Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. I was speaking of the TIMING of the cleansing (that it may very well be after death), not that there is a question as to its occurrance.jlay wrote:Whose side are you arguing????It says nothing about if a cleansing may or may not come after death.
And purgatory absolutely denies condemnation for those who are in Christ, I've repeatedly stated that. The question is are we made to appear clean or do we actually have to be clean before entering heaven, not that there is still a question of condemnation, there isn't.jlay wrote:The way I was reading it was from how you presented it, regarding a purgatorial cleansing. You quoted Rev. 21:27 as a verse to clarify the doctrine of purgatory. Then you say is says nothing about whether purgatory is or isn't. So, why should I be placed in such a position? That's an end around. Of course we know that is not true. since no liar will enter his presence, and we are all liars, then there must be a caveat for those written in the Lamb's book. The LBOL then becomes a matter of identity. Who we are, "in Christ." Are we liars? No. In fact Paul says, (that before we ever die) we are made to sit in heavenly places. (Eph 2:6) Can we claim to be without sin? No. If we do the truth is not in us. But are we sinners? Is that our identity in Christ? Who are we, in Christ? No condemnation for those who are IN CHRIST.
There is no circularity whatsoever. Dogma is developing, there is no question about that, unless you want to claim we know everything there is to know and have always known the fullness of God's revelation. And when I say the word 'claim' I am being deferential in not stating it emphatically since I know no one will accept it as but a claim (i.e. I'm trying to be respectful).jlay wrote:If you really want to have that discussion, then so be it. As we know it is fruitless. I am very aware of how the RCC deals with such criticisms. You said a mouthful when you say, "CLAIM." All Christian believers can claim such, as "In Christ" we are part of one body. Not because of some graph on a church hierarchy. Are you saying that all church decrees have always been, and have never been ammended or re-interpreted since the apostolic age? Well, they have, and other traditions have been added. In fact the apocryphal works were not canonized until the COT in 1546. Byb, this is a common ciritque of the RCC, and the RCC has made it a case to be very careful when "modifying" to say things such as, "as the church has always taught....". It's a have your cake and eat it too that's based in circular reasoning, and I don't suspect I'll be changing anyone's mind.If there's any claim going for the RCC is that it has NOT changed, precisely because its historical claim is back to the apostolic age and guidance by the power of the Holy Spirit.
"Development of Doctrine," was, is and will continue to be an issue of the RCC. I don't even care to deny the continuity of the RCC, but certainly how things were interpreted have greatly changed and issues such as how the church accepted and later condemned slavery are an obvious example. FWIW, I have no problem with such development. In fact, it is the right way IMO. However, when one tries to have their cake and eat it too, problems arise. Saying its unchanging but changing. Here is an article from a RCC position that attempts to defend the DOD. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop Now, you may see no issue, but for me and many others, the circularity of it is overwhelming.
What I am saying is that any doctrine that was defined dogmatically by the church has NEVER changed and I challenge you to find otherwise. If it is not something that was defined dogmatically then the understanding of if is not complete to formulate a dogmatic pronouncement. There is nothing circular about that, it's simply being prudent with God's Word that was entrusted to her by virtue of her interpretive authority (happy? no 'claim'). But you're right, it is rather pointless and like I said, it will take us right back to authority, which you anticipated and already summarily dismissed.
As for accepting then later denying slavery, first what does that have to do with defined dogma? Second, even if your claim is true (and I am in no way saying that it is), whoever said some members, even leaders in the church don't make mistakes? You are under the mistaken assumption that EVERYTHING church leaders do or say must be under the infallibility umbrella. Well it isn't. So if you want to talk about the RCC changing, it must be in the prism of dogmatic pronouncements that have changed and I am telling you you will find NONE. Other than that, you're attacking a straw man.
Huh? Where is the contradiction J? If you concede that feelings of shame and sorrow are possible after death (irrespective of the associated physical manifestations), and if you further concede that those feelings cannot be taking place in heaven or hell, then necessarily you have conceded the existence of another place/time where/when these things are taking place, i.e. purgatory.jlay wrote:This statement is blatently self-defeating. If it is happening in heaven, and such things can't exist heaven, then you have a contradiciton.This feeling of shame and sorrow, where is this happening, in heaven? Heaven is perfect J, no such feelings can exist or even enter there.
Will we feel shame? I don't know. Since we won't have this body to drag around, I'm not sure how 'feelings' will play into at all. I do know that we have been (completed) justified through faith, we have (NOW) peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Rom. 5:1
We certainly must account for them before Christ at the Bema Seat Judgment, with whatever that entails. And you haven't demonstrated that that will NOT entail suffering of some sort.jlay wrote:In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us. (Eph 1:7,8) So, we have to spend some time paying for our blemishes?