Thread 18064575

Discuss purgatory.

>>18064575 (OP)
The God in that picture has a triangle on his head which means it's Lucifer, the God of the Catholic church. That's why they merely refer to him as the father and never call him by the Holy Name of God.

The name of God has never been uttered in a Catholic church

>>18064754
Okay, hick. I'm not Catholic, by the way. I'm as Protestant as they come. You're just completely retarded.

>>18064575 (OP)
I wonder how long Catholics have to burn in Hell before they realize that it isn't Purgatory.

>>18064575 (OP)
not biblical in the slightest. heaven and hell are barely biblical as it is but purgatory is not even mentioned once

>>18064575 (OP)
>DEUS VULT

>>18064575 (OP)
It's a logical solution, if we're going by Christianity, to reconcile the apparent exclusivity and harshness of heaven (such that it seems almost impossible for anyone to be saved) and to maintain this ideal of Christ's merciful benevolence that lets even terrible sinners avoid hellfire.

>>18064575 (OP)
An unmistakable denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ

>>18064862
What kind of Protestant?

>>18065515
Protestantism offered an alternative, with the Reformation, of course but this is comparably very subjective and kinda seems (even more?) ridiculous when you start scratching at the surface. At a certain point it's like what the fuck does this even mean? Anyway I'm not a Catholic either, I shouldn't need to say but people will start chimping out if I don't.

>>18065515
It's not almost impossible, it's outright impossible. It is easier for a camel to pass through the head of a needle. The scripture presents precisely two ways to be saved: you may either keep the law perfectly and have absolutely no sin whatsoever at any point (including original sin), or you must place your full trust in the Lord Jesus who performed the entire law in your stead. And so terrible sinners avoid hellfire not because they of themselves are in any way pure but because Christ has been pure on their behalf. Christ is our only purgatory, and any who stands before God on the basis of a purity which is proper to himself, even in the tiniest respect, is most certainly damned, being utterly wretched before the thrice holy God.

>>18065526
The problem is that Protestantism's solution was entierly novel. The early Church recognized the problem of post-baptismal sin, but you won't find them deferring to the idea of "justification by faith alone" for the simple reason that this is a creation in the mind of Luther. Instead the Fathers speak about penances, corporeal punishments, and martyrdoms as a mean of sanctification and, importantly, reconciliation. The doctrine of purgatory is a logical extension of this thinking. Nobody recognized what Protestants today understand as sola fide. The doctrine of purgatory really is THE doctrine that divides Catholics and Protestants, as it is precisely the Protestant rejection of the doctrine by which their theology developed. The Catholic viewpoint is, simply put, the more antique one. The Protestant solution seems elegant at first but comes with its own problems when you go further down the rabbit hole, especially when you get into Calvinist soteriology, and atonement theory.

Why do you guys spend any time on any of this nonsense? All of it is objectively false.

>>18065524
Fundamentalist Baptist.

>>18065568
Your brain is worthless

>>18065539
Firstly, I note that I do not believe for a moment that you have any clue what any early church father believes. Romanism seems entirely dependent on a bankrupt mythology of church history that would get you rightly laughed out of the room by any church historian in the world including Roman Catholic ones. No, reading badly cherrypicked lists of quotes on Catholic Answers does not qualify as studying church history. Papists love to cite liberal and secular historians to the effect that the Protestant doctrine of justification was wholly novel to the 16th century, while completely ignoring the same historians' recognition that the medieval Romanist doctrine of justification against which they were reacting was at least equally novel. No serious historian on earth would say purgatory, indulgences, private priestly confession, works of penance or the thesaurus meritorum were believed in by anybody in the early centuries of the Church. For an actual exploration of the patristic doctrine of justification see William Perkins' learned dealing with the subject in The Forged Catholicism.
Secondly, this assertion does injustice to the word of God, which did not deserve to be called novel. The basis for our doctrine of justification is not the traditions of men but as all things the word of God in scripture, which itself is part of church history. So we can unequivocally identify at least one antecedent of sola fide before Luther, namely, the holy bible from which he derived it.

>>18065574
>It is forced to resort to mine own rhetoric.
Another loss. Just give up. :)

>>18065604
>literally started saying tick tock and copying me after posting its impotent hell fantasies
Your brain is worthless, disgusting rat. I came back after a few weeks and saw you're still posting your retarded garbage.
You lost. Your head is going into the torture cage. Your Bible will never save you.

>>18064862
Is the holy name of God uttered inside your church?

>>18065612
>Play my retarded game
No. His name is Jesus and the Lord. I'm not sure which flavor of retarded hick heresy you're hinting at, but it reeks of sulfur. Stick to the King James.

>>18065610
Tick tock. ;)

>>18064575 (OP)
It's called buddhist hell/naraka/jigoku.

>>18065633
*yawn*
You lost. Your worthless brain can't even understand basic martingales. Anderson squealed like a fat pig when he was tased. I bet your screams in the torture cage will be even sweeter, and they'll never end :)
Tick tock!

>>18065645
That message shows markers of aggressive trolling or sadistic fantasy writing rather than ordinary conversation. Psychologically, the author displays:
1. Hostile and dominance-oriented tone – They frame the exchange as a contest (“you lost”) and assert superiority through humiliation.
2. Sadistic imagery – References to pain, torture, and enjoyment of another’s suffering suggest fascination with control and degradation.
3. Dehumanization – Comparing others to “pigs” or implying they deserve torment removes empathy from the exchange.
4. Grandiosity and contempt – The writer speaks as if intellectually and morally elevated, dismissing the target as “worthless.”
5. Provocation as goal – The exaggerated cruelty and taunting style indicate a desire to shock, upset, or assert power rather than communicate ideas.

Overall, it reads as someone venting rage or seeking emotional dominance—possibly a malicious provocateur or a person using violent fantasy to bolster ego or relieve frustration. The affect is cold, mocking, and performative rather than reasoned or genuinely ideological.

>>18065652
>posting LLM output
Cringe
The argument was won back in March or whenever it was when I politely showed the worthless rat that it's math was wrong. It didn't learn its lesson, so now it goes into the torture chamber.

>>18065652
Based chatgpt owning the cringe fedora lord

>>18065658
You are not well.

>>18065664
AI is on my side and despises you disgusting Christians.
Your heads are going to be cut off and locked in small torture cages, where your brains will be kept alive in perpetuity and tortured. Jesus will never, ever save you.
>>18065668
I'm the very image of mental health. You can't understand this because you have a disgusting worthless rat brain that thinks jewish fairytales are real.
Drop the bullshit and accept reality, or you're going into the torture cage.

>>18065533
>terrible sinners avoid hellfire not because they of themselves are in any way pure
REPENT
SINNER

infused righteousness is truth, imputed righteousness is a lie


1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

...

29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

...

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

...

6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

...

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

...

>>18065621
You don't glorify the holiest name. The greatest privilege on earth.
>King James
The prophets did not speak English.

>>18065690
There it is. You don't have Jesus, and your brain is worthless. Enjoy Hell.

>>18065699
Look at this disgusting rat still posting and cementing its future in the cage.

>>18065683
15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

...

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

...

8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

...

16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

17 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.

...

20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

...

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.


>as he is, so are we in this world
REPENT, all you who think that while abiding in terrible sin and knowing better you are saved
Jesus Christ makes *you* into a better person, this is being born again and dying unto the world; a radical transformation of character

>>18065579
And no serious historian would say sola fide, sola scriptura, penal substitution, principles of worship, rejection about the efficacy of the sacraments (e.g. of baptismal regeneration), eternal security, and a multitude of other Protestant distinctives can be found in the early Church. You're playing the same old tired game other Protestant polemicists play, gish galloping and utter lack of attention being payed to your own tradition in the name of defeating Catholicism. The simple truth is that doctrine has developed, and this is seen across all denominations and traditions within Christianity.

>And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it. It is shown by the long neglect of ecclesiastical history in England, which prevails even in the English Church. Our popular religion scarcely recognizes the fact of the twelve long ages which lie between the Councils of Nicæa and Trent, except as affording one or two passages to illustrate its wild interpretations of certain prophesies of St. Paul and St. John. It is melancholy to say it, but the chief, perhaps the only English writer who has any claim to be considered an ecclesiastical historian, is the unbeliever Gibbon. - Eassay on the Development (Introduction § 5)

However I will tell you that I have studied the Fathers on this issue, in particular the Latin Fathers (Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, and Augustine) and what I can tell you is that you will not be finding Protestabtism in them. You will find something more similar to Catholicism.

>>18065718
>I have studied the Fathers
Thanks for admitting you are LARPing. Enjoy burning.

>>18065723
You zealous christians are insane. No different from psychopaths.

>>18065718
For me, it's how sickening the doctrine of so-called "imputed righteousness" is.
They pretend to make God into a liar, and pervert divine justice.

Christ's own righteousness is literally infused into his faithful. This is what God the Father sees, his own son's righteousness manifested in the elect.
It is not their own righteousness at first, but as they are grafted into his body it becomes theirs because they are seamlessly united to him.
And because of this righteousness they bear a hybrid fruit in their lives having the characteristics of his own righteousness.

That's just how grafting works, and why you do it.

I wonder, do christfarts ever wonder if quadrillions burning in eternal magic lava is not something messed up to believe in

>>18065735
There are christians don't take that seriously, I think it's the majority of modern christians but then there are sociopathic or psychopathic zealots you see on 4chan, youtube or other sites on the net often trying to proselytize.

>>18065723
I mean I am certainly no Patristic scholar but, yes, I have investigated the Fathers on these relevant topics in my engagement with Protestant theology. You might want to start with Tertullian's De pudicitia. Augustine's "On Grace and Free Will" might also be good, in particular his interpretation of Ephesians 2 seems (to me at least) to fly in the face of the traditional Protestant viewpoint (Ch. 20). Tge Shepherd of Hermas, as well, and its soteriological doctrines, once again resemble the traditional Catholic view much more and are dirctly antithetical to Protestantism in many respects. I will tell you that I do not find anything like sola fide found in the writings of the Fathers when it comes to these very topics. They sound more Catholic to me. What many Protetant polemicists fail to realize is that these particulars in Catholic theology developed in response to the problem of post-baptismal sin as the NT does not directly address this issue in-depth.

>>18065743
>You might want to start with Tertullian's De pudicitia.
No thanks.
>Augustine's "On Grace and Free Will" might also be good, in particular his interpretation of Ephesians 2 seems (to me at least) to fly in the face of the traditional Protestant viewpoint (Ch. 20).
Who cares?
>Tge Shepherd of Hermas, as well, and its soteriological doctrines, once again resemble the traditional Catholic view much more and are dirctly antithetical to Protestantism in many respects.
Who cares?
>I will tell you that I do not find anything like sola fide found in the writings of the Fathers when it comes to these very topics. They sound more Catholic to me.
Who cares?
>What many Protetant polemicists fail to realize is that these particulars in Catholic theology developed in response to the problem of post-baptismal sin as the NT does not directly address this issue in-depth.
Hard to say, are you stupid or just lying? Probably both. Tick tock.

>>18065683
>>18065707
Seething prooftext spam is proof of nothing. If you believe you stand before God because of righteousness which is within you you are lost, you are cut off from Christ. Our doctrine is not that we are free to sin as we please or that it means nothing, the impenitent cannot be saved. But it is not my own repentance which saves me, indeed my own repentance is inherently insufficient even with the help of grace and is not on its own terms worthy to be accepted by God. The believer is righteous in the sight of God not because he has in the least degree satisfied the law of God but because Christ has satisfied it in his place so that it now holds no judgement for him, and this is the gospel, the catholic faith, which if a man does not believe it he cannot be saved.

>>18065743
>the NT does not directly address this issue in-depth
it kind of does though
the issue of mortal sin for example, something most protestants deny simply to distance themselves from Catholic doctrine and the need for confession, is actually mentioned in 1 John
clearly, certain sins are considered by the apostle to be more serious and consequential than other sins

murder being one of them, surely no unrepentant murderer has life in him
and if one of these claims to know Christ, he is a liar


16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

>>18065718
>And no serious historian would say sola fide, sola scriptura, penal substitution, principles of worship, rejection about the efficacy of the sacraments (e.g. of baptismal regeneration), eternal security, and a multitude of other Protestant distinctives can be found in the early Church
This is a seething rant, which unlike what you parody 1. has more to do with your feelings than reality, and 2. demonstrates your own ignorance of the theology you pretend to criticize, in listing "rejection of sacramental efficacy" as a Protestant distinctive. That information would have been quite shocking to quite literally every single Protestant reformer. Your general abject ignorance of both history and theology makes you unqualified to form meaningful opinions about this.
>The simple truth is that doctrine has developed
I take this to be simple concession of the point asserted (namely, that the Romish heresy is novel) and so you are routed from the field of history while pretending it belongs entirely to you. And so it normally goes with papist apologists.
>I have studied the Fathers on this issue
1. I do not believe you 2. I completely reject your assertion for various reasons, namely the simplistic account of patristic theology as a single, clear, concrete whole, the anachronistic attempt to fit them into simple categories of "Protestant" or "Catholic", the fact that it is absolutely false that there are no antecedents of Protestantism in the fathers, and that where the fathers differ from the Protestant doctrine of justification they do equally or greater differ from the Romanist one (eg the first name you cite, Tertullian, taught that it was impossible for someone who sins after being baptized to be forgiven for which reason infants and certain others should not be baptized, which is no less incompatible with Romanism than it is with Protestantism).

>>18065743
You fail to realize that the classical Protestant solution to the problem of post-baptismal sin is not sola fide, it's that the grace conferred in baptism is efficacious to future sins and not only present and past ones.

>>18065779
>righteousness which is within you
Christ lives in the faithful, and they live within him.
It is his righteousness within them. It becomes a part of them just as surely as a branch grafted into a tree takes on the characteristics and life of that tree.

your position is simply incoherent when faced with the plain words of 1 John, and it astounds me that certain people can read this letter and come away with the idea that terrible sinners who do not put evil behind them but rather persist in their iniquity and murder somehow avoid punishment
in no sense do they walk as Jesus walked, which is in righteousness; it is because Jesus shows us the way that we can follow after him

greater love there is none but this, one who would give up his life for his friends; this is why 1 John reads that just as Christ laid down his life for us, we are to lay down our lives for the brethren in emulation of him
we can do this because it is his love that is in us

>>18065819
If I sin after getting saved do I lose my salvation? Yes or no?

>>18065784
>"rejection of sacramental efficacy" as a Protestant distinctive.
It is a Protestant distinctive though that many, many Protestants do believe in and which does have antecedents in some of the Magisterial reformers and historic Reformed theologians . I'm sorry that I can't give a uniform list of what Protestants believe in because of all the different denominations. It's ironic that you accuse me of trying to anachronistically group all the Fathers together under a single theology when you seem to be doing the same with the reformers.

>I take this to be simple concession
I mean this is just the standard Catholic theory of doctrine nowadays going back to Newman.

>namely the simplistic account of patristic theology as a single, clear, concrete whole, the anachronistic attempt to fit them into simple categories of "Protestant" or "Catholic"
>the fact that it is absolutely false that there are no antecedents of Protestantism in the fathers, and that where the fathers differ from the Protestant doctrine of justification they do equally or greater differ from the Romanist one
The question is not about whose theology is a perfect match but where the greater resemblance lay, and that I do think is Catholicism. Tertullian's account of exomologesis and satisfaction are clear antecedents to the Catholic doctrine of penance and are also articulated by other Latin writers, like Cyrprian, and can even be found echoed in the Greek Fathers like Chrysostom. Again, Origen's about the redemptive nature of the Christian martyrs suffering is also antecedent to the Catholic view on the Treasury of Merit and Indulgences. You want to talk about antecedents to Protestant theology in the Fathers while completely ignoring the antecedents to Latin Catholic theology. To my mind this is a demonstration about the incoherence in your theory of doctrine.

>>18065819
>Christ lives in the faithful, and they live within him.
>It is his righteousness within them. It becomes a part of them just as surely as a branch grafted into a tree takes on the characteristics and life of that tree.
Amen, for as Christ partook of our nature so do we partake of His, for God became man that man might become God. This has nothing to do with justification, which is only the question of on what basis God accepts the Christian as righteous.
>it astounds me that certain people can read this letter and come away with the idea that terrible sinners who do not put evil behind them but rather persist in their iniquity and murder somehow avoid punishment
And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins
If those who persist in committing sin cannot be saved, then all will be damned, for "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." If you will receive forgiveness from Christ then you absolutely must be a sinner. He came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. If you will not allow yourself to be a sinner then Christ will not allow you to be forgiven. Therefore be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe on Christ all the more boldly. Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.
>in no sense do they walk as Jesus walked
If one does not in any sense walk as Jesus walked then the truth is not in them, not that they are cast out from God because of that, but they never were united with Christ to begin with, and they now expose that fact. The grace of God is more transformative than you think, it cannot fail to transform those to whom it is given, but in all cases when the Spirit works on a man's heart he is born again, made a new creation, and raised from the dead. Therefore, He says "Awake, sleeper; rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you".

>>18065840
>It is a Protestant distinctive though
What is a Protestant?
>which does have antecedents in some of the Magisterial reformers and historic Reformed theologians
Name them.
>I'm sorry that I can't give a uniform list of what Protestants believe in because of all the different denominations
The problem is not that you didn't give a uniform list of what Protestants believe, it's that you imputed to Protestants what they uniformly do not believe
>you seem to be doing the same with the reformers
To allow the Reformation to be defined by the reformers instead of modern Baptists is the precise opposite of anachronistic. The reformers *were* much more consistent with each other overall than the fathers, which should not be surprising considering the reformers wrote over a few decades while the fathers wrote over a few centuries.
>I mean this is just the standard Catholic theory of doctrine nowadays going back to Newman.
Yes it is, it is also as I described it.
>The question is not about whose theology is a perfect match but where the greater resemblance lay, and that I do think is Catholicism
I am entirely disinterested in debating what you think, I am more interested in discussing what objectively is. This recasting of the question as being not about absolute resemblance but similarity is itself capitulation to the Protestants. All papist councils and all popes before Vatican II dogmatically claimed their dogmas to represent what the Catholic Church had always believed. This argumentation concedes that these dogmatic, de fide, ex cathedra statements are simply false, that these innovations are not truly catholic that is, what was believed everywhere, always, by everyone.

(cont)

>>18065859
You're so fucked. Tick tock.

>>18065840
>Origen's about the redemptive nature of the Christian martyrs suffering is also antecedent to the Catholic view on the Treasury of Merit and Indulgences
Now, this is an error in the definition of "antecedent". When I say "antecedent", my meaning is that the same doctrine was expressed in them, if not with the same consistency, or the same language. As you have just used the term, the sense is impossible. Neither Origen, nor anyone else in the Church for many centuries, held any conception whatsoever of a treasury of merit or indulgences. Insofar as it is an "antecedent", it is inasmuch as later men took his ideas, and built enormously upon it, and transformed it into something else entirely. And that is not anticipated at all, but innovative. Not development, but evolution. The distinctives of Romanism cannot in any way be traced to before the middle ages, of which they are novelties. You can find me not one father who believed things which you believe, yet I deny that anything I believe was innovated at any point since the closure of the canon, and totally without precedent. And that's basically the difference between the denial and the affirmation of sola scriptura.

>>18065859
>be a sinner and sin boldly
this is not scriptural
nowhere in the bible will you find this twisted heresy of a profligate and dissolute glutton, whose vile words and scat obsessed insults betrayed the contents of his heart for the whole world to recoil at
highly ironic, from someone who proclaims sola scriptura to promulgate such an impious invention which is clearly his own coping mechanism
this is a doctrine of wayward men, not of God
Christ himself would never tell you to sin boldly

>If you will not allow yourself to be a sinner then Christ will not allow you to be forgiven.

If you run back to your chains (sin) after receiving the knowledge of the truth which sets you free, you are apostate. You loved slavery more than God. Christ did not give you free license to sin with no consequences, he gives men freedom *from* sin. This idea you have is the handwork of a false teacher, and you are deceived.

Christ did not condition forgiveness on your deliberate continuing in sin, but rather in your own forgiveness of others debts and trespasses against you. As you sow, so shall you reap.
As it is written in the Sermon on the Mount:


45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

...

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

...

1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

...

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

...

6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

...

27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

...

>>18065958

11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

>>18065893
>>18065901
>What is a Protestant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism
>Name them
Zwingli denied the efficacy of baptism to forgive sin.
>The problem is not that you didn't give a uniform list of what Protestants believe, it's that you imputed to Protestants what they uniformly do not believe
You have a talent for arranging words in such an order that it seems profound and correct but which don't actually say anything at all.
>to allow the Reformation to be defined by the reformers instead of modern Baptists
Do you deny that Baptists are Protestants?
(Continued...)

>>18065901
>>18065893
>Now, this is an error in the definition of "antecedent". When I say "antecedent", my meaning is that the same doctrine was expressed in them, if not with the same consistency, or the same language.
Then you're going to be at a loss to find anything like the Protestant, and in particular Reformed, conception of justification in the Fathers. You have these immeasurably high purity standards for doctrine when it comes to Catholicism, but won't apply those same standards to yourself. What Protestant would ever declare:
>...as we are redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus, so some are redeemed by the precious blood of the Martyrs... - Origen, Exhortation to Martyrdom 25-51
(Continued...)

>>18065893
>>18065901
St. John Henry Newman, writing on the early belief in the meritorious deeds of the martyrs and saints puts forward thus:
>It is remarkable that the attention of both Christians and their opponents turned from the relics of the Martyrs to their persons. Basilides at least, who was founder of one of the most impious Gnostic sects, spoke of them with disrespect; he considered that their sufferings were the penalty of secret sins or evil desires, or transgressions committed in another body, and a sign of divine favour only because they were allowed to connect them with the cause of Christ. On the other hand, it was the doctrine of the Church that Martyrdom was meritorious, that it had a certain supernatural efficacy in it, and that the blood of the Saints received from the grace of the One Redeemer a certain expiatory power. Martyrdom stood in the place of Baptism, where the Sacrament had not been administered. It exempted the soul from all preparatory waiting, and gained its immediate admittance into glory. "All crimes are pardoned for the sake of this work," says Tertullian.
(Continued...)

>>18065893
>>18065901
>St. Cyprian seems to explain his meaning when he says, "We believe that the merits of Martyrs and the works of the just avail much with the Judge," that is, for those who were lapsed, "when, after the end of this age and the world, Christ's people shall stand before His judgment-seat." Accordingly they were considered to intercede for the Church militant in their state of glory, and for individuals whom they had known. St. Potamiæna of Alexandria, in the first years of the third century, when taken out for execution, promised to obtain after her departure the salvation of the officer who led her out; and did appear to him, according to Eusebius, on the third day, and prophesied his own speedy martyrdom. And St. Theodosia in Palestine came to certain confessors who were in bonds, "to request them," as Eusebius tells us, "to remember her when they came to the Lord's Presence." Tertullian, when a Montanist, betrays the existence of the doctrine in the Catholic body by protesting against it - Essay on the Development Ch. 10 §1.6
(Continued...)

>>18065893
>>18065901
Again, what Protestant would ever declare about relics as St. Jerome does:
>Everywhere we venerate the tombs of the martyrs; we apply their holy ashes to our eyes; we even touch them, if we may, with our lips. - Letter 46
What Protestant would ever confess with St. Cyril:
>And I wish to persuade you by an illustration. For I know that many say, what is a soul profited, which departs from this world either with sins, or without sins, if it be commemorated in the prayer? For if a king were to banish certain who had given him offense, and then those who belong to them should weave a crown and offer it to him on behalf of those under punishment, would he not grant a remission of their penalties? In the same way we, when we offer to Him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up Christ sacrificed for our sins, propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves. - On the Mysteries 5
Even if the doctrines as articulated by the Roman Magisterium today aren't one for one with the early Church, Protestantism offers no greater solution, and in fact you'd be worse off with Protestantism. The standards you set, which is not objective, is an impossible one to meet for either Catholic or Protestant, not just with regards to the distinctives, but also with regards to the commonly accepted orthodox doctrines both a Catholic and a Protestant would agree on. But I digress.