Life after death

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

So what protects your interpretation from error?

Whatever I find a reasonable approach to be: whether I sit in a cave interpreting for myself, or in a group study, or on a discussion forum. Or whether I accept the interpretation of others, fully or in part.

It's less a question of whether I err and more a question of my being content to live with the consequences of my doing so (if there be any). That's where the rubber meets the objective road.

By your logic no interpretation is sound in which case we must follow the Bible without interpretation. A tricky situation of you have no knowledge of the original languages or access to copies of the original scripts.

No interpretation can be proven sound. What can occur is that an approach is followed which is (personally) considered sounder than alternative methods. Exegesis over eisgesis for example (although some may disagree). Strong underpinnings for big doctrine over a smattering of isolated verses plucked hither and thither for another example (although others may disagree)

Increasing the resolution by referring to original languages might well reveal hitherto unrevealed facets but I find the commonly available resolution (an English translation) sufficient for purpose. Similar to my discerning a recognisable image from other than a 20 megapixel camera.

Festus

so you have no protection.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

so you have no protection.

I have whatever I find good to deploy. I don't see how anyone can argue to do anything else.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have whatever I find good to deploy. I don't see how anyone can argue to do anything else.

The Holy Spirit would be the best protector but clearly you have made your own choice.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

The Holy Spirit would be the best protector but clearly you have made your own choice.

Aren't the spirits to be tested?

philologos

TOPIC: Life after death?

What do you think? - I think that purgatory is difficult. If Jesus paid for all sin, why do we need to pay for them in purgatory? It seems like going through the carwash twice.

As I would see it it would be saying that Jesus' death was not all sufficient.

Even in 2 Maccabees it says that Judas Maccabeus (Yehuda HaMaccabi) found that many of his soldiers had died because they were wearing symbols of pagan gods. He said that he and others offered a prayer to God in order to forgive them. However, it does not say what actually happened in the end.

It is talking about what Yehuda did, not what God did.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

georgieporgy

as humans we know we each have had a beginning. We have not always existed and we know that. At the same time we have an inbuilt intuition that we will never 'end'. Never die so to speak, yes of course our present life comes to an end, but we know that's not the end.

God has revealed himself to us so the bits we couldn't figure out on our own, we know them because God told us.

So to comment on the issue of Purgatory I would suggest to the inquiring Scripture believer to follow the entreaty of Our Lord; "ask and you shall receive, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened unto you".

So, ask God to reveal to you the truth about purgatory- you have to do a bit of sincere seeking and knocking, but you have Christ's promise of a truthful answer. This link is a good place to start:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=2ea78e600fc6eb0e931c7453395df025c10fdb3622d35f43c95965eaa7bc68bc

philologos

Thanks for your answer Plowman. One of the best explanations I have heard. I'm still not convinced but it is nice when people can explain what they believe in an effective manner unlike some other answers on this thread.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Aren't the spirits to be tested?

What do you call testing the Holy Spirit?

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

Aren't the spirits to be tested?

Festus wrote: »

What do you call testing the Holy Spirit?

Wise?

philologos

Festus wrote: »

What do you call testing the Holy Spirit?

Your logic seems to be flawed though. From the get go most Christians would regard the Holy Spirit to be their guide when reading the Bible. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians that one cannot say that Jesus Christ is truly Lord without the Spirit in Him. This means that this Spirit is in all Christians, not just those who happen to be in the RCC.

Secondly. You ask "what protects your interpretation from error?". Indeed, what does?

Not only do you have to ask this of yourself. You also have to ask what protects the Church Fathers interpretation from error that doesn't protect us from error also?

Indeed, not only do you have to regard the Bible as being the inspired and perfect word of God, you also have to regard the words of the Church Fathers and the church as being perfect even when the church is comprised of fallible men. This is evidenced very clearly.

Edit: Where Church Fathers directly contradict the interpretation of another, how does this prevent disagreement?

Plowman wrote:

Jesus' death was wholly sufficient for redeeming humanity because it repaid original sin and conquered death. But even though we are saved, as mere mortals we can never be entirely sinless. Therefore we must make reparation for all our sins in order to attain perfection and this is where I think purgatory comes in. It's like getting brand new clothes and wearing them all the time: they are going to get increasingly dirty until they are washed!

Just chewing on this a bit more Plowman.

You believe that Jesus died for the original sin of the world?
However, didn't Jesus die for all sin past, present and future?

We become more and more holy by walking with Christ until the point of death, being continually washed to the point of His return.

Let me know your thoughts on this. Its certainly a lot less banal than this same old discussion over interpretation.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

Your logic seems to be flawed though. From the get go most Christians would regard the Holy Spirit to be their guide when reading the Bible. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians that one cannot say that Jesus Christ is truly Lord without the Spirit in Him. This means that this Spirit is in all Christians, not just those who happen to be in the RCC.

Secondly. You ask "what protects your interpretation from error?". Indeed, what does?

Not only do you have to ask this of yourself. You also have to ask what protects the Church Fathers interpretation from error that doesn't protect us from error also?

Indeed, not only do you have to regard the Bible as being the inspired and perfect word of God, you also have to regard the words of the Church Fathers and the church as being perfect even when the church is comprised of fallible men. This is evidenced very clearly.

Edit: Where Church Fathers directly contradict the interpretation of another, how does this prevent disagreement?

As a Catholic I accept the Churches interpretation without question as she is protected from error in faith and morals by the Holy Spirit.
I rely on the Magesterium to impart the Truth.

I do not accept that anyone else can interpret the Bible and do so without error as evidenced by the growing number of non-Catholic Churches that fail to agree.

There is only one Truth. There can be only One Truth. The huge number of Protestant churches servers only to prove that their interpretations are in error as are the interpretations of individuals.



Further reading:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

philologos

You mentioned the Church Fathers. If they contradict, are they all guided by the Holy Spirit, which protects people from error in understanding Scripture?

You go on about their being one truth. I believe this to be Christianity. However your view has implications for salvation:
Do you believe that non-Roman Catholics can be saved?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

As a Catholic I accept the Churches interpretation without question as she is protected from error in faith and morals by the Holy Spirit.

Says who and what prevents them being in error?

I do not accept that anyone else can interpret the Bible and do so without error as evidenced by the growing number of non-Catholic Churches that fail to agree.

Fail to agree with whom? Each other?

If failing to agree with each other is evidence of error then what about the Roman Catholics failure to agree with each other? And if the Roman church are permitted not to agree with each other yet be considered without error then why not anyone else?

There is only one Truth. There can be only One Truth. The huge number of Protestant churches servers only to prove that their interpretations are in error as are the interpretations of individuals.

But isn't the Roman Church's view but one amongst many - in which case the same 'proof' applies to the Roman Church.

There is no argumentation here - just a bald assertion. And seeing as anyone can do that, what value your statement?

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Says who and what prevents them being in error?

See Matthew 16:18, john 16:13 and Timothy 3:15

antiskeptic wrote: »

If failing to agree with each other is evidence of error then what about the Roman Catholics failure to agree with each other? And if the Roman church are permitted not to agree with each other yet be considered without error then why not anyone else?

Your statement is not true and illogical. While individuals may disagree with each other, and maybe even with the Magesterium thereby making themselves heretical, you seem to be implying that the teachings of the Church disagree with itself. The Magesterium presents one view and does not contradict itself.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But isn't the Roman Church's view but one amongst many - in which case the same 'proof' applies to the Roman Church.

The Roman Church is but one rite within the Catholic Church. All in concordance with the Holy See present the same view on faith and morals, that of the Magesterium.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no argumentation here - just a bald assertion. And seeing as anyone can do that, what value your statement?

That would be your assertion.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

You mentioned the Church Fathers. If they contradict, are they all guided by the Holy Spirit, which protects people from error in understanding Scripture?

Actually you mentioned the Church Fathers.

Jakkass wrote: »

You go on about their being one truth. I believe this to be Christianity. However your view has implications for salvation:
Do you believe that non-Roman Catholics can be saved?

Is salvation the goal? Is all that we are interested in just getting ourselves into Heaven?
There seems to be much disagreement among those outside of Catholicism that seem to think that getting into Heaven is not a priority. Perhaps you could clarify.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

You go on about their being one truth. I believe this to be Christianity. However your view has implications for salvation:
Do you believe that non-Roman Catholics can be saved?

Read John6: 26 - 59. Compare this to the Catholic Mass. What does it say to you.

Then read John 6: 60-66. Compare this to those who claim to be Christians but are not Catholics. Compare it if you will to the Reformation and the rise of the Protestant churches and denominations who do not eat the bread that is the Body and Blood of Christ.

philologos

Festus wrote: »

Is salvation the goal? Is all that we are interested in just getting ourselves into Heaven?
There seems to be much disagreement among those outside of Catholicism that seem to think that getting into Heaven is not a priority. Perhaps you could clarify.

Not at all, I was asking because it could be a very significant stumbling block to interdenominational dialogue. I'm interested to hear your answer.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all, I was asking because it could be a very significant stumbling block to interdenominational dialogue. I'm interested to hear your answer.

Lumen Gentium provides some insight

14. This holy Council first of all turns its attention to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.

Fully incorporated into the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who--by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion--are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but "in body" not "in heart."[12] All children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be the more severely judged.[13]

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, desire with an explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church, are by that very intention joined to her. With love and solicitude mother Church already embraces them as her own.

15. The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.[14] For there are many who hold sacred scripture in honour as a rule of faith and of life, who have a sincere religious zeal, who lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and the Saviour,[15] who are sealed by baptism which unites them to Christ, and who indeed recognize and receive other sacraments in their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them possess the episcopate, celebrate the holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion of the Virgin Mother of God.[16] There is furthermore a sharing in prayer and spiritual benefits; these Christians are indeed in some real way joined to us in the Holy Spirit for, by his gifts and graces, his sanctifying power is also active in them and he has strengthened some of them even to the shedding of their blood. And so the Spirit stirs up desires and actions in all of Christ's disciples in order that all may be peaceably united, as Christ ordained, in one flock under one shepherd.[17] Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may be achieved, and she exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the Church.

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.[18] There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom. 9:4-5): in view of the divine choice, they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom. 11:29-29). But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Saviour wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too many achieve eternal salvation.[19] Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is considered by the Church to be a preparation for the Gospel[20] and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life. But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord's command, "preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mk. 16:16) takes zealous care to foster the missions.


17. As he had been sent by the Father, the Son himself sent the apostles (cf. Jn. 20:21) saying, "go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold I am with you all days even unto the consummation of the world" (Mt. 28:18-20). The Church has received this solemn command of Christ from the apostles, and she must fulfil it to the very ends of the earth (cf. Acts 1:8). Therefore, she makes the words of the apostle her own, "Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel" (1 Cor. 9:16), and accordingly never ceases to send heralds of the Gospel until each time as the infant Churches are fully established, and can themselves continue the work of evangelization. For the Church is driven by the Holy Spirit to do her part for the full realization of the plan of God, who has constituted Christ as the source of salvation for the whole world. By her proclamation of the Gospel, she draws her hearers to receive and profess the faith, she prepares them for baptism, snatches them from the slavery of error, and she incorporates them into Christ so that in love for him they grow to full maturity. The effect of her work is that whatever good is found sown in the minds and hearts of men or in the rites and customs of peoples, these not only are preserved from destruction, but are purified, raised up, and perfected for the glory of God, the confusion of the devil, and the happiness of man. Each disciple of Christ has the obligation of spreading the faith to the best of his ability.[21] But if any believer can baptize, it is for the priests to complete the building up of the body in the eucharistic sacrifice, thus fulfilling the words of the prophet, "From the rising of the sun, even to going down, my name is great among the gentiles. And in every place there is a sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean offering" (Mal. 1:11).[22] Thus the Church prays and likewise labours so that into the People of God, the Body of the Lord and the Temple of the Holy Spirit, may pass the fullness of the whole world, and that in Christ, the head of all things, all honour and glory may be rendered to the Creator, the Father of the universe.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...entium_en.html

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

See Matthew 16:18, john 16:13 and Timothy 3:15

An (intepretation of) scripture posited as the means whereby the interpretation of scripture is assured error free?

I see the rest of your post kicks to avoid discussion touch..

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Originally Posted by Festus
See Matthew 16:18, john 16:13 and Timothy 3:15

An (intepretation of) scripture posited as the means whereby the interpretation of scripture is assured error free?

Since when is posting scripture or scriptural references an interpretation of scripture?

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Since when is posting scripture or scriptural references an interpretation of scripture?

Ever since the interpretation of such scripture references constituted an (counter)argument?

But if you prefer to rely on scripture references alone then I'll counter your references with Genesis 1:1 :rolleyes:

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

But if you prefer to rely on scripture references alone then I'll counter your references with Genesis 1:1 :rolleyes:

Ahh... seeking common ground?

philologos

Festus wrote: »

Since when is posting scripture or scriptural references an interpretation of scripture?

Precisely because one has to understand them in order to determine which passages are useful to cite in a particular argument.

You are selecting the passages based on your interpretation as to what are more fruitful to make your case.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

You are selecting the passages based on your interpretation as to what are more fruitful to make your case.

No I am not selecting them based on my interpretation but they are "fruitful" in support of the Catholic case.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

No I am not selecting them based on my interpretation but they are "fruitful" in support of the Catholic case.

You are selecting them based on someone's interpretation of them.

Which is circular reasoning in the case of a query along the lines of: "how do we know a persons/group of persons interpretation isn't in error

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

You are selecting them based on someone's interpretation of them.

Which is circular reasoning in the case of a query along the lines of: "how do we know a persons/group of persons interpretation isn't in error

Nothing circular at all.

We know ours is correct and we can see that yours is in error.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Nothing circular at all. We know ours is correct and we can see that yours is in error.

/end