That was the next thing I was going to call to your attention. The word does not exist in the Bible and actually it is not Implied in the Bible either therefore Implied Truth does not support it.
So where did "Pergatory come from then?
Conditions For Salvation
- Thread starter Intojoy
- Start date
That was the next thing I was going to call to your attention. The word does not exist in the Bible and actually it is not Implied in the Bible either therefore Implied Truth does not support it.
So where did "Pergatory come from then?
Keep in mind, penance is a voluntary act of repentance. This doesn't negate the gift Christ gave to us.
Well yes, it is implied in the Bible, just like how the Trinity is implied in the Bible -- both are backed by the scriptures.
Last time I presented some verses, they were discarded as not meaning purgatory.
-1 Corinthians 3:10-16
-1 Corinthians 15:29-30
-Psalms 66:12
-Ecclesiastes 12:14
-Isaiah 4:4
-Malachi 3:2-4
I remember hearing some of these as a Protestant as being explained as supporting Purgatory. I rejected this as none of these seemed to support what I thought Purgatory was--and that's one of the biggest problems. A lot of people (including some Catholics even) have a bad interpretation of what Purgatory is. Some think it's a "second chance" place, other think it is a place where you go before you are decided on whether you go to Heaven or Hell--both are wrong.
LS, I too thank you and respect you for your maturity, there are/were some here older than you that act(ed) like children.
Now,
And,
So tell me, where did the thief do his works and acts of repentance and what were these works and acts of repentance, ...unless you are suggesting the three days with Jesus in Paradise was sufficient, if so then tell me what he did, what were his works and acts of repentance and was he the only one there that had to do them, because I read Lazarus was being comforted, the opposite of going through the process of repentance, Biblically comfort always follows repentance, and since Paradise is in the center of the earth and Paul teaches that believers when they die go to be directly with Jesus 2 Cor 5:6, 8 in Heaven, meaning that the other compartment, a place of suffering and torments Luke 16:19-31 is still there where the unbelievers go when they die, but the lights in Paradise have been turned off because Scripture teaches it has served it's purpose and isn't being used anymore.
So, what did the thief do, what were his works and acts of repentance for the three days he was there?
And to save time, here's another question for you to ponder,
You say you believe in faith and works to be saved, that faith in and of itself is not enough, is that correct?
If so, then there are two motivational possibilities for why you are working for your salvation.
1. you do it from the graciousness of your heart without any thought of recompense, ...so, is you faith strong enough, are you TOTALLY convinced and assured that you can stop doing your works today and will go to Heaven?
or,
2. you are motivated by a recompense, you are working your way to Heaven, if so, how much do you have to do, what is/are the amount(s) of work you have to do so that you will have COMPLETE confidence and assurance that you have done enough and will go to Heaven?
Blessings,
Gene
Now,
And,
So tell me, where did the thief do his works and acts of repentance and what were these works and acts of repentance, ...unless you are suggesting the three days with Jesus in Paradise was sufficient, if so then tell me what he did, what were his works and acts of repentance and was he the only one there that had to do them, because I read Lazarus was being comforted, the opposite of going through the process of repentance, Biblically comfort always follows repentance, and since Paradise is in the center of the earth and Paul teaches that believers when they die go to be directly with Jesus 2 Cor 5:6, 8 in Heaven, meaning that the other compartment, a place of suffering and torments Luke 16:19-31 is still there where the unbelievers go when they die, but the lights in Paradise have been turned off because Scripture teaches it has served it's purpose and isn't being used anymore.
So, what did the thief do, what were his works and acts of repentance for the three days he was there?
And to save time, here's another question for you to ponder,
You say you believe in faith and works to be saved, that faith in and of itself is not enough, is that correct?
If so, then there are two motivational possibilities for why you are working for your salvation.
1. you do it from the graciousness of your heart without any thought of recompense, ...so, is you faith strong enough, are you TOTALLY convinced and assured that you can stop doing your works today and will go to Heaven?
or,
2. you are motivated by a recompense, you are working your way to Heaven, if so, how much do you have to do, what is/are the amount(s) of work you have to do so that you will have COMPLETE confidence and assurance that you have done enough and will go to Heaven?
Blessings,
Gene
I wonder how many of you all that are discussing the subject on this thread have ever asked Jesus/Holy Spirit what the conditions for Salvation are?
Jesus told us in the written Word, but it seems that most of you have not gotten the message.
(Matthew 7:21-23) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”
Jesus told us in the written Word, but it seems that most of you have not gotten the message.
(Matthew 7:21-23) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”
Why thank you, Gene -- that;s very kind of you. I do my best as a guest here (I feel more like a guest than a member I suppose, but I enjoy talking with you guys). It's nice to know I'm welcome.
I think I have your questions straight. I may be misreading them, so if I am, I'm sorry--but I'll do my best.
1) What works did the thief do?
Like I mentioned prior, penance is a form of work. The thief became a Christian not long before his death. However, his faith was extremely sincere and deep (remember, I'm not suggesting faith is nothing--faith is one VERY necessary for salvation--we can't be saved without it). If the thief's crucifixion is his penance, you and I could agree that that is some very serious penance as crucifixion was nothing light--not even in those days.
Now I'm only giving the layman's response to this--I'm not expert on the thief, but this aligns with the scriptures that explain faith and works.
Just like 1 Corinthians 13:13 says, we need to abide by faith, hope, and love. While I think it's fair to question this verse are not being in regards to salvation (since we hope itself isn't really brought up by either Protestants nor Catholics), love being the most important should at least be considered regarding faith and works as faith isn't even seen as the greatest of the three.
2) If one's faith is so strong, could he be convinced that his works aren't necessary anymore?
I think when someone has this mentality of "that's enough works--I'll let my faith carry me the rest of the way," then perhaps these works weren't really from the graciousness from God. Rather, it would seem this person had been counting the cost all along. No one can work his way into heaven. I think this is something that has some people baffled regarding faith and works. If one person proposes we are justified by faith and works, then someone else might think that it can't mean anything other than working your way into salvation. And no matter how much the first person tries to explain that this is not meaning working your way into salvation, but rather one's works being fueled by faith, it just seems to get confused more and more, even though it's really quite simple. In fact, most people tend to accept this premise even then they say they don't. "He says he's a Christian, but his actions say otherwise."
3) How much does one have to work in order to earn salvation?
It can't be done. Salvation is a free gift. When faith and works is mentioned, this isn't about "how many times did you do X, Y, and Z." This is counting the cost. This is going by your own works. If salvation had to be earned by works, I doubt any of us could even reach Japan. You and I agree that we are saved by GRACE alone. However, it's through faith, and faith WITHOUT works is dead.
One argument against this is Galatians 2:16 when Paul wrote that we are justified by faith and "not by works of the law." Very fair to bring that one up since it seems to evident. However, Paul was writing this in in contrast to the Mosaic law. He even said this in the prior verse Galatians 2:15 saying "We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles" He was talking about those who follow the law and not the spirit of the law.
If your question is whether the Catholic Church believes in working your way into heaven, they addressed it at the Council of Trent. Written under Cannon 1 of the Cannons Concerning Justification, it says...
Now if you're not Catholic, this may seem like white noise to you, but if you're questioning what Catholics believe regarding working your way into heaven, they are very strict that one CANNOT do this.
I hope I answered your questions. I did my absolute best to try and understand what you were asking and I hope I answered them with clarity (I'm not the best at doing that
)You're welcome LS, really, we are all guests here when you think about it and that fact should cause us to mind our P's and Q's.
I'm not arguing or discussing Catholic against Protestant, ...I asking you, man to man, brother to brother, what foundational assurance you have in what you believe, I have stated I believe in faith only, without works for my salvation, that's the foundational Rock I'm standing on, the finished work of Jesus Christ on the Cross, I know that I know that I know that I'm going to Heaven to be with my Lord.
I read the thief was crucified because he was a thief and a unbeliever at first reviling Jesus, we can't say his crucifixion was his works of repentance, but rather the cause of his predicament, sorry for being dogmatic here, but a doctrine without proof is useless and you still haven't answered my question of where he spent his time of repentance or what he did, only your opinions, ...Church doctrine can be based on a historical facts, Jesus was crucified, historical fact, communion is a historical fact, baptism is a historical fact, ...you see where I coming from, so I say this in love, give me some historical facts or else what you are proposing is just opinion.
As for the other question, it's the same thing, I'm not interest in what other people think, this discussion is between you and me, tell me what you assurance is, what is it founded on, how much work do you have to do to know that you know that you know you are going directly to Heaven to be with Jesus.
Blessing,
Gene
I'm not arguing or discussing Catholic against Protestant, ...I asking you, man to man, brother to brother, what foundational assurance you have in what you believe, I have stated I believe in faith only, without works for my salvation, that's the foundational Rock I'm standing on, the finished work of Jesus Christ on the Cross, I know that I know that I know that I'm going to Heaven to be with my Lord.
I read the thief was crucified because he was a thief and a unbeliever at first reviling Jesus, we can't say his crucifixion was his works of repentance, but rather the cause of his predicament, sorry for being dogmatic here, but a doctrine without proof is useless and you still haven't answered my question of where he spent his time of repentance or what he did, only your opinions, ...Church doctrine can be based on a historical facts, Jesus was crucified, historical fact, communion is a historical fact, baptism is a historical fact, ...you see where I coming from, so I say this in love, give me some historical facts or else what you are proposing is just opinion.
As for the other question, it's the same thing, I'm not interest in what other people think, this discussion is between you and me, tell me what you assurance is, what is it founded on, how much work do you have to do to know that you know that you know you are going directly to Heaven to be with Jesus.
Blessing,
Gene
It looks like I did misunderstand your question then.
I wouldn't believe in a doctrine without evidence. I've pointed out numerous verses that provide this evidence. This isn't about opinions because this isn't subjective. This is dealing with what is objectively true.
Of course he was crucified for being a thief, but don't many of us experience something that happens and give credit to God? For instance, we don't believe in karma, but we believe things happen for a reason.
I'm not sure what historical facts you want when we're both arguing the same Biblical recount. The problem is we both have a different translation of it.
If it's proof you want, neither of us can provide the proof for this. However, we can each provide evidence. Evidence isn't the same, but sound evidence can bring us to the right conclusion. But to say "proof or it didn't happen" is the same arguments used against God's existence.
The evidence I can provide have been all of the verses I shared, just as your evidence were the ones you shared that support faith alone. The problem is I have to dismiss your translation of these verses because they aren't adding up.
I know you are saying this in love--you care about me. I care about you too, and I wouldn't share this if it wasn't out of charity and concern.
??? Didn't happen??? Creation all around us proves there is a God.
And I understand what you are saying and I understand the difference we have in translating the verses we use, but from the verses you use I'm asking you what works you do and when will you know you have done enough, ...you say you believe, are trusting in your works, so tell me, what works are you doing and when or how will you know you have done enough to attain the goal/reason for why you are doing them.
Dear brother, this isn't about me or anyone else and this isn't a philosophical discussion, this is personal, about you, I know the verses you believe, so now tell me how you use them, ...what are your works, they are historical facts, actions accomplished by you in this time-space continuum, ...what did you do today, what did you do yesterday, what did you do last week, last month, last year?
Blessings,
Gene
M
Mr. Darby
Guest
Lysander, it seems to me that you are committing the fallacy of interpreting the numerous texts in the light of an obscure text. With all the overwhelming Pauline statements that salvation is by belief or by faith, it seems to me that you are trying to strain them all through one obscure verse which many would maintain that you are taking out of context. The topic under discussion is not salvation per se, but rather helping a brother who is in Christ.
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Obviously, if all you have is 'faith', but not works, then you cannot profit the needy at all. Faith, if real, is going to be evidenced by works. This is apparent in verse 18.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Since, the immediate topic of discussion is not salvation, but helping the needy as an expression of faith, I simply cannot see how you can so doggedly assert that this is proof that works are necessary to salvation. It seems obvious to me that James is exhorting them to 'justify' themselves by proving the reality of their faith. Obviously, if one says he has faith, but has not works that evidence his faith, his claim to faith isn't 'justified' at all.
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Obviously, if all you have is 'faith', but not works, then you cannot profit the needy at all. Faith, if real, is going to be evidenced by works. This is apparent in verse 18.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Since, the immediate topic of discussion is not salvation, but helping the needy as an expression of faith, I simply cannot see how you can so doggedly assert that this is proof that works are necessary to salvation. It seems obvious to me that James is exhorting them to 'justify' themselves by proving the reality of their faith. Obviously, if one says he has faith, but has not works that evidence his faith, his claim to faith isn't 'justified' at all.
To begin, friend, I was making an example. However, to say "Look around you--God exists!" isn't a sound argument against the atheist rhetoric. Granted, the atheist argument is flawed because it lacks first cause and has holes in their cosmological stance, but the argument to "look around" isn't proof. It ignores the wealth of reasons we have to believe in God. Evidence is a series of facts and sound reasons that lead up to a conclusion. Proof is the conclusion itself presented.
Gene, I think you're missing the point. You're now asking me to based on my own judgement. How could I even begin to do that when Christ is the one to judge us?
These aren't MY works. I think this is where you're missing the disconnect. The works that is expressed in the Bible are (the ones involving justification) are what we have been commanded to do.
Last edited:
Not at all. The scriptures are very clear about faith and works for justification. With all due respect, it seems the strain is coming from the side that is saying faith alone is all you need. You're right that many would disagree with me on this, that many would be the Protestant side. Many would also agree with me, and this would be the Catholic side (but not exclusively the Catholic side). We shouldn't base this on a numbers game. For instance, because there are far more Catholics than Protestants doesn't prove I'm right.
But where does the idea that this passage is about helping a brother in Christ?
Laughing..., Bro, I'm not the one missing the point, all I'm doing is using Paul's exhortation for you to examine what you believe,
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? 2Co 13:5
Now hang with me, keep your cool, you said you know I loved and cared for you, ...somewhere above you said you wanted to know if your were wrong, well, is it possible you are wrong here, you have misinterpreted the verses you use to justify faith and works, ...you need to be true to yourself, you need to honestly ask yourself this question, no matter what the answer might be, ...that's the warp and woof, the stature/character of a mature man.
Actually, I do care for you and that's why I'm proposing these questions, I don't want you to miss out on any rewards the Lord has for you, ...I'm concerned about your life this side of Heaven because, it will determine your life experience, what you job is and where you can go for all of Eternity.
Luv ya bro,
Gene
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? 2Co 13:5
Now hang with me, keep your cool, you said you know I loved and cared for you, ...somewhere above you said you wanted to know if your were wrong, well, is it possible you are wrong here, you have misinterpreted the verses you use to justify faith and works, ...you need to be true to yourself, you need to honestly ask yourself this question, no matter what the answer might be, ...that's the warp and woof, the stature/character of a mature man.
Actually, I do care for you and that's why I'm proposing these questions, I don't want you to miss out on any rewards the Lord has for you, ...I'm concerned about your life this side of Heaven because, it will determine your life experience, what you job is and where you can go for all of Eternity.
Luv ya bro,
Gene
Not sure what's so funny about this, Gene. I'm sure not laughing.
The only reason why I think you are missing the point is because you have consistently mistaken what "works" is.
When I said I wanted to know if I am wrong, this is because I am fallible--as are you. We can't each claim to be infallible because we aren't. This attitude of "Hang with me and you'll learn how I'm right and you're wrong" is incredibly arrogant.
The transition from Protestantism to Catholicism took 4 years. I went through humiliation, excruciating studying, and having friends and some family turn their backs on me. I had to admit how wrong I was for 20 years. I had to speak with my friends and family about why I became a Catholic. Being told by friends that "I've joined a cult" and "not a real Christian" is one of the most hurtful things to hear from fellow Bible study leaders from my past--these were my mentors.
The anti-Catholicism rhetoric I've experience has been worse than the Anti-Protestantism.
It was easier being a Protestant. But I became a Catholic because I took the time to learn about it, I humbled myself, and the truth trumps comfort.
I have to admit, the laughing is a bit insulting.
Romanism teaches that the Roman Church is supreme. This view says that the Bible is the product of the church, so the church can be its only true interpreter. In Romanism, the Scriptures are viewed as being incomplete, that there is more truth available to the church through the church. Romanism strongly emphasizes the obscurity of the Scriptures, saying that because the Scriptures are obscure, only the church can clarify them. Therefore, the church is the one dominant factor to determine what any passage means.
In Romanism, a tremendous amount of authority is given to church tradition. Also, Romanism tends to give priority of authority to the Latin Vulgate instead of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Although it is only a translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, in Romanism the Latin Vulgate is often given priority over the original Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament.
Furthermore, connected to all this, Romanism holds to the concept of apostolic succession. They teach that Peter was the first Pope, and that there has been a continuous line of papal authority through papal and apostolic succession. Because of this apostolic succession found only in the Roman church, only the Roman church has the truth of what the Bible actually means, and they must determine the meaning for us. This is why they believe the church is supreme.
In Romanism, a tremendous amount of authority is given to church tradition. Also, Romanism tends to give priority of authority to the Latin Vulgate instead of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Although it is only a translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, in Romanism the Latin Vulgate is often given priority over the original Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament.
Furthermore, connected to all this, Romanism holds to the concept of apostolic succession. They teach that Peter was the first Pope, and that there has been a continuous line of papal authority through papal and apostolic succession. Because of this apostolic succession found only in the Roman church, only the Roman church has the truth of what the Bible actually means, and they must determine the meaning for us. This is why they believe the church is supreme.
I actually do not see a conflict, with what I know of Protestant and Catholic explanation.
Saved by Grace.
Faith and works have their origin in grace, sustained by grace.
Sola gratia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_gratia
Sola gratia is one of the Five solae propounded to summarise the Reformers' basic beliefs during the Protestant Reformation; it is a Latin term meaning grace alone. Protestant reformers believed that this emphasis was in contradistinction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, though the Catholic Church had explicitly affirmed the doctrine of sola gratia in the year 529 in the Council of Orange, which condemned the Pelagian heresy.[1] As a response to this misunderstanding, Catholic doctrine was further clarified in the Council of Trent-- the Council explained that salvation is made possible only by grace; the faith and works of men are secondary means that have their origins in and are sustained by grace.
Saved by Grace.
Faith and works have their origin in grace, sustained by grace.
Sola gratia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_gratia
Sola gratia is one of the Five solae propounded to summarise the Reformers' basic beliefs during the Protestant Reformation; it is a Latin term meaning grace alone. Protestant reformers believed that this emphasis was in contradistinction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, though the Catholic Church had explicitly affirmed the doctrine of sola gratia in the year 529 in the Council of Orange, which condemned the Pelagian heresy.[1] As a response to this misunderstanding, Catholic doctrine was further clarified in the Council of Trent-- the Council explained that salvation is made possible only by grace; the faith and works of men are secondary means that have their origins in and are sustained by grace.
I think you are all just missing each other. Surely Glomung and Lysander don't believe in works as in ''doing the dishes / mowing the lawn'' to stay married, but rather avoiding adultery? and then surely the others don't believe anyone capable of adultery in marriage with God are saved / have genuine faith in the first place?
Good OP, Intojoy, the only thing I would add on faith is. 1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
I find it interesting how all in the OT and even us today are saved by faith. The requirements to come to God have never changed. Only the covenants.
I like to think of having faith as a work in itself. It takes getting on your knees and reaching deep inside to properly commit to God.
Good OP, Intojoy, the only thing I would add on faith is. 1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
I find it interesting how all in the OT and even us today are saved by faith. The requirements to come to God have never changed. Only the covenants.
I like to think of having faith as a work in itself. It takes getting on your knees and reaching deep inside to properly commit to God.
Intojoy, how could I answer that? No one deserves to go to heaven. How could I even begin to compare my judgement to God's?
This seems to be the common disconnect. When I mention works as going hand-in-hand with faith, you're expecting a measurement of some sort. I don't know what more I can do to say that's not what's being argued.
It's not "Romanism." I know this is a red herring, and I'm not trying to sound sensitive, but it's called "Catholicism" which is Christianity. "Romanism" or "Roman Catholic" was coined by the Anglicans as a way of being pejorative and snide. Let's proceed with a mutual respect. I'm not referring to you as a "Protest-ant" or a "Disconnected Christian."