Evangeliclcals who affirm Purgatory.

[faroukfarouk]

So in light of this thread and the intention of it, are you saying that there is no cleansing after death? Is that what you take these verses to mean?

I would let this and other plain Bible verses speak for themselves. I would prefer not to argue.

 

[Albion]

Where does the idea come from that Christ, by the greatest act of Love in all history, remitted the punishment that we sinners deserve, but we still have to pay a "co-payment" or "deductible" -- the Cross, death, and resurrection of Our Lord not being quite adequate to cover the whole thing? If we're to speak of what's "Biblical," Purgatory, or anything close to it, fails the test completely.

 

[Light of the East]

I would let this and other plain Bible verses speak for themselves. I would prefer not to argue.

???????????

Plain? Not hardly, sir. You could attach several meanings to this, however, I wanted to hear from you your own interpretation.

The fact is that the Protestant idea of "forensic justification," which is what I think you are getting at, is a fabulous piece of nonsense created in the 16th century. The idea of God erasing all our sins, past, present, and future (as I used to hear from Protestant preachers I listened to) is absolutely false, and if you are trying to use the verses in Hebrews to prove this, you are way off base.

Hebrews is about Jesus as our Great High Priest. High priests do not offer sacrifice for personal sins and that is not what the book of Hebrews is talking about, especially in chapters 7-10.

I prefer not to argue either, but on the other hand, when I see error, I do like to try to offer a better and more biblical explanation.

 

[faroukfarouk]

???????????

Plain? Not hardly, sir. You could attach several meanings to this, however, I wanted to hear from you your own interpretation.

The fact is that the Protestant idea of "forensic justification," which is what I think you are getting at, is a fabulous piece of nonsense created in the 16th century. The idea of God erasing all our sins, past, present, and future (as I used to hear from Protestant preachers I listened to) is absolutely false, and if you are trying to use the verses in Hebrews to prove this, you are way off base.

Hebrews is about Jesus as our Great High Priest. High priests do not offer sacrifice for personal sins and that is not what the book of Hebrews is talking about, especially in chapters 7-10.

I prefer not to argue either, but on the other hand, when I see error, I do like to try to offer a better and more biblical explanation.

My position is: "I would let this and other plain Bible verses speak for themselves. I would prefer not to argue", and having also tried to avoid extreme language.

 

[Light of the East]

My position is: "I would let this and other plain Bible verses speak for themselves. I would prefer not to argue", and having also tried to avoid extreme language.

And my position is that there are very few "plain Bible verses." The mute testimony to this fact is the multitudinous number of denominations who all claim to believe in the Bible yet have vastly different understandings of it.

As for the idea of my using "extreme language," I would say that compared to the first couple of years after I converted to the Catholic faith, I have toned down a tremendous deal. I no longer find it charitable nor necessary to call other people heretics in my discussions with them, although I might slip up from time to time in heated debate. God will sort this all out. My desire is simply to try to share the truths of the faith Apostolic. And if I have offended you, I sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness.

 

[faroukfarouk]

And my position is that there are very few "plain Bible verses." The mute testimony to this fact is the multitudinous number of denominations who all claim to believe in the Bible yet have vastly different understandings of it.

As for the idea of my using "extreme language," I would say that compared to the first couple of years after I converted to the Catholic faith, I have toned down a tremendous deal. I no longer find it charitable nor necessary to call other people heretics in my discussions with them, although I might slip up from time to time in heated debate. God will sort this all out. My desire is simply to try to share the truths of the faith Apostolic. And if I have offended you, I sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness.

No need to apologize to me; Sola Scriptura is in fact part of the Protestant approach to Scripture; no surprise there.

 

[Panevino]

Just to be clear (though I'm sure you know)
Purgatory does not offer a second chance to gain forgiveness.

It's about being conformed to the will of God through being purged of remnant attachments/inclinations to Sin.

Right.


That's part of the theory, yes. But Purgatory is also much more.

Yes, such as addressing any remnant temporal consequences of forgiven sins, along with available indulgences which relate to addressing the remnant consequences/inclinations. All relate to conforming the person to the will of God. And do not include a way to earn forgiveness

 

[Panevino]

P

Where does the idea come from that Christ, by the greatest act of Love in all history, remitted the punishment that we sinners deserve, but we still have to pay a "co-payment" or "deductible" -- the Cross, death, and resurrection of Our Lord not being quite adequate to cover the whole thing? If we're to speak of what's "Biblical," Purgatory, or anything close to it, fails the test completely.

purgatory is about our shortcoming not the crosses.

Our remnant misalignment to the will of God which is purged in his Immediate presence.

 

[MWood]

Could He have been referring to the Old Covenant? When He said this, the veil of the Temple was rent in two pieces, exposing the Holiest of All and making it desecrated and unfit for further use. That place was where the yearly offering of Yom Kippur was offered, which renewed the Old Covenant between God and the Jews. By tearing apart the veil, and the words "it is finished" happening at the same time, I think He might have been referring to the Old Covenant being finished.

No! What did He say that He came to do? He said He came to fulfill the Law and Prophets. He didn't say that He came to fulfill the old covenant. He didn't even mention the old covenant. The covenant of circumcision was not a part of the covenant He made with Israel at Mount Sini. Mount Sini was where the Law was given and the Covenant was made with Israel through Moses. From what you are writing, it appears that you are getting your info from men. Read the Bible yourself. It is a lot different than what you are writing.

 

[MWood]

Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to pray for the forgiveness of our sins except in The Lord's Prayer you mean? When Jesus commanded 'Pray then in this way: 'Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, AND FORGIVE US OUR DEBTS, as we forgive our debtors. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.' Jesus explicitly teaches us to pray for the forgiveness of our sins here in Matthew 6. No 'twisting' of The Word needed here: these are the words that Christ Himself taught us to pray

And St. Paul teaches that we are to follow traditions in a number of places, a couple being: 1 Cor. 11:2, 'Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and HOLD FAST TO THE TRADITIONS, just as I have delivered them to you.' St. Paul praises the Church in Corinth for keeping the traditions he taught them. And also in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. 'So brethren, stand firm and hold fast to the TRADITIONS that you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter.' St. Paul writes clearly here: there ARE traditions that he taught, and not all of them were written down in his letters. Further on in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, St. Paul admonishes those who are NOT following what? The traditions he taught them.

Scripture shows that there are clearly some traditions that are not found in its pages, and we are still to follow those; we are not to follow the 'traditions of man', which both Jesus and St. Paul mention, but the traditions of God, which St. Paul felt he was teaching, by both word of mouth and by letter, are most assuredly to be kept.

Peace in Christ

Then what was the Blood for? Why does it say in Hebrews that there is no forgiving of sins without the shedding of blood? What do you want God to do? Who's blood should be shed for the forgiving of the sins? The blood of bulls and goats wasn't enough. It was the wrong blood. It wasn't Holy Blood.

One more thing. That was Jesus' instructions to His followers. At that time He was still offering the Kingdom to Israel.

 

[Albion]

P

purgatory is about our shortcoming not the crosses.

the "crosses?"

Our remnant misalignment to the will of God which is purged in his Immediate presence.

The theory goes on and on, that's right.

 

[Panevino]

the "crosses?"

You know what I mean, don't you?

The theory goes on and on, that's right.

Ok. just as long as you have the correct understanding of it and not a strawman.

 

[Albion]

You know what I mean, don't you?

No. I have a couple of different ideas, of course, but I don't know what you're referring to.

 

[Jack Terrence]

When Jesus said "it is finished," He was referring to the fulfillment of all the Law and the Prophesies concerning Him.

No sir. Jesus' words, "It is finished" were referring to his work on earth. He still had to fulfill the law in the heavenly sanctuary as our High Priest.

 

[MWood]

No sir. Jesus' words, "It is finished" were referring to his work on earth. He still had to fulfill the law in the heavenly sanctuary as our High Priest.

No sir! When He said "it is finished" He had no more work to do. He sat down at the right hand of God. He was "finished."

 

[Panevino]

Where does the idea come from that Christ, by the greatest act of Love in all history, remitted the punishment that we sinners deserve, but we still have to pay a "co-payment" or "deductible" -- the Cross, death, and resurrection of Our Lord not being quite adequate to cover the whole thing? If we're to speak of what's "Biblical," Purgatory, or anything close to it, fails the test completely.

purgatory is about our shortcoming not the crosses.
.....

the "crosses?".......

You know what I mean, don't you?....

No. I have a couple of different ideas, of course, but I don't know what you're referring to.

I tried to respond to the bolded part in your initial post above. Purgatory relates to our shortcomings and not that of the cross, death & resurrection.

 

[Albion]

I tried to respond to the bolded part in your initial post above. Purgatory relates to our shortcomings and not that of the cross, death & resurrection.

Thank you, but it still seems that this should be "cross" in the singular, not "crosses." That's what threw me.

 

[Panevino]

Thank you, but it still seems that this should be "cross" in the singular, not "crosses." That's what threw me.

Your correct, typed in a rush....

 

[Light of the East]

No! What did He say that He came to do? He said He came to fulfill the Law and Prophets. He didn't say that He came to fulfill the old covenant. He didn't even mention the old covenant. The covenant of circumcision was not a part of the covenant He made with Israel at Mount Sini. Mount Sini was where the Law was given and the Covenant was made with Israel through Moses. From what you are writing, it appears that you are getting your info from men. Read the Bible yourself. It is a lot different than what you are writing.

I do not agree with your understanding of God's Covenant and how it relates to mankind. First of all, there is only one covenant, not many. The Covenant of God is the relationship of the Blessed Trinity in eternity. It is analogized by the family unit in the Creation, that is, a father and a mother and a union which brings forth a third. The Father and Son share a love relationship/union from which there issues forth the Blessed Holy Spirit.

Adam was created into this covenant family as a son of God (Luke 3:38). Mankind is the "son" (Adam or "Aw dahm" means mankind). Adam was the federal head of mankind. As such, Adam and mankind was in a covenant relationship with God the Father. The Fall severed the relationship, Christ Jesus as Perfect Man re-established that broken relationship.

Each time covenant is mentioned in the Bible, it is not a separate and different covenant being made, such as the "Davidic Covenant" or the "Abrahamic Covenant." It is God expanding and re-defining the relationship He has with mankind. The Old Covenant encompasses all that period of time in which mankind was in this state of estrangement from God. The New Covenant is when the Last Adam (1 Corin 15:45) has restored to man the federal headship over the Creation and re-established the relationship with God.

When I see that the veil of the Temple is torn asunder at the same moment that Christ dies, thus becoming our Great High Priest who offers an eternal Yom Kippur in heaven, then I have to think that these events are related to each other, and that the earthly Yom Kippur is that which is finished. Which means, of course, that the Old Covenant is also finished.

 

[Light of the East]

No sir! When He said "it is finished" He had no more work to do. He sat down at the right hand of God. He was "finished."

I think you should read Hebrews 7-10 very carefully. It shows us the Great High Priest offering an eternal Yom Kippur for the congregation of God, or the Church.