Ergo my response...
toldailytopic: Is there any point in praying for the dead?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Ergo my response...
Surnaturel
New member
Exactly, but why are you leaving out the most important part? He will be saved but only through the fire, this is precisely what the Pharisaic teaching was in the 1st century AD, that one would be purged like a sword (believer) in the fire (purgatory) and the blacksmith (God) would know that the sword is perfected when he can see his image in the sword. Hope that helps :up:.No.linger:
If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire [1 Cor. 3:15].
"You see the contrast: “If any man’s work abide” which he built on the foundation, he shall receive a reward; if any man’s work goes up in smoke, he will suffer a terrible loss, but he himself will be saved. He does not lose his salvation if he is on the foundation, which is trust in Christ, even though he receives no reward.
Friend, what are you building today? What kind of material are you using? If you are building with gold, it may not be very impressive now. If you are building an old haystack, it will really stand out on the horizon, but it will go up in smoke. I like to put it like this: there are going to be some people in heaven who will be there because their foundation is Christ but who will smell as if they had been bought at a fire sale! Everything they ever did will have gone up in smoke. They will not receive a reward for their works.
Surnaturel
New member
Let's look at the facts. The Bible is the authority, and the teaching office (magisterium) is the interpreter via councils. You accept the Bible, the Trinity, hypostatic union as divinely inspired from the councils but then you magically think that God's Spirit doesn't guide the councils or that only certain aspects of a council were divinely guided, your position is inconsistent at best and ignorant at the worst.
The "apocrypha" (deuterocanonical) is used by ALL of the ancient churches and has been for over a millennium (Catholic, Orthodox, Ethiopian, Coptic). It was only in the 16th century that Reformers decided they shouldn't be used (propping one or two church fathers that agreed throughout history).
Right. So when there is a dispute involving the interpretation of a Scripture than you have no external authority in which to arbitrate between the two. It is an impoverished system that you have.
Again with your hypocrisy and foolishness on the "councils." The Church Fathers lived in a certain proximity to the Apostolic period and quite a few of them were taught by apostles or the disciples of apostles which grants them a more authoritative understanding of the Bible than a dude on TOL named Presbyter that doesn't understand the history of the Church or dogmatic theology.
It's time for roto-rooter to clean all that pooo!
Cruciform
New member
Your response, however, in no way negates or disproves my answer. Thus, my statement stands as posted.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Umm...my post wasn't directed to you.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Go ahead, serpent, and tell us what power you possess here on TOL. (That's what I thought.)
In fact, serpent is only the second individual that I've ever accused of being a troll. So, just another flatly false statement by serpent. Looks like he's not only a troll, but also a liar (but we knew that already).
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Please go ahead and cite the post in which a Catholic here on TOL makes any such claim.
In fact, both historically and biblically, precisely the opposite is true. It is the 16th-century Protestant invention of sola fide which does not work, and never has.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
ThePresbyteers
New member
The first thing any Romanist apologist will do in debate with any Christian is switch the authority source from Scripture to the so-called "Early Church Fathers" [ECF].
This because the Bible doesn't support their apostate cult. Indeed, God's Word contradicts their heresies !
If you argue the ECF with a Romanist, before you know it that will become the all-consuming issue ...and sola Scriptura be damned !
You'll find yourself mired in an endless morass of who said what (and, did they really say it ?).
Stick to the firmer and more sure ground of Scripture Alone !
Rome ~also~ considers the so-called "Early Church Fathers" [ECF] as having equality with scripture and the Apostles.
Hence: "Adhering to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions, and to the consensus of the Fathers" (Catholic Catechism; Sec. 1114)
This the triad of authority in Romanism, each part ...Scripture, Apostolic "tradition", and ECF... equal.
( Also See: CC #668. )
The doctrine isn't completely clear (as most Romanist doctrines aren't ! )
The ECF might be considered as a part of their church's Teaching Magisterium.
Either way, it's given equality with Scripture and supposed apostolic "oral tradition".
ThePresbyteers
New member
On the other hand, it ISN'T like we're the only ones the Holy Spirit ever opened the Scriptures to. 500 years of Reformation exegesis of the Bible ought not be casually discarded !
In disputation with Romanists, ALWAYS insist on God's Word [Bible] as the sole authoritative source. Get away from the Sacred Scriptures and you'll end up playing by the papist's rules.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Where's that in the Bible?
Cruciform
New member
- "Scripture alone" as authoritatively interpreted by whom? Myself? You? Your pastor? Your favorite Christian author? The fact is that every human appeal to the Bible is an appeal to a particular human interpretation of the Bible. Someone has to interpret the scriptures, so who's it going to be, and what makes their interpretation bindingly authoritative upon believers?
- Why in the world should we "stick to scripture alone," when [1] such a notion is nowhere to be found in scripture itself, and so merely refutes itself; [2] scripture itself positively teaches against the "Bible alone" theory; and [3] the early Christian Church knew absolutely nothing of such a doctrine, which was invented by Martin Luther and his followers during the 16th-century Protestant rebellion? (So much for "firmer and more sure ground.")
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
The exegesis of ecclesiastical and doctrinal schismatics should be taken seriously? And presicely whose Protestant opinions should we take seriously, since they all categorically conflict with one another over even essential matters of the faith? Question: What doctrinal authority did the theological opinions of Luther have that those of Arius did not? Why? How do you know?
Unfortunately, you're here merely begging the question in favor of the 16th-century Protestant assumption that the Bible is in fact intended to function as "the sole authoritative source"---an assumption that even the Bible itself never makes, and against which scripture itself specifically teaches.
Get away from the authoritative teachings of Christ's historic Church and you'll end up playing by your own subjective theological preferences and opinions, just as Presbyteers does.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Why not just hyperlink the post so folks don't have to go scrolling about to find it? You can right click the post number and copy then post the link. Just a suggestion.
AMR
LadyGreenEyes
New member
No. Quite simply, by then it is already too late. How do we know this? The thief on the cross, that accepted Jesus, was told THAT DAY he would be with Him in Heaven. That very day. No waiting around, no purgatory, a destination. Prayer for the living. For the spiritually lost. Once they are gone, they are gone.
LadyGreenEyes
New member
Very good point! There is a real danger to this sort of practice. Indeed, it does leave people open to demonic influence, as they would be fooled.
In the post he linked us to, you responded to this:
with this:
In this thread, when another person stated that Catholics place the pope before Christ, you disagreed. However, the above quote would certainly seem to indicate that, at the least, a Catholic would place the pope as equal, another "head of" the Church. A slight difference between what was stated here and your quote, but close enough that the point made here seems valid.
If that isn't what is meant, then please explain, in your own words, what you mean when you state what you did in the above quote.
1 Corinthians 3:15 - "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."
This is a simile, not a direct statement. Hardships in THIS life can "forge" a believer, but there isn't any Biblical proof that there is some exposure to actual fire for the saved. Fire is a punishment for the lost, and the demons. A loving God does not punish those that accept Him in the same fashion, just to mold them further.
One could ask the same question regarding those the RCC claims interpret as well. Why should their interpretation be the only one accepted? Biblical verses, please, NOT links to Catholic sources.
Revelation 22:18-19 - "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Seems that the Word of God tells us just that, that it should be the source, and the ONLY source for spiritual matters.
Don't hold your breath! I asked that before, and was told that looking up specific posts isn't time consuming, but hitting the little "quote" features so handy here is. Honestly, I think it's a tactic to avoid serious debate. No actual verses posted, just links and references to previous posts. Personally, I LOVE that little multi-quote feature! Quite handy.Why not just hyperlink the post so folks don't have to go scrolling about to find it? You can right click the post number and copy then post the link. Just a suggestion.
AMR
when you pray for someone
dead or alive
you show that you care for them
and
that is a good thing
dead or alive
you show that you care for them
and
that is a good thing
If praying for someone who is dead is pointless, then no you don't show you care for them. That's like saying that giving someone who's starving an empty plate is showing you care. Or talking about how you'd feed them, if you were going to. Etc.
I didn't say they didn't care. I said praying for them doesn't show they care. I'll concede that's not true in cases where they don't know it accomplishes nothing, though. But that's like saying if I were delusional and thought there was food on that empty plate I handed a starving person, I'd be showing I cared...but I'd also be showing I was crazy.
But, to the point. If praying for the dead is pointless, then doing so does not show one cares.