironically, it is through the errors of heresy that prompts the Church to define dogmatically its teachings. Here is a list of some of the main heresies which caused the Church to define its doctrines:

The Circumcisers (1st Century)
Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
Arianism (4th Century)
Pelagianism (5th Century)
Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
Nestorianism (5th Century)
Monophysitism (5th Century)
Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)
Catharism (11th Century)
Protestantism (16th Century)
Jansenism (17th Century)

You seem to be hung up on the fact that there are scoundrels within the members of the Church. Realize that among the holy there have always been the wicked. Judas himself was an apostle chosen by Christ. The Church will always teach the truth despite the weeds, the wolves, and the Judases among both the clergy and laity. This is because Christ is the Head and the Holy Spirit guides the Church.

Jesus exercised His authority as a man. He is God, yet He communicated His Truth and Authority through His human nature---and then gave His Truth, Authority, and Power to other men--His apostles---to continue the mission to teach, govern and shepherd the flock. Mere men were given authority to teach all nations, and to have the power to forgive sins until the consummation of the world.

This idea of reading a Bible and using that as your authority was an error invented in the 16th century and it spread after the invention of the printing press. But it is a rotten lie, and you've founded your ideas upon that lie; thus your thesis crumbles under the weight of scrutiny.

PeaceByJesus said...

PeaceByJesus, You argue with the same skill that Mormons argue Moronism and atheists argue atheism. Anything can be rationalized, even the most egregious lies, and advertised as truth.

As is typical with so many Roman Catholic apologists when faced with refutation, you ignore or fail to actually interact much with what extensively refutes your positions, and resort to character assassination and automatic-type responses which were already dealt with, while Mormonism's basis for authority is more like that of Rome than SS-type churches.

When individuals appoint themselves teachers of Christianity they rationalize their own ideas and lead others into error...

Actually, it is under sola ecclesia that we see the greatest aberrations and dangers, as under it a church or an office can define itself as i assuredly speaking only the truth of God, whether it be Rome of the LDS, for as said to you about the former, “she presumes to autocratically decree what truth is, for according to her "interpretation," only what she decrees can be correct in any conflict,” and it is “under sola ecclesia that spurious writings can easily be established to be Scripture.”

Scripture, Tradition and history may be invoked for support, but these interpretations only have authority if she gives it to them. As Manning asserted,

“It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. (“Most Reverend” Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “Lord Archbishop” of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.)

We for our part cannot claim to be a pope, claiming assuredly infallibility whenever we speak on faith and morals, but are to make our case based upon the scriptural means of conformity to and warrant from Scripture, which Rome is contrary to in claiming her assured formulaic infallibility.

This idea of reading a Bible and using that as your authority was an error invented in the 16th century.

Which is absurd, for not only did the noble Bereans (Acts 17:11) live in the first century, but as said, it was “upon Scriptural substantiation that the Lord Jesus established His claims, as did the apostles and early church, with Scripture being the supreme transcendent standard for obedience and testing truth claims. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12 etc.)”

The problem is with your premise of how Truth is established and preserved, which in Scripture did not required an assuredly infallible magisterium, as explained in post #3,, but God first supernaturally established His word in writing (under Moses), which then became the standard for obedience and testing truth claims.

Scripture then provided for more to be added to that class, including by oral preaching being later written, and for it being recognized as Divine, and thus for a canon of recognized writings, but what was written was the standard as the transcendent assured word of God, conformity to which and warrant from oral preaching depended upon. But Rome, which cannot even claim to have the marks of an apostle, (2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12) essentially “infallibly” declares truth by fiat. And all she needs to claim is that it does not contradict Scripture, yet all she need to do is assert it does not, and thus it cannot. This is not how men established Truth claims in Scripture (nor how men of God were established as being so), but upon Scriptural substantiation in text and in power.

PeaceByJesus said...

Instead of glossing over to formulate an automatic response, I would suggest you ponder the fact that without Church authority, you have no Bible. Without Church authority, you have no defined doctrine.

Actually, if the church had not had Scripture upon which to establish her claims, then we would have no church, as Scripture is the only transcendent material source which is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God. (2Tim. 3:16)

This does not mean that the church is not necessary as an instrument of God, but the problem is that your premise is that this church is that of Rome, ,which as said, presumes what is not proved, and that being the instrument and steward of Holy Writ confers or requires such to be assuredly infallible, but which, as shown, it manifestly did and does not.

For as said, “being the instrument and steward of Holy Writ, and inheritors Divine promises, etc., does not provide perpetual assuredly infallibility of office, nor is it needed,” for “the church..began in dissent from those who were inheritors of promises of Divine presence and preservation, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6) as “they rejected the Itinerant Preacher of Nazareth (Mk. 8:31; 11:28-33) who reproved them by (supernaturally established) Scripture, as they presumed a level of assured veracity above that which was written, thus teaching for doctrines the mere "tradition of the elders." (Mk. 7:3-16)

Realize that the Church has always dogmatically defined its doctrines in the face of heresy which coming from members inside the Church. We see this beginning in the first century as described in Acts 15.

Likewise we reprove Rome as well, but as said, Christ “He established His authority by Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the NT church, rather than defining that they were infallible whenever they spoke universally in faith and morals. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39, 14:11; Acts 17:2,11; Rm. 15:19; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12.)

And this substantiation includes Acts 15 (Acts 15::6-12, 20,29; cf. 21:25; Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14; Mk. 16:20; Heb. 2:3,4) And thus obedience was based upon Scriptural warrant, as seen by the abundant references to Scripture, even before there was a N.T.”

And the Church has been correcting the errors by individuals who who thought they knew better than the Church

And we see in Scripture the Lord and the church being established in dissent from the instruments and stewards of Truth, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4,5) and reproving them by Scripture who though they knew better than it, or presumed the same authority. (Mk. 7:1-16) And who acted like Rome in rejecting them as they had not their sanction. (Mk. 8:31; 11:28-33; Acts 4,5)

Here is a list of some of the main heresies which caused the Church to define its doctrines:

You are in error simply because you insist on thinking that Christianity is a religion based on a Book. Understand once and for all that the Church was teaching with authority long before the New Testament was written down..

No, you are in error for ignoring or rejecting that the church was established upon Scriptural substantiation, and by instead presuming the church was like Rome with her assured formulaic infallibility, “that [as said] she is only infallible when teaching in accordance with her infallibly defined scope and subject-based criteria.”

PeaceByJesus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 4

Here is a list of some of the main heresies which caused the Church to define its doctrines:

Almost all of which are contended against by SS-type denominations, while as said, there are many things Catholics can and do disagree on.

But what you will not see in the New Testament church (among other things, and besides Bingo) is that of a separate class (and clothed) of sacerdotal clergy called “priests” (versus bishops/elders as one office), much less required (with rare exceptions) celibacy for them;

Or praying to the departed , and the hyper exaltation of and devotion to Mary above that which is written; (1Cor. 4:6)

Or that regeneration cannot precede baptism (as some hold), or baptism except to those who could fulfill the stated requirements of hearing, repentance and faith; (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37; cf. 8:12; 16:32-34; 19:4,5)

Or the Lord's supper being the means by which souls gain life in them, or that not “discerning the body” referred to the elements of the supper versus the church;

Or bowing down to icons, believers bowing down to any other believer, or an exalted supreme magistrate in Rome (versus warnings against such exaltation: Mt. 23:8; Jude 1:11; 3Jn. 3:9-11; Rv. 2:15) and to whom all the churches were directed to look to;

Nor assured perpetual formulaic magisterial infallibility as per Rome;

Or the mention of any successors to the original apostles (such as James: Acts 12:2) besides Judas, he being elected to preserve the foundational twelve apostles, (Acts 1:16-26; cf. Rev. 21:14) and that by lots, preventing political maneuverings and things that resulted in extended papal absences (a headless Roman church), and men being chosen who were not even qualified to be church members, let alone successors to Peter.

Or a separate class of believers called “saints,” or the mention of the postmortem location of the saints being in purgatory versus with the Lord. (Lk. 24:43; 2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1Thes. 4:17)

Or any pastored Christian bodies being called anything less than a church if they preached the gospel by which men are regenerated, and thus baptized by the spirit into the church, (1Cor. 12:13), even when under a separatist pastor, (3Jn. 3:9-11) versus “ecclesia communities” (as Rome refers to evangelical churches as) because they do not subscribe to the unScriptural perpetuated Petrine papacy of Rome and all that which flows from it.

Or conversion being the result of intellectual indoctrination and the supremacy of the church in Rome, fostering faith in the church and one's merits for salvation, versus the aforementioned conviction by the Holy Spirit such as true preaching can effect, usually resulting in conversions in the same hour (though preparation can take a lifetime), and souls can be saved and spiritually added to the church anywhere, even being left alone in the desert, (Acts 8:26-39; cf. 1Cor. 12:13);

This being said, the kingdom is sadly divided on earth, partly due to necessity because faithfulness requires separation, (Mt. 10:34-36; 1Cor. 11:9) resulting in the Church consisting of churches which have their own magisteriums, keeping in principle the ordination of leadership, which is also seen in Catholicism, despite the elitist ecclesiology of Rome.

Gabriel Serafin said...

Writing exhaustively about something does not mean it refutes anything. Atheists write entire books thinking they've refuted the proof for God's existence. Realize that you can rationalize anything you set your mind to. Some people even rationalize evil.

Understand once and for all that the Church teaches through both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Not one, but both. Realize that the only way you can possibly know what books of the Bible are inspired in the first place is by trusting Sacred Tradition.

At the heart of the issue is the matter of Authority. Again, the Church was teaching with authority long before New Testament was even written down. As for the noble Bereans, they searched the Scriptures to see if Christ had fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies. Once convinced, they trusted the teachings of the Church.

Your method simply qualifies you as a self-appointed freelance Bible interpreter who presumes to have authority to design doctrines based upon your own ideas. This is why Scripture itself wars against those who twist the Scriptures to make them mean anything they want. But that's not the way of Christ. What's silly is that you are trying to make a case for something that goes against the Bible itself. Scripture itself does not teach Sola Scriptura, in fact it teaches that we must follow Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Authority of the Church. I would be happy to show you examples of this in the Bible.

We Catholics trust in Jesus Christ who said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church through the ages. So I'm going to ask you again some simple questions. For what purpose did Jesus change Simon the fisherman's name to Cephas, and why did Jesus give him the Keys to the Kingdom to bind and loose things in heaven and on earth? Bind what? Loose what? And why did Jesus give authority to men to forgive and retain sins?


As for Catholic teaching on the priesthood, we find the typology in the Old Testament, where there were three levels of priesthood: The Common priesthood, the Ministerial Priesthood and the High priest. In the New Testament, the High Priest is Jesus Christ; the ministerial priesthood are the priests, bishops and popes of the Church, and the common priesthood is the laity.

As for celibacy, Jesus called for it and Paul strongly recommended it. Why do you attack something Jesus and Paul spoke about?

As for Mary, we Catholics believe she is a mere creature of God, whom God prepared to be the spouse of the Holy Spirit and Mother of His Son. We honor her as mother of Our dear Lord and Savior, and ask for her intercession, not for our salvation but for help on our pilgrimage to heaven. We ask her to pray for us to God. She intercedes much like she did in Cana. Christ performed His first miracle because of her intercession.

As for praying for the dead, examples of this are in the Bible too. unfortunately Protestants have put their faith in Martin Luther and are missing 7 books from the Bible. As for Purgatory. Paul and Christ Himself speak rather directly about it.

The problem is that today there abound modern-day pharisees who think themselves so righteous that their pride has blinded them to the truth.

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 1

Writing exhaustively about something does not mean it refutes anything. Atheists write entire books thinking they've refuted the proof for God's existence. Realize that you can rationalize anything you set your mind to. Some people even rationalize evil.

Resorting to such vain protests does not prove anything either, and the reality is that i am not writing exhaustively, much less rationalizing evil (and Rome is known for her papal prolixity), but am countering your many arguments and the premises behind them, which you often ignore and continue to mainly argue by assertion, thus i often must reiterate and expanded on what i have already refuted.

Understand once and for all that the Church teaches through both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Not one, but both.

Once and for all understand that as said, the Mormons argue likewise, and neither of you are dependent upon the weight of Scriptural warrant for your teachings, but Rome (and the LDS) “presumes to autocratically decree what truth is,” and thus Tradition and Scripture is only what she says it is and means, under the premise of her assured formulaic infallibility.

However, as said, this is not how Truth was established Scripturally, as evidenced in Scripture with writings thereof being established as Scripture and in conflation and complementarity with what came before, before there was a church in Rome.

Moreover, while some of Scripture was first oral, this does not make all “Tradition” equal with it (and Rome's tradition, being nebulous and oral and of antiquity, is supreme susceptible to undetectable corruption, and its veracity rests upon Rome self-defined assured infallibility), but Scripture is the established word of God, by which all preaching is judged.

And as God has in the past, He raised up men from without those who presume too much, to reprove them, and preserve faith among the relative remnant of believers. For by Scriptural faith the church was born and overcomes. (Acts 2:14-42; 1Jn. 5:11)

Realize that the only way you can possibly know what books of the Bible are inspired in the first place is by trusting Sacred Tradition.

Realize that constantly asserting this will not make it true, for as said and shown but unrealized by you, “Scripture abundantly evidences that an assuredly infallible magisterium was not necessary for Truth to be recognized and preserved, for by the time of Christ most of what we hold as Scripture was recognized and established as being Scripture, based upon their Heavenly qualities and attestation, (Ps. 19:7-11; 119; Heb. 2:3,4) with over 250 quotations and hundreds of allusions in the New Testament to them.”

In addition, the premise behind your polemic — which renders the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ to be the assuredly infallible interpreters of it (as per Rome), and presumes such is necessary — effectively nukes the church, for as (twice) said, it began in dissent from those who were the stewards, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and inheritors of Divine promises. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6)

And who, like Rome, disallowed the authority of those who had not its sanction (Mk .11:28), but who were established upon Scriptural substantiation, and who reproved even those who sat in Moses' seat by the same. (Mk. 7:1-16)

Thus your argument is neither new nor valid, while it also presumes Rome is the same 1st century church, whose members wrote inspired N.T. Scripture, but which Rome, as shown, essentially and critically deviates from.

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 2

At the heart of the issue is the matter of Authority. Again, the Church was teaching with authority long before New Testament was even written down.

The heart of the issue is indeed the matter of Authority, and Scriptural preaching today may teach with authority as it did before, but you presume that N.T. church is the RCC, but which system presumes superiority over Scripture based upon the premise that this is necessary for the establishment of truth and for writings to be established as Scripture, but as said, both occurred under the Jews, while the Lord's claims and the church were established upon Scriptural substantiation in dissent from them. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39, 14:11; Acts 17:2,11; Rm. 15:19; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) And this substantiation includes Acts 15 (Acts 15::6-12, 20,29; cf. 21:25; Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14; Mk. 16:20; Heb. 2:3,4)

Both the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ are subject to it, as no one is promised assuredly infallibility every time they speak on faith and morals.

The issue then is upon what basis the Church teaches with authority; by infallibly declaring it is is infallible, or upon manifestation of the truth in accordance with Scripture as the supreme transcendent assured Word of God. Unlike Rome, the N.T. church had manifest apostles whose authority and truth claims, and that of the church, as said, was attested to by Scriptural substantiation in text and in power. In contrast, Rome, which claims apostolic power to essentially add to Scripture by making her amorphous, unverifiable oral traditions equal to Scripture, neither manifests apostolic purity and power, but presumes to declare truth by fiat, the veracity of which teachings do not need Scriptural warrant, and reasons given for her infallibly decrees are not assuredly infallible, only the decree is.

And in contrast to Rome and its institutionalized deadness, the gospel which the New Testament church preached effected manifest regeneration, usually in the same hour it was heard (as often historically in evangelical faith), and not after indoctrination about a church in Rome having supremacy.

As for the noble Bereans, they searched the Scriptures to see if Christ had fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies. Once convinced, they trusted the teachings of the Church.

No sir, not under Rome who may invoke Scripture in appealing to the reason of men, as if Scripture was the supreme authority and able to give assurance of Truth, but afterward abandons it as such, and are taught that once one “does so [enters the Roman church], he has no further use for his reason [to determine Truth].” He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason, like a lantern, at the door.” (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX; (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ) “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”

“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”

“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 3

Rather being taught to place implicit faith in the teachings of magisterium as being assuredly and perpetually infallible, and that this was necessary to preserve the faith, the 1st century believers were only told of one source that could be held as perpetually incapable of teaching error on faith and morals, that being wholly Divinely inspired Scripture. (2Tim. 3:16) And to that the apostles and church appealed to, and were able to add to it by conformity and complementarity to what had already been previously supernaturally established as Scripture.

Your method simply qualifies you as a self-appointed freelance Bible interpreter who presumes to have authority to design doctrines based upon your own ideas.

It is your method which evidences minds that are not allowed to think outside an imposed box which will not let them see the holes in their emperor's ragged clothes, or which refuse to consider such, and instead go on making assertions which have already been refuted.

Meanwhile it is under sola ecclesia that churches may autocratically act as self-appointed freelance Bible interpretersm, whose interpretation cannot be wrong, and under which model are the worse aberrations, while even in Catholicism there are divisions.

As for us being little popes, as said in contrast to Rome, “We for our part cannot claim to be a pope, claiming assuredly infallibility whenever we speak on faith and morals, but are to make our case based upon the scriptural means of conformity to and warrant from Scripture, which Rome is contrary to in claiming her assured formulaic infallibility.”

And also as said, in contrast to doctrinal anarchy, SS-type churches have historically contended for core truths, but the veracity of such is based upon Scriptural warrant, not the premise of assured infallibility.

This is why Scripture itself wars against those who twist the Scriptures to make them mean anything they want.

It does indeed war against those who invoke to support a magisterium having infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Thus according to her interpretation only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict, if she does say so herself. And around and around she goes.

Scripture itself also wars against many other things, of Rome, while RCs, seeing as they have great liberty to interpret the Scriptures to support Rome (as they understand her) within the basic parameters and wide interpretative guidelines of Rome, often rival sola ecclesia cults in how they wrest Scripture in seeking to support traditions of men, which do not rest upon the weight of Scriptural warrant. Including claims for the Mary of Rome.

But that's not the way of Christ.

Indeed it is not, as again, He was rejected by those who, like Rome, presumed a level of veracity beyond that which was written provides for men (even the writers of Scripture were not assuredly infallible whenever they spoke on faith and morals. And like Rome, they rejected those who had not their sanction but who soundly reproved them by Scripture, and upon substantiation of which the Lord established His claims, as did the early church, unlike Rome.

It is true that the apostles had authority, but that was not based upon pedigree but manifest Scriptural power, purity and probity in conformity to Scripture, the more sure word of prophecy. (cf. 2Pt. 1:19-21)

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 4

What's silly is that you are trying to make a case for something that goes against the Bible itself. Scripture itself does not teach Sola Scriptura, in fact it teaches that we must follow Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Authority of the Church. I would be happy to show you examples of this in the Bible.

What is not silly is that you again ignore my addressing this already here, in which it was shown that as Scripture evidences it being the supreme standard for obedience and testing truth claims. And as it provides for writing being recognized as Divine, so in accordance with this it materially provides for a canon.

We Catholics trust in Jesus Christ who said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church through the ages.

But not as an autocratic entity which effectively presumes superiority over Scripture which has the Holy Spirit as its author, and by which presumption acts Rome as the Jewish magisterium did in presuming a level of veracity above that which is written, and thus also teaches for doctrines the mere “tradition of the elders.”

Instead, as before and consistent with how the church began, God raises up prophet type men, wise men and scribes to reprove those who presume more than what is written, and so faith is preserved, and through the Reformation, despite its need for more Reformation, the Kingdom of God has been greatly increased. Including by spiritually dead Catholic souls hearing basic historical evangelical gospel preaching.

So I'm going to ask you again some simple questions.

Seeing as you have ignored a multitude of responses why should i provide more? But for others at least i will.

For what purpose did Jesus change Simon the fisherman's name to Cephas,

The name change was given to the same purpose other names were given (Simon's name was not so much changed, but given as an additional name, as even in Mt. 16:13-17 he was referred to Simon as well as Peter), which is to that it is corespondent to their identity. Thus Simon, being called to leadership, was called a stone (Petros) in Jn. 1:42. But which, in the language the Lord choose to record His words in (and in which the Holy Spirit can give more expression) is not the same as the Rock that is called Christ.

The R.C. exaltation of Peter is foundationally based upon Mt. 16:13-19, wherein there is a play on the word "rock" by the Lord, in which the immovable "Rock" upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication it is Christ himself.

The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock.

This is the interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)

Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 5

and why did Jesus give him the Keys to the Kingdom to bind and loose things in heaven and on earth? Bind what? Loose what? And why did Jesus give authority to men to forgive and retain sins?

Scripturally evidenced, the keys and binding/loosing power was shared with the others, (Mt. 18:18) and the keys the Keys to the Kingdom is first the gospel by faith in which souls who were captives of sin are washed for them, and “delivered from the power of darkness” and “translated into the kingdom of” Christ. (Col. 1:13,14) And which keys Peter exercised first,(Acts 2, 10) but not as the most manifest evangelist. Nor is the kingdom something that is centered in Rome, and defended by using the sword of men, but it is spiritual, (Jn. 18:36) while no text even places Peter in Rome, who is not even mentioned in Rm. 16 by the most manifest evangelist.

Thus by this gospel — “which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures” being “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,” and “is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God,” (Rm. 1:2,16; 16:26) — souls are loosed, being set at liberty as Christ preached in fulfillment of Scripture, (Lk., 4:18) not only in salvation but also in deliverance and healing, which Peter and others preached and worked (and not just apostles) in affirmation of the gospel which effects manifest regeneration.

Meanwhile “binding” is both declarative and proactive, such as declaring Simon the sorcerer was in “the bond of iniquity,” (Acts 8:23) and in judging that souls remained in their sins due to their unScriptural hardness of heart, (Jn. 9:41; Heb. 10:26; Acts 13:13:46), as well as invoking physical blindness on opposition, (Acts 13:10,11) and delivering impenitent church members to the devil (not to the inquisitors), loosing him as an instrument of chastisement unto repentance. (1Cor. 5:1-5; 1Tim. 1:10)

In none of these was Peter alone entrusted with the keys and power to bind and loose, and such was done under Scripture being the supreme basis. Thus the power was not to loose such doctrines as praying to the departed, which itself has zero support from any of the multitudinous example of prayer in Scripture, or instructions on prayer (not to “our mother who art in Heaven”), nor is it warranted due to any necessity for the believer (versus the lost, who are the only ones in Scripture being shown praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord).

Nor is it power bind the Bible on earth, as Rome did for so long, so that men at best could only read it with special permission, if at all in the vernacular, while loosing the sword of men, with papal-sanctioned torture and killing, against those who doctrinally dissented from her.

The purpose in giving this power is to glorify God in Christ, that He is the risen Lord and Savior, (Acts 2:33-36) and that the kingdom of God is spiritually here but “not in word,” as in Rome's self-proclamation, “but in power.” (1Cor. 4:20). The characteristic spiritual deadness of Rome and like institutionalized Protestant churches testifies that such are not manifesting “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth,” but are largely a form of godliness. And despite Rome's official statements, what she effectual fosters is liberal moral and doctrinal views, and that no matter how “nominal” as Catholic is, including Ted Kennedy Catholics, as long as they dies in her arms, she will gain them eventual entrance into glory.

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 6

As for Catholic teaching on the priesthood, we find the typology in the Old Testament, where there were three levels of priesthood:

At least you are finally interacting with some of what i wrote. You have much liberty from Rome to wrest what you want from Scripture in order to support the special separate class of sacerdotal ministers entitled “priests,” but as shown, the Holy Spirit did not do so in establishing the pastoral class of N.T. church of bishops/elders.

As for celibacy, Jesus called for it and Paul strongly recommended it. Why do you attack something Jesus and Paul spoke about?

Why do you engage in sophistry, as if the issue was against celibacy itself, and not, as in context, against required (save for special cases) clerical celibacy, which presumes that all who are called to such have that gift? (1Cor. 7:7) But which Scripture will not support, (1Tim. 3:1-5; Titus 1:6) and teaching against it is to mock Scripture.

As for Mary, we Catholics believe she is a mere creature of God...and ask for her intercession, not for our salvation... She intercedes much like she did in Cana...

“We,” meaning Catholics, do not believe she is a mere creature of God, but as shown, one who has almost unlimited power, with other things also being ascribed to her which parallel those of Christ. As for Jn. 2 (Cana), that does not make Mary the object of intercession, as no one asked Mary to intercede, while expressions of need by other persons also resulted in Jesus doing miracles of mercy and power.

As for praying for the dead, examples of this are in the Bible too. unfortunately Protestants have put their faith in Martin Luther and are missing 7 books from the Bible.

Again you ignore that the issue was that of praying to the physically dead, which not even the apocryphal books teach. As for your assertion about faith and following Luther and as if he was unique in rejecting the apocrypha, not only is this erroneously supposedly we are as Catholics who look to Rome as assuredly infallible, but this error is indicative of only spending time on Catholic forums, as we do not follow Luther's doubts about James and other books we accept, and for which he had support from Catholics, as he did in rejecting apocryphal books, for dissent on them existed among Roman Catholic scholars right into Trent, which provided the first infallible, indisputable canon for Rome. And which canon your Orthodox brethren differ with (which, in contrast, is treated as a minor issue).

As for Purgatory. Paul and Christ Himself speak rather directly about it.

No, they do not “speak rather directly about it,” and contrived attempts to support this tradition-based Roman teaching by Scripture have been exposed in a lengthy exchange on this forum. Nor do the Traditi (though they have a form of their own).

The problem is that today there abound modern-day pharisees who think themselves so righteous that their pride has blinded them to the truth.

This is true, especially such as suppose that historical decent and promises to believers affords them a level of assured veracity above that which Scripture actually provides men, and thus they reject all who have not their magisterial sanction, but who rest upon Scriptural substantiation, by which the Pharisees were reproved and the church began in dissent from.

Thus as before, while you resort to making charges that we are like Mormons or Pharisees, Rome is shown to be like both.

Gabriel Serafin said...

PeaceByJesus, Again, you are refuting nothing; all you're doing is typing lots of information based on what you think the Bible is telling you. As for all your Scriptural quotes, realize that Satan himself quoted Scripture to Christ. Furthermore, I do not believe your interpretations for a number of reasons; for one, when compared to what the Early Church Fathers believed, such as St. Augustine, your ideas would have been considered heresy.

Realize that the heretics in the history of the Church always thought they were teaching and following the truth, and they used Sacred Scripture to argue their positions. One example of is the Arian Heresy which presented a theological teaching concerning the relationship of the persons of the Trinity. The Arian concept of Christ taught that the Son of God did not always exist. This belief was grounded in the Gospel of John which quotes Jesus saying: “You heard me say, "If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

Arianism taught that Christ was a creature made by God, and the heresy was shrouded in orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, using Sacred Scripture to support its claims. Arianism was solemnly condemned by the Catholic Church in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, the same council which defined the divinity of Christ. Furthermore, in the year 381 the Church defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit at the First Council of Constantinople. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which we Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.

You must come to the realization that defining doctrines using Scripture alone apart from Sacred Tradition and legitimate Church authority will simply end up in error, because you can rationalize any concept you can imagine. What's worse, the father of lies is always ready to suggest half truths.

Thus Sacred Scripture separated from Sacred Tradition leads to error, and it's the reason why there are so many different teachings among the thousands of Protestant denominations, and your ideas are merely one voice among a myriad voices teaching a cocophany of contradictions and false ideas.

Realize that the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the devil's masterpiece, as he usesarmies of self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters to weave false doctrines which all of which have serious ramifications, namely to usher souls further and further away from the sure means of salvation. Protestants today only have 2 valid Sacraments, as opposed to the normal 7. A Sacrament is a visible singn instituted by Christ to give us sanctifying grace. (Grace is a gift from God bestowed on us through the merits of Christ to save us.)

Understand that the Church is a supernatural institution founded by Christ Himself and guided by the Holy Spirit; thus the teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals are infallible, simply because they come from the Holy Spirit, despite the fallible men in the visible Church.

Furthermore, your mind has been contaminated with a wrong understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches. Maybe you're spending too much time getting your information from polluted websites instead of actually studying what the Church actually teaches and why. For example, your statement about Mary is false. The Catholic Church teaches she's a mere creature. I would be happy to delve into each of the issues you are confused about, but you're typing these 6-part forum pages, and I would suggest you keep it to one topic at a time.

As for Purgatory, yes that's in the New Testament. You will not find the word "Purgatory" much like you will not find the word "Trinity"in the Bible, yet the Church teaches both doctrines dogmatically because they both are part of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Some examples of Purgatory in Scripture are Jesus' own words in Matt. 18:32-35 and Matt. 5:25

Gabriel Serafin said...

"Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny."--Matt. 5:26

PeaceByJesus said...

Again, you are refuting nothing; all you're doing is typing lots of information based on what you think the Bible is telling you.

Again, your assertions have been refuted at every point of your, as others can see, and rather than interacting with my Scriptural proofs and showing how they are wrong, as i have done with your positions, what you are doing in your disdain is dismissing Scripture that refutes you, under a premise that disallows any proof from Scripture. And instead you continue to resort to making “arguments” by assertion.

As for all your Scriptural quotes, realize that Satan himself quoted Scripture to Christ.

However, when confronted with the devil quoting Scripture, the Lord countered with the same in refuting his deceptive use, (Mt. 4:1-10) not the “tradition of the elders” as determinative of truth.

And thus Paul, “as his manner was, reasoned out of the scriptures," (Acts 17:2) commending themselves to every mans conscience in the sight of God, (2Cor. 4:2), and so should I, not asserting assuredly infallibility and declaring truth by fiat. Meanwhile, it is Roman Catholics who are often found manifestly wresting the Scriptures to their own destruction, as Peter warned, of (2Pt. 3:16) and your assertions of Rome and attacking the heart of your opponent remains vain argumentation.

Furthermore, I do not believe your interpretations for a number of reasons; for one, when compared to what the Early Church Fathers believed, such as St. Augustine, your ideas would have been considered heresy.

It is nice that you actually give a reason, but here, in which you again indicate that you only spent time in Catholic forums, you repeat the Catholic assertion the “fathers” oppose what we teach, but this appeal rests upon many a false premise, such as,

1. That these men (some think they include some women, but there is no infallible list of all the “fathers,” and it is estimated that we only have a small portion of all their writings) are determinative of what Scripture means, but as with the premise behind the infallible magisterium, this principle also would support the 1st century Jews against the church, as the latter went against the “tradition of the elders” when in conflict with Scripture, (Acts 7:116) that being the supreme transcendent authority on earth.

2. That these men are always consistent with each other, which they were not.

3. That these men cannot be found supporting points of the Reformation, as is contended.

4. That these men cannot be found supporting the Orthodox in their disagreements with Rome, as they contend.

5. That Rome always teaches in accordance with the required “unanimous consent of which she does not.

Therefore the real premise behind your rejection of the supremacy of Scripture, and teachings which flow from it, is that of the supremacy of Rome, as Tradition, Scripture and history can only mean what she says they mean, as according to her (cultic) interpretation only her interpretation can be correct, not that of the Protestant or the Orthodox. Under that premise, which your “argumentation” by assertion reflects, you can “prove” anything.

Thus as said, is this response by the “Most Reverend” Manning:

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.”

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 2

Realize that the heretics in the history of the Church always thought they were teaching and following the truth, and they used Sacred Scripture to argue their positions...

This is a logical fallacy, that because someone misappropriates authority, then that cannot be the basis for determining truth. However, as said, Scripture is abundant evidences it to be the supreme transcendent authority, while heretics in history have also engaged in your solution, that of sola ecclesia, asserting that the ____ Church or org is the supreme assuredly infallible authority, resulting in teaching for doctrines the traditions of men, and under which the greatest aberrations are seen, whether it be Rome of the LDS, etc.

However, as said, when confronted with the devil quoting Scripture, the Lord countered with the same in refuting his deceptive use, while the error of Rome in dealing with the Arians was to elevate the fathers too highly as determinative of what Scripture meant, thus Roman Catholic apologists today erroneously suppose we must so with Luther, rather than showing why his interpretation was correct or incorrect. And it has been SS-type churches which have historically been foremost defenders of such things as the Deity of Christ and the Trinity, against those deny such, and which typically operate according to the sola ecclesia model.

You must come to the realization that defining doctrines using Scripture alone apart from Sacred Tradition and legitimate Church authority will simply end up in error, because you can rationalize any concept you can imagine.

And under sola ecclesia you can assert anything as truth, versus how truth was established in Scripture.

And once again you reveal that you only spent time in Catholic forums, and thus what you need to abandon is the straw man of Sola Scriptura, which supposes that under this model we can only use Scripture, and exclude history, commentaries, etc., rather than using such as interpretive helps, but holding Scripture as supreme and sufficient (in formal and material ways).

As stated on this forum, here Alister McGrath [theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London] finds,
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. (“The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism,” in James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”.)

And again, rather than holding Scripture as the transcendent supreme authority as seen in Scripture, your basis for Truth is shared by cults, as well as the Orthodox, who interpret Tradition, Scripture and history as rejecting papal infallibility and supreme magisterial power, and Rome's purgatory, among other things.

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 3

Thus Sacred Scripture separated from Sacred Tradition leads to error, and it's the reason why there are so many different teachings among the thousands of Protestant denominations..

This also has been dealt with, as both SS-type churches and Catholicism under sola ecclesia manifest common consent to core truths which they contend for, while disagreements and formal divisions also exist in both, the difference being a matter of degrees. But those born of the Spirit and walking therein enjoy an essential unity of the Spirit, (Eph. 4:3) based upon a shared Scripture-based conversion and relationship with their Lord, Christ in them, and they in Christ. (cf. Jn. 17:21,23).

And the interpretation of Rome by one Catholic can differ from the interpretation of another, as well as in the many things open to interpretation.

Realize that the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the devil's masterpiece, as he uses armies of self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters...which have serious ramifications..

The fact is that under Rome's autocratic self-proclaimed assured infallibility she became as the gates of Hell for multitudes, and under sola ecclesia the devil used real armies which Rome raised up to give the lost occasion to blaspheme the name of Christ, which means early Protestantism had to unlearn.

As for such freelance interpreters which have serious ramifications such as Harold Camping, many of which, as him, tend to effectively operate as under sola ecclesia, these are rejected or marginalized by SS-type churches, as the heretics or fringe believers they are.

Meanwhile Rome allows abuse of Scripture to support her, and officially sanctions heretical interpretations, such as relegate historical accounts as Jonah and the fish to being fables, and Joshua's conquests under God to be folk tales. Etc.

A Sacrament is a visible singn instituted by Christ to give us sanctifying grace

Which under Rome fosters perfunctory professions and form over substance, and a Roman Catholic cannot know for sure the intent of the minister thus its efficacy on that basis), while she rejects the Lord's supper due to her own unScriptural interpretation of it, as well as Protestant ordination, etc. And most RCs evidence they lack the grace of salvation, and hope in their own merits and that of the church to gain them salvation, and have never been convicted as souls damned for their works and destitute of any means or merit whereby they may escape our just and eternal punishment in Hell Fire and gain eternal life with God. And who thus must cast all their whole hearted faith upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood.(Rm. 3:9 - 5:1)

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 4

Thus Sacred Scripture separated from Sacred Tradition leads to error,

The error of the Jews who rejected Christ was that of making the two equal, “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” under the premise of presumed assured veracity.

“For the decision of their Scribes..claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law ...with the power to abrogate the Law at times (see Abrogation of Laws), and they went so far as to say that he who transgressed their words deserved death (Ber. 4a). By dint of this authority, claimed to be divine (R. H. 25a), they ...took many burdens from the people by claiming for the sage, or scribe, the power of dissolving vows (Ḥag. i. 8; Tosef., i.). http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees

Understand that the Church is a supernatural institution founded by Christ Himself and guided by the Holy Spirit; thus the teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals are infallible,

The Church is indeed a supernatural institution founded by Christ Himself and guided by the Holy Spirit — under the Scriptures being the transcendent standard for obedience and testing truth claims, not as under the self-proclaimed assured formulaic infallibility of Rome, which was not necessary for the establishment of all the Scriptures which the church was based upon, in dissent from those who, like Rome, presumed more than what was written. And thus those who are part of the true church, the “household of faith,” must be in dissent from Rome.

Furthermore, your mind has been contaminated with a wrong understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches.

Which is simply more unsubstantiated parroting of standard Roman Catholic apologetics, while i am one who substantiates what Rome teaches, not simply here officially but effectually, while exposing that it is you who is “contaminated” with a wrong understanding of what those you attack actually hold to and demonstrate, indicating that is you who get your information from polluted websites.

you're typing these 6-part forum pages..

It is you who choose to engage in their false premise of Luther being like a pope to us, and then defending Rome with your bombastic assertions with their false premises, which require reasoned and substantiated reproof, even if you must dismiss such.

As for Purgatory, yes that's in the New Testament...in Matt. 18:32-35 and Matt. 5:25

No, it is not in the NT, which, as said, always reveals the postmortem place and and experience of believers as being with the Lord wherever it manifestly refers to that, (Lk. 24:43; 2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1Thes. 4:17) and the obscure verses are to be interpreted in the light of the clear, while what you have in Matt. 18:32-35 is a “wicked servant” being punished for not forgiving, and who thus are not being forgiven, which does not correspond in language or in faith to the elect, but lost souls shall suffer according to their deeds, that being a debt they can never fully pay (though parables need not be fully analogically correspondent in reality) .

Likewise in the second attempt (Matt. 5:25,26) you have souls in danger of hell fire for unjustified impenitent resentment and abuse, who thus shall be judged and punished accordingly, as in Rv. 20:11-15, but which sentencing does not occur until the Lord's return, as does the judgment of believers referred to in 1Cor. 3:8ff. And which is not referring to purgatory, as shown here. Thanks be to God. And again, your Orthodox brethren, which you are at odds with, reject the purgatory of Rome.

PeaceByJesus said...

As i must look toward the “author and finisher of faith,” as the Holy Spirit exhorts, (Heb. 12:2) and not to an assuredly infallible magisterium in Rome which He never does, I must leave you to your ecclesiodolatry, but may God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2Tim. 2:25)

Gabriel Serafin said...

PeaceByJesus, the reason you call the words of Christ "obscure" is because they do not fit with your interpretation of Scripture. This is further proof that all you're doing is picking lines from Scripture to force fit your ideas, much like what Arius did with the Gospel of John.

Take for example your dismissal of the teaching of Purgatory. The words of Christ might be obscure to you, but in the light of Church teaching, His words are quite clear. Jesus said:

"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the JUDGE may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny."--Matt.5:25-26

Notice how He said "UNTIL YOU HAVE PAID the last penny"

Elsewhere He gave the example of the master and servant:

“In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, UNTIL HE SHOULD PAY BACK ALL HE OWED. “THIS IS HOW MY HEAVENLY FATHER WILL TREAT EACH OF YOU unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”

Notice how He states "Until he should pay back"

Jesus also warned that: "every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment." ( Matt.12:36).

In other words, if you use your tongue out of anger, or use it to curse, or to kill people's joy, or to spew hatred toward others, etc. you will be held liable for all the harm you brought into the world, through your tongue, not to mention all the sins you can commit with with your hands, with your heart, with your mind, with your eyes, etc.

Christ often taught through parables, and those who did not understand them were often blinded by their own pride. Therefore, realize that Purgatory is not a "second chance" for damned souls, but a final purification for the saved who, after sincerely repenting of their sins, die in God's grace, but not having completed their journey of sanctification on earth.

But not all saved souls need to go through this purification after death, as many complete this purification while on earth. St. Paul describes this purification in 1 Cor. 3:10-15:

"If anyone builds on this foundation (Jesus Christ) . . . their work will be shown for what it is . . . If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will SUFFER LOSS but yet WILL BE SAVED—even though ONLY AS ONE ESCAPING THROUGH THE FLAMES."


I suppose you will also call this verse "obscure", but it is all very clear in the light of the teachings of the Church. St. Augustine regarded 1 Cor.3:10–15 as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state after death in which a saved soul is purified before seeing God face to Face. Augustine described the fires of cleansing as more painful than anything a man can suffer in this life.

You might break your neighbor's window out of anger. If you repent you may be forgiven, but a sincere repentance means making reparation for the harm done. As a baptized Christian, because of Christ, your good actions gain merits. Likewise, your evil deeds demand justice.
As a baptized Christian, you might fall into the sin of adultery; you may repent and be forgiven by God, but the harm done to spouse, children, family, etc. can be devastating, as it often leads to broken homes and much anguish and pain is caused even causing others to sin. Thus there is much you have to do to repair the damage you caused. All this demands justice, and that justice often comes as crosses we encounter in our daily lives, which we must accept and carry..

Gabriel Serafin said...

"Part 2"

You have to grasp the reality of how it is that a soul is made perfect. Jesus said that nothing imperfect can enter heaven. As a baptized Christian your sins were washed away and you were made clean; but the sins you commit AFTER your baptism cause harm, thus you again have to sincerely repent, and do much to make reparation through the grace of God either in this life, or the next.


After healing the crippled man, Jesus warned him: "Behold thou art made whole: sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee." John 5:14

So at the heart of your arguments is that you ignore passages of Scripture and call them "obscure" in order to justify your ideas. To self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters the words of Christ are often obscure to them. Thus the Church teaches through both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture---both--not one or the other. For Scripture alone goes against the teachings of the Bible, and leads to individuals leading others into confusion, contradiction and a myriad of different teachings, using the very same Bible.

PeaceByJesus said...

the reason you call the words of Christ "obscure" is because they do not fit with your interpretation of Scripture. This is further proof that all you're doing is picking lines from Scripture to force fit your ideas, much like what Arius did with the Gospel of John.

Resorting to such bombast when it is you who must rely on picking verses only further exposes the lack of clothes for your emperor. For rather than picking verses to force Scripture to fit into my doctrine, instead i showed you that every place where Scripture refers to the postmortem or postworld location of manifest believers, it is with the Lord. And i linked to more refutation. If refuting Arius required such forcing of texts then he would have won.

The words of Christ might be obscure to you, but in the light of Church teaching, His words are quite clear.

Which is exactly your basis, not the weight of Scripture, but because Rome teaches it you can extrapolate whatever you need from texts that do not establish an extraBiblical tradition, which is actually not dependent upon Scripture.

Matt.5:25-26.. Notice how He said "UNTIL YOU HAVE PAID the last penny"

Here you again ignore my response to Matt.5:25-26, “you have souls in danger of hell fire for unjustified impenitent resentment and abuse, who thus shall be judged and punished accordingly, as in Rv. 20:11-15, but which sentencing does not occur until the Lord's return, as does the judgment of believers referred to in 1Cor. 3:8ff. And which follows my response to Mt. 18:32-35 in which i said as regards what was owed by a “wicked servant,” “that being a debt they can never fully pay...”

For indeed sin has wages, the wages being death, (Rm. 6:23; cf. Rv. 20:15) and “until,” as Catholic argue on Mt. 1:25, does not require that it means this has a terminus, but that they must pay the price for their sins, which only the lost are shown to being sentenced to do,(Rv. 20:1-15) nor is every part of a parable always fully analogous.

And what needs to be noticed here is that the context warns about Hell, and in your other supporting story the unforgiving man is called a “wicked servant” whom his hotly angry Lord punishes, (Mt. 18:32,34) as this testifies to being an unbeliever. And in another similar story used to support purgatory, that of the servant being beaten with many stripes in Lk. 12:47, this is a servant who is punished with unbelievers. (v. 46)

On the other hand, believers suffer as a consequence for sin, being chastened in order to bring them to repentance and for their purification, but which is accomplished in this life, as will be seen, and which can involve prolonged suffering here.

But rather than what you extrapolate as being “clear,” there is nothing in these texts that establishes them as referring to the elect experiencing postmortem of ongoing “torments or purifying punishments.” (Indulgentiarum Doctrina; cp. 1. 1967) commencing after death and ongoing now, and instead every text that actually refers to the postmortem or postworld place of New Testament believers places them with the Lord:

"And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. " (Lk. 23:42-43)

"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. " (Acts 7:59)

"We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. " (2 Cor. 5:8)

"For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: " (Phil. 1:23)

"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. " (1 Thes. 4:17)

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 2:

If even some believers must give satisfaction for sin and be made purified before they go to be with their Lord in Heaven, then besides other promises, it could not be promised that all believers in a church would be forever with the Lord if He came back within their lifetime. (1Thes. 4:17)

And consistent with the Holy Spirit's faithfulness in revealing what we need to know, and in contrast to the texts which clearly state believers go to be with the Lord upon death, He likewise makes it clear that it is the lost who suffer torment after death, first in Hell as a general state, (Lk. 16:19-33) and then in the Lake of Fire in accordance with their actual sentencing, “paying” for their sins. And which takes place after the Lord's return. (Mt. 8:11,12; 13:40-42; Rv. 20:11-15; 21:8)

In addition, as substantiated, the only postmortem suffering mentioned for believers is at the judgment seat of Christ, but which awaits His return, (1Cor. 4:5; 2Cor. 1:14; 1Thes. 2:19; 2Tim. 4:8; 1Pt. 5:4); and which is suffering is a loss of rewards due to building the church with chaff. (1Cor. 3:8:17) And which loss does not make them fit for Heaven, but they are saved despite this loss. (v. 15) Again see here.

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. " (2 Cor. 5:10)

"Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. " (1 Cor. 4:5)

In other words, if you use your tongue out of anger, or use it to curse, or to kill people's joy, or to spew hatred toward others, etc. you will be held liable for all the harm you brought into the world...

Wrong as regards purgatory. While the Lord chastises believers for impenitence, and which can be of a long continuance, this is to bring them to repentance so they will not be condemned with the world, (1Cor. 11:32) and or for growth in heart and practical holiness. (Heb, 12) Yet this also is accomplished in this world, with its temptations and trials, (1Pt. 4:12,13) and thus it was here that even the Lord was “perfected.” (Heb. 5:9)

And while believe suffer as a consequence of sin, as David, yet outside the loss of rewards referred to in 1Cor. 3:15, this also is only revealed as being in this life — unlike that of the lost.

"Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world." (1 Peter 5:9)

"He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. " (John 12:25)

"Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. " (1 John 4:17)

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. " (John 16:33)

"Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: " (1 Peter 1:6-7)

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 3

The Scriptures only refer to growth toward perfection in this life, in awaiting the coming of the Lord as that is when they shall be judged:

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. " (1 Thessalonians 5:23)

"And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. " (1 John 2:28)

"And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you: To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints. " (1 Thessalonians 3:12-13)

Jesus also warned that: "every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment." ( Matt.12:36).

And which offers no support for purgatory, for it is indisputable that the times of judgment do not occur until after the Lord returns. Both after “the resurrection of the just,” (Lk. 14:14) “the resurrection of life,” (Jn. 5:29) “the first resurrection,” (Rv. 20:5,6) when they suffer loss and enjoy gaining of rewards, and the resurrection of the wicked, “the resurrection of damnation.” (Jn. 5:29) when they shall be sentenced to pay the wages of their sins. (Mt. 13:4-43; 25:31-46; Rv. 20:11-14) And in which believers shall be involved in judging them. (1Cor. 6:3)

Purgatory is not a "second chance" for damned souls, but a final purification for the saved who, after sincerely repenting of their sins, die in God's grace, but not having completed their journey of sanctification on earth...

But not all saved souls need to go through this purification after death, as many complete this purification while on earth. St. Paul describes this purification in 1 Cor. 3:10-15:

If anyone builds on this foundation (Jesus Christ) . . . their work will be shown for what it is . . . If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will SUFFER LOSS but yet WILL BE SAVED—even though ONLY AS ONE ESCAPING THROUGH THE FLAMES."
"

Wrong again as regards purgatory. Once again you evidence you did not read or consider what i stated, that the judgment of believers referred to in 1Cor. 3:8ff does not occur until the Lord's return, and which is not referring to purgatory, as shown here

I can understand why RCs must force 1Cor 3. to refer to purgatory, but THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT referring to believers enduring torments or purifying' punishments going on now, AS THIS DEFINITELY REFERS TO THE JUDGMENT SEAT OF CHRIST WHICH DOES NOT OCCUR UNTIL HIS RETURN.

In addition, the works that are burned up are not character defects (though they reflect that), in order that they may be with the Lord, but these are works, chaff that one built the church with, which he should have been rewarded for, and he is saved despite this loss, not because of it.

I suppose you will also call this verse "obscure", but it is all very clear in the light of the teachings of the Church.

Rather, "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. " (Luke 11:35) For in fact, only by giving a prior assent to Rome can such eisegetical extrapolation be called clear and contrary to what clear texts testify to, as the only things that are clear are Scriptures that place the postmortem and postworld place of believers as with the Lord, and that their judgment as to works does not take place until after his return, and wherein the suffering is that of the loss of rewards (and thus the grievous realization of the Lord's displeasure).

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 4

In contrast, you cannot find one text that clearly refers to manifest believers being in a place of postmortem suffering so that they can go to be with their Lord, and you can only find support for your extraBiblical tradition by forcing unclear texts to refer to believers (versus unbelievers) presently entering into ongoing torments after death, thus rejecting “payment” being that of the wages of sins for unbelievers, while the claimed clarity of these Catholic conclusions is due to Rome's self-proclaimed unique ecclesiastical esoterism.

To teach and try to support a primary doctrine as purgatory when the only clear support the Holy Spirit provides excludes it, is unScriptural presumption, but which is why purgatory is a tradition of men, which really rests upon Rome autocratic assertion of assured infallibility.

And while Roman Catholic apologists will not admit it, all their attempts to find support for Rome's traditions from Scripture are largely superfluous, as that is neither their supreme authority, nor are such traditions dependent upon the weight of Scripture (thus Rome has infallibly defined very few verses, leaving RCAs with great liberty to engage in Catholic contrivances in trying to support her) but her extraBiblical traditions must only not contradict Scripture, yet all of this is according to her judgment, which no one may contradict. Thus assurance of doctrine for the Roman Catholic rests upon the premise of Rome's self-proclaimed assured infallibility.

You might break your neighbor's window out of anger. If you repent you may be forgiven, but a sincere repentance means making reparation for the harm done. As a baptized Christian, because of Christ, your good actions gain merits. Likewise, your evil deeds demand justice.

And which reparation is done here, as is making the decision to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as a lost, damned and destitute sinner, versus reliance upon good works and the claimed power of the church. And while God does recompense faith, as in rewarding works, and negatively recompenses believers not always walking in obedience, again, the only place the Scriptures reveals this as taking place is after the Lord's return, at the judgment seat of Christ, wherein the suffering is the loss of rewards, and the Lord's displeasure, with the believer being saved despite such loss, not because of them.

You have to grasp the reality of how it is that a soul is made perfect. Jesus said that nothing imperfect can enter heaven.

Which reveals Rome's foundational error. Which is that of making the effect of faith, that being holiness, the means of salvation, thus souls are righteous because they really are righteous, rather than God justifying the UnGodly by faith, God-given faith being counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4:4) and thus he lives righteous, his works justifying that he has faith. (Rm. 2:13)

The fact is a million years in purgatory will not make you perfect enough to be with God, but believers are immediately “accepted in the Beloved” upon conversion, (Eph. 1:6) translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son, (Col 1:13), and made to sit together in heavenly places, (Eph. 2:6), and thus upon death or the Lord's return they shall ever be with Lord. Every believer would be with the Lord if they died just after conversion, and to suppose the little time on the cross made the penitent thief perfect in character is absurd.

That being said, faith must be tried, but again, Scripture reveals is in this world, and thus, as said, the Lord Himself was made perfect in the sense of overcoming all tests. (Heb. 5:9) And which testifies that one has real faith, and which confidence in Christ has “great recompence of reward.”(Heb. 10:35)

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 5

However, if suffering could make one perfect enough to be with God, then purgatory would not be it, as suffering itself does not make one perfect with God, thus Hell cannot, but being tried by the things of this world is what works maturity as an outworking of saving faith. Thus it is not those who endure purgatory who are called overcomers, but those who overcome things in this world by faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4,5; Rv/ 2:7,11,17,26; 3:5,12,21; 21:17)

but the sins you commit AFTER your baptism cause harm, thus you again have to sincerely repent, and do much to make reparation through the grace of God either in this life, or the next.... After healing the crippled man, Jesus warned him: "Behold thou art made whole: sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee." John 5:14

If you want to support proactive acts of repentance there are far better texts than that, while you are riding two horses here: the need for perfect holiness,, and the need to make reparations for sin. However, purgatory will not achieve the former, while besides redemptive chastisement being in this life with loss of rewards in the next, making reparation for hurting others is to be done to the persons hurt, not by self-flagellation, and Christ is the one who made reparations for sins one does against God.

So at the heart of your arguments is that you ignore passages of Scripture and call them "obscure.."

“Obscure” your texts were, insofar as what they are asserted to support, as they certainly do not make it clear that such “wicked servants” are heaven-bound believers, nor in what realm the punishment referred to takes place, nor in the examples given was it for purification, and which examples stand in contrast to clear Scriptures which state the next life destination for believers is with the Lord,(in whose presence is fulness of joy: Ps. 16:11), and that their judgment awaits the Lord's return (and thus all believers will come with him), and that purification of character takes place in this world.

To self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters the words of Christ are often obscure to them. Thus the Church teaches through both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture...

Meaning that if Rome teaches it, from the assumption of Mary to Rome's assuredly papal infallibility , then whoever cannot this in Scripture needs her special glasses which she alone has, as saith the Mormons, JWs. Etc. as well.

For Scripture alone goes against the teachings of the Bible, and leads to individuals leading others into confusion, contradiction and a myriad of different teachings, using the very same Bible.

Which protest RCs make in the face of a common historical assent to core truths by SS-type churches, and a common front by them against Rome's inventions, as well against as those in institutionalized Protestantism which is more like Rome, while these Catholic ignore the extensive disagreement in Catholicism which is allowed, effectually or otherwise, and the formal divisions under sola ecclesia, and the inferior cultic unity under that basis, and under which the greatest heresies are found.

However, you have made it too evident that you are bewitched by Rome as being determinative of truth, and will not allow yourself to objectively or seriously consider the multiple refutations of her presumptions, for as said, the Catholic attitude “makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question,” and thus your real argument is that Rome said it and thus if anyone disagrees they cannot be right.

Thus i doubt I should take much more time with you.

Gabriel Serafin said...

PeaceByJesus, To begin with, realize that the Church has always taught that there are two judgments: The personal Judgment which occurs the moment of your death (when your soul separates from your body), and then the General Judgment at the end of time, when God's justice will be known by all. For " it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment: Hebrews 9:27. The Final Judgment is not until the Second Coming of Christ.

As for Purgatory, again, the Catholic Church teaches that “All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven”. This is perfectly in line with what Paul says, if you study what he is saying

For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

This text speaks of the judgment of God where the works of the faithful will be tested after death. It says our works will go through “fire,” figuratively speaking. In Scripture, the word “fire” is used metaphorically in two ways: as a purifying agent (Mal 3:2-3, Matt. 3:11, Mark 9:49) and as that which consumes (Matt. 3:12, 2 Thess 1:7-8). So it is a fitting symbol here for God’s judgment.

Some of the “works” represented are being burned up and some are being purified. These works survive or burn according to their essential quality. What is being referred to cannot be heaven because there are imperfections that need to be “burned up” (see Hebrews 1:13, Rev. 21:27). It cannot be hell because souls are being saved. So what is it? The Catholic Church teaches that it is the part of the judgment of the saved where imperfections are purged---thus the word Purgatory.

The describes the testing of works. Realize that sins are bad or wicked works (see Mt 7:21-23, Jn 8:40, Gal 5:19-21) Thus these works represent sins and imperfections, since they need to be eliminated. Furthermore, it's impossible for a work to be cleansed apart from the human being who performed it. We are, in a certain sense, what we do when it comes to our moral choices, thus there is no such thing as a work that could be cleansed apart from that human being. Thus the text describes how the works will be tested by fire, and “if the work survives . . .HE will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, HE shall suffer loss.” And, “HE will be saved, but ONLY AS THROUGH FIRE” (Greek dia puros). Therefore, both the works of the individual and the individual will go through the cleansing “fire” described by Paul so that “he” might finally be saved and enter into the joy of the Lord.

Gabriel Serafin said...

Part 2

A Good Place for you to beginunderstanding these truths about a spiritual purgatorial state after death is in the Old Testament. The Old Testament people of God clearly believed that the sins of the dead could be atoned for by the living. Second Maccabees 12:39-46 describes how Judas Maccabeushis “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out . . . He also took up a collection . . . and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably . . . Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin” (42-43, 46).


I realize that as a Protestant you've put your trust in the teachings of Martin Luther, who took it upon himself to dismiss the Book of Maccabees as divinely inspired text (as if he had the authority). But rejecting the inspiration and canonicity of 2 Maccabees does not negate its historical value. Maccabees aids us in knowing—purely from a historical perspective—that Jews believed in praying and making atonement for the dead shortly before the time of Christ. This is the faith in which Jesus and the apostles were raised. And it is in this context Jesus declares in the New Testament: “And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Mt 12:32, emphasis added).


This declaration of Jesus implies at least some sins can be forgiven in the next life—a declaration to a people who already believed it. Thus in Matt. 5, Jesus is even more explicit about purgatory: “Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny” (Mt 5:25-26). The Greek word for prison (Phulake) is the same word used in 1 Peter 3:19 where Peter describes the “holding place” into which Jesus descended after his death to liberate the detained spirits of Old Testament believers. Phulake is demonstrably used in the New Testament to refer to a temporary holding place and not exclusively in this life.


You seem to think that your interpretations of Sacred Scripture are infallible. First of all you are being rather arrogant to dismiss the ancient teachings of the Church, as St. Augustine speaks about Purgatory. In realty, your teachings do no reflect the teachings of the mind and teachings of the Early Church.

You employ Sola Scriptura while apparently being oblivious to the fact that the books and letters of the New Testament were written at different times to different audiences who couldn't have possibly used "Sola Scriptura" for centuries. Yet the Church taught infallibly with authority simply because Christ is the Head of His Church, and the Holy Spirit guides the Church through the ages. So at the heart of your problem is an apparent lack of faith in Christ's promise to guide the Church supernaturally. Instead you seem to have an abundance of faith in your own interpretations, which, as 1 Cor. 3 11-15 shows, crumble under the weight of scrutiny..