Salvation for the Dead

[DamianWarS]

According to God's will, even the most wicked can be saved.

1 Timothy 2:3-4. "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth"

Mark 16:5. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Including, the unhealthy spiritual creatures of the dead, as our Lord had done before His resurrection. Are you not desiring to be one with Christ?

it seems you are taking a Catholic problem and using a Protestant method to solve it. Catholics need to use the lense of tradition to interpret scripture which it seems you are rejecting.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

it seems you are taking a Catholic problem and using a Protestant method to solve it. Catholics need to use the lense of tradition to interpret scripture which it seems you are rejecting.

No church's methods to try to understand Scripture are valid nor do they work if they are opposed to Scripture. If they are in line with Scripture, this can be proven the same way the Bereans and others proved everything by Scripture/ verified it was in line with Scripture or in Scripture/ BEFORE accepting it.
Everything opposed to Scripture is rejected.

 

[Light of the East]

All have been saved except
those who do not accept
the Lord's Good Grace.

Let me try this another way. Let's use an analogy. I am a successful builder. I build and own a number of hotels and houses in my city. One night, an enemy goes around and sets fire to them all, burning them to the ground.

I rebuild half of them and leave the others to rot. Have I restored all to its former condition? Have I saved everything that I built? Is all my work redeemed?

I think not.

If the salvation of Christ does not save all, then how is it considered to be successful? If the devil could walk about hell and point to millions of tormented souls who will never be free of their torment, then he will have something to brag about, won't he? He will have something by which he can say "I won."

Are you getting the point? If Adam destroys all with his one act of disobedience, then for God to be successful, Christ must redeem all with His one act of obedience.

 

[Light of the East]

You'd think that in a letter full of reproof for other shortcomings, Paul would've done so if it were an egregious error.
I agree with you, since he's using it to support his argument for the resurrection I tend to think he was not opposed to the practice. Although there does not seem to be any doctrine around it.. likely a local custom.

For what it's worth, here's my take on it. Baptism is the covenant making ceremony of the New Covenant which replaced circumcision. The first believers were Jewish. Covenant was everything to them. I believe that family members were being baptized for their family members in order to be sure they were included in the New Covenant.

Just my .02.

 

[Light of the East]

No church's methods to try to understand Scripture are valid nor do they work if they are opposed to Scripture. If they are in line with Scripture, this can be proven the same way the Bereans and others proved everything by Scripture/ verified it was in line with Scripture or in Scripture/ BEFORE accepting it.
Everything opposed to Scripture is rejected.

So then you believe in "This IS my Body and this IS my Blood" which is in Scripture? You believe that the Eucharist is the source of eternal life, as Jesus taught in John 6? You accept that there should be bishops in your assembly as Paul spoke of to Timothy? Do you have presbyters (priests) as Paul spoke about?

 

[anna ~ grace]

Let me try this another way. Let's use an analogy. I am a successful builder. I build and own a number of hotels and houses in my city. One night, an enemy goes around and sets fire to them all, burning them to the ground.

I rebuild half of them and leave the others to rot. Have I restored all to its former condition? Have I saved everything that I built? Is all my work redeemed?

I think not.

If the salvation of Christ does not save all, then how is it considered to be successful? If the devil could walk about hell and point to millions of tormented souls who will never be free of their torment, then he will have something to brag about, won't he? He will have something by which he can say "I won."

Are you getting the point? If Adam destroys all with his one act of disobedience, then for God to be successful, Christ must redeem all with His one act of obedience.

I would assume that it reasonable to at least hope that every soul at the Day of Judgement will get the opportunity to trust in Christ, and be saved. That is at least my personal hope. That does not mean that Hell is not real, or that Judgement is not real. Only that after the Judgement is passed, I hope that we can have reason to hope.

I believe that some Eastern Orthodox have thought along these lines. I am not sure about Catholic thinkers.

 

[Humble me Lord]

Are you getting the point? If Adam destroys all with his one act of disobedience, then for God to be successful, Christ must redeem all with His one act of obedience.

Not even close. By your worldly standard, for Jesus crucifixion to be successful, all would be saved, no matter what they did or believed?
It is a choice to each person to accept or reject salvation, believing that what Jesus endured on the cross did completely accomplish why He came in the flesh, to redeem us from our sin we were born into because of Adam. This is not a success or fail plan, it is a gift from God that you either accept or refuse. What you are saying is that our Mighty God is a failure. I think you should read the book of Job. 2 Peter 3:9 , 1 Timothy 2:4

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Everything opposed to Scripture is rejected.
Hoping for anything opposed to Scripture results in sorrow, grief, disillusionment, deception, and opposition to YHWH.

I would assume that it reasonable to at least hope that every soul at the Day of Judgement will get the opportunity to trust in Christ, and be saved. That is at least my personal hope. That does not mean that Hell is not real, or that Judgement is not real. Only that after the Judgement is passed, I hope that we can have reason to hope.

I believe that some Eastern Orthodox have thought along these lines. I am not sure about Catholic thinkers.

 

[Light of the East]

Not even close. By your worldly standard, for Jesus crucifixion to be successful, all would be saved, no matter what they did or believed?
It is a choice to each person to accept or reject salvation, believing that what Jesus endured on the cross did completely accomplish why He came in the flesh, to redeem us from our sin we were born into because of Adam. This is not a success or fail plan, it is a gift from God that you either accept or refuse. What you are saying is that our Mighty God is a failure. I think you should read the book of Job. 2 Peter 3:9 , 1 Timothy 2:4

You're missing the point. How can you say that God's plan of Redemption is a success when, according to a lot of people I have read, almost everyone is going to hell forever? How is that anything like a success?

Are you stating that the devil is more powerful than God in his ability to condemn people vs God's ability to redeem them?

Yes, it is a choice for each person to accept or reject salvation, but if this life is the only chance you get, then that is a pretty truncated plan.

God as Monster

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, it is a choice for each person to accept or reject salvation, but if this life is the only chance you get, then that is a pretty truncated plan.

Ask the ONE WHOSE PLAN it IS.
Perhaps then " Then opened HE their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures," , in His Mercy,
He Will Grant understanding of the Scriptures.

 

[PeaceB]

It is common practice for the dead in purgatory to obtain indulgence from God through the Catholic Church for remission of their sins (CCC X. Indulgences). This practice seems to come from 2 Maccabees 12:38-46.

These indulgences are limited to those who die in the communion of saints (the faithful).

I take this practice one step further. I believe that we can offer up our own good works for the atonement of the dead in hell. Nowhere in Maccabees does it say that atonement is limited to the dead in “purgatory.”

God’s love is greater than the Catholic Church teaches.

Matthew 5:44. But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

God’s love is true and pure and is not limited to the faithful.

Here are my views on atonement and commentary on “shadow people” -

Some of the dead today are commonly referred to as “shadow people”. I have seen thousands of these spirits. And, I have received divine guidance in regards to them.

I urge those who have the dead in their lives or loved ones in hell to please listen.

There are various shades of darkness and white or light in the spirit world. In which two kingdoms exist...heaven and hell. The darker spirits are malevolent and are in hell. Here, you can find "shadow people" in scripture,

Psalm 23:4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.

Shadow people are generally malevolent spirits of the dead. They are the lost human souls of the netherworld.

It is the human condition that we are evil and wicked without God in the afterlife. The soul is in ruins. And in need of salvation (divine restoration).

1 Peter 4:6. For this reason the gospel was preached also to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in spirit.

Only Christ holds the keys to the gates of hell. Why would Christ hold the keys to a door that cannot be opened?

And it is by the power of God that salvation is made for the dead.

1 Corinthians 1:18. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Comment: Why is “purgatory” necessary, if salvation is by the power of God? Christ can save the dead in a blink of the eye. Although, Catholic myself, I cast my doubts on purgatory.

There is only one way to help these spirits. And that is by making atonement for their sins. In this way, their souls are restored by the divine power of Christ and they can be good spirits with their friends and family in heaven.

2 Maccabees 12:46. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

Freedom for the dead shackled in the dark kingdom can only come through making atonement to Christ for their sins. Atonement is made by offering up good works to the one and only risen King.

One must be in good standing with God and have the door closed to these spirits before atonement will be accepted. This should be done as soon as possible.

Leviticus 19:31. Give no regard to mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by them; I am the Lord your God.

Mediums and familiar spirits involve consulting the spirits of the dead. All contact with these or other spirits was strictly forbidden in Israel. It demonstrated lack of faith in and rebellion against God.

Atonement can also be made for our friends and loved ones in hell.

In conclusion, this, my friends, is the most loving thing you can do for these poor, lost souls. And, may God bless you for such an undertaking.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - I believe in life everlasting

1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592 The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for others.593

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification594 or immediately,595 -- or immediate and everlasting damnation.596

. . .​

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."618

 

[Humble me Lord]

Thank you for the referral page, but I prefer to get my information from the inspired word of God, the Holy Bible. When you start relying on fallible men to interpret scripture for you, I think you are on a slippery slope. I have no idea how many people will be in hell forever, and neither do you. I also do not think it is our place to question what God does with any of us.
May God bless you and open your eyes to the truth

 

[anna ~ grace]

Catechism of the Catholic Church - I believe in life everlasting

1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592 The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for others.593

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification594 or immediately,595 -- or immediate and everlasting damnation.596

. . .​

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."618

Though death closes the door of opportunity, is it possible that, being raised to life again, the soul facing Christ and being judged might after Judgement be granted an opportunity to enter through Him? After all, they have been raised to life, and are no longer dead.

And as mortal sin requires full knowledge and unrepentance, is it also not possible that the only truly mortal sin would be to know and then reject Christ?

I don't want to contradict Truth. I'm just asking if there is room for such possibility within the parameters of Catholic teachings.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Though death closes the door of opportunity, is it possible that, being raised to life again, the soul facing Christ and being judged might after Judgement be granted an opportunity to enter through Him? After all, they have been raised to life, and are no longer dead.

It is written plainly in Scripture, no.
In Harmony all through Scripture, no.

They are resurrected, yes , as written: "to shame and judgment" because they rejected LIGHT,
because they loved the darkness. (God perfectly knows their hearts)

 

[Humble me Lord]

This might help
Will there be a second chance for salvation after death?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

This might help
Will there be a second chance for salvation after death?

"Question: "Will there be a second chance for salvation after death?"

Answer: While the idea of a second chance for salvation is appealing, the Bible is clear that death is the end of all chances....."

Clear from Scripture, the lesson follows at that link...

 

[PeaceB]

Though death closes the door of opportunity, is it possible that, being raised to life again, the soul facing Christ and being judged might after Judgement be granted an opportunity to enter through Him? After all, they have been raised to life, and are no longer dead.

No, basically. I suppose that anything is possible, but that is not what the Church teaches, from what I understand.

And as mortal sin requires full knowledge and unrepentance, is it also not possible that the only truly mortal sin would be to know and then reject Christ?

No, basically. One cannot distill mortal sin down to a fundamental choice between "I accept God" or "I reject God" that is divorced from specific acts. This is discussed in some depth below.

Veritatis Splendor (6 août 1993) | John Paul II

III. Fundamental choice and specific kinds of behaviour

"Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh" (Gal 5:13)

65. The heightened concern for freedom in our own day has led many students of the behavioural and the theological sciences to develop a more penetrating analysis of its nature and of its dynamics. It has been rightly pointed out that freedom is not only the choice for one or another particular action; it is also, within that choice, a decision about oneself and a setting of one's own life for or against the Good, for or against the Truth, and ultimately for or against God. Emphasis has rightly been placed on the importance of certain choices which "shape" a person's entire moral life, and which serve as bounds within which other particular everyday choices can be situated and allowed to develop.

Some authors, however, have proposed an even more radical revision of the relationship between person and acts. They speak of a "fundamental freedom", deeper than and different from freedom of choice, which needs to be considered if human actions are to be correctly understood and evaluated. According to these authors, the key role in the moral life is to be attributed to a "fundamental option", brought about by that fundamental freedom whereby the person makes an overall self-determination, not through a specific and conscious decision on the level of reflection, but in a "transcendental" and "athematic" way. Particular acts which flow from this option would constitute only partial and never definitive attempts to give it expression; they would only be its "signs" or symptoms. The immediate object of such acts would not be absolute Good (before which the freedom of the person would be expressed on a transcendental level), but particular (also termed "categorical" ) goods. In the opinion of some theologians, none of these goods, which by their nature are partial, could determine the freedom of man as a person in his totality, even though it is only by bringing them about or refusing to do so that man is able to express his own fundamental option.

A distinction thus comes to be introduced between the fundamental option and deliberate choices of a concrete kind of behaviour. In some authors this division tends to become a separation, when they expressly limit moral "good" and "evil" to the transcendental dimension proper to the fundamental option, and describe as "right" or "wrong" the choices of particular "innerworldly" kinds of behaviour: those, in other words, concerning man's relationship with himself, with others and with the material world. There thus appears to be established within human acting a clear disjunction between two levels of morality: on the one hand the order of good and evil, which is dependent on the will, and on the other hand specific kinds of behaviour, which are judged to be morally right or wrong only on the basis of a technical calculation of the proportion between the "premoral" or "physical" goods and evils which actually result from the action. This is pushed to the point where a concrete kind of behaviour, even one freely chosen, comes to be considered as a merely physical process, and not according to the criteria proper to a human act. The conclusion to which this eventually leads is that the properly moral assessment of the person is reserved to his fundamental option, prescinding in whole or in part from his choice of particular actions, of concrete kinds of behaviour.

66. There is no doubt that Christian moral teaching, even in its Biblical roots, acknowledges the specific importance of a fundamental choice which qualifies the moral life and engages freedom on a radical level before God. It is a question of the decision of faith, of the obedience of faith (cf. Rom 16:26) "by which man makes a total and free self-commitment to God, offering 'the full submission of intellect and will to God as he reveals' ".112 This faith, which works through love (cf. Gal 5:6), comes from the core of man, from his "heart" (cf. Rom 10:10), whence it is called to bear fruit in works (cf. Mt 12:33-35; Lk 6:43-45; Rom 8:5-10; Gal 5:22). In the Decalogue one finds, as an introduction to the various commandments, the basic clause: "I am the Lord your God..." (Ex 20:2), which, by impressing upon the numerous and varied particular prescriptions their primordial meaning, gives the morality of the Covenant its aspect of completeness, unity and profundity. Israel's fundamental decision, then, is about the fundamental commandment (cf. Jos 24:14-25; Ex 19:3-8; Mic 6:8). The morality of the New Covenant is similarly dominated by the fundamental call of Jesus to follow him — thus he also says to the young man: "If you wish to be perfect... then come, follow me" (Mt 19:21); to this call the disciple must respond with a radical decision and choice. The Gospel parables of the treasure and the pearl of great price, for which one sells all one's possessions, are eloquent and effective images of the radical and unconditional nature of the decision demanded by the Kingdom of God. The radical nature of the decision to follow Jesus is admirably expressed in his own words: "Whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the Gospel's will save it" (Mk 8:35).

Jesus' call to "come, follow me" marks the greatest possible exaltation of human freedom, yet at the same time it witnesses to the truth and to the obligation of acts of faith and of decisions which can be described as involving a fundamental option. We find a similar exaltation of human freedom in the words of Saint Paul: "You were called to freedom, brethren" (Gal 5:13). But the Apostle immediately adds a grave warning: "Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh". This warning echoes his earlier words: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery" (Gal 5:1). Paul encourages us to be watchful, because freedom is always threatened by slavery. And this is precisely the case when an act of faith — in the sense of a fundamental option — becomes separated from the choice of particular acts, as in the tendencies mentioned above.

67. These tendencies are therefore contrary to the teaching of Scripture itself, which sees the fundamental option as a genuine choice of freedom and links that choice profoundly to particular acts. By his fundamental choice, man is capable of giving his life direction and of progressing, with the help of grace, towards his end, following God's call. But this capacity is actually exercised in the particular choices of specific actions, through which man deliberately conforms himself to God's will, wisdom and law. It thus needs to be stated that the so-called fundamental option, to the extent that it is distinct from a generic intention and hence one not yet determined in such a way that freedom is obligated, is always brought into play through conscious and free decisions. Precisely for this reason, it is revoked when man engages his freedom in conscious decisions to the contrary, with regard to morally grave matter.

To separate the fundamental option from concrete kinds of behaviour means to contradict the substantial integrity or personal unity of the moral agent in his body and in his soul. A fundamental option understood without explicit consideration of the potentialities which it puts into effect and the determinations which express it does not do justice to the rational finality immanent in man's acting and in each of his deliberate decisions. In point of fact, the morality of human acts is not deduced only from one's intention, orientation or fundamental option, understood as an intention devoid of a clearly determined binding content or as an intention with no corresponding positive effort to fulfil the different obligations of the moral life. Judgments about morality cannot be made without taking into consideration whether or not the deliberate choice of a specific kind of behaviour is in conformity with the dignity and integral vocation of the human person. Every choice always implies a reference by the deliberate will to the goods and evils indicated by the natural law as goods to be pursued and evils to be avoided. In the case of the positive moral precepts, prudence always has the task of verifying that they apply in a specific situation, for example, in view of other duties which may be more important or urgent. But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the "creativity" of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.

68. Here an important pastoral consideration must be added. According to the logic of the positions mentioned above, an individual could, by virtue of a fundamental option, remain faithful to God independently of whether or not certain of his choices and his acts are in conformity with specific moral norms or rules. By virtue of a primordial option for charity, that individual could continue to be morally good, persevere in God's grace and attain salvation, even if certain of his specific kinds of behaviour were deliberately and gravely contrary to God's commandments as set forth by the Church.

In point of fact, man does not suffer perdition only by being unfaithful to that fundamental option whereby he has made "a free self-commitment to God".113 With every freely committed mortal sin, he offends God as the giver of the law and as a result becomes guilty with regard to the entire law (cf. Jas 2:8-11); even if he perseveres in faith, he loses "sanctifying grace", "charity" and "eternal happiness".114 As the Council of Trent teaches, "the grace of justification once received is lost not only by apostasy, by which faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin".115

Mortal and venial sin

69. As we have just seen, reflection on the fundamental option has also led some theologians to undertake a basic revision of the traditional distinction between mortal sins and venial sins. They insist that the opposition to God's law which causes the loss of sanctifying grace — and eternal damnation, when one dies in such a state of sin — could only be the result of an act which engages the person in his totality: in other words, an act of fundamental option. According to these theologians, mortal sin, which separates man from God, only exists in the rejection of God, carried out at a level of freedom which is neither to be identified with an act of choice nor capable of becoming the object of conscious awareness. Consequently, they go on to say, it is difficult, at least psychologically, to accept the fact that a Christian, who wishes to remain united to Jesus Christ and to his Church, could so easily and repeatedly commit mortal sins, as the "matter" itself of his actions would sometimes indicate. Likewise, it would be hard to accept that man is able, in a brief lapse of time, to sever radically the bond of communion with God and afterwards be converted to him by sincere repentance. The gravity of sin, they maintain, ought to be measured by the degree of engagement of the freedom of the person performing an act, rather than by the matter of that act.

70. The Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia reaffirmed the importance and permanent validity of the distinction between mortal and venial sins, in accordance with the Church's tradition. And the 1983 Synod of Bishops, from which that Exhortation emerged, "not only reaffirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent concerning the existence and nature of mortal and venial sins, but it also recalled that mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent".116

The statement of the Council of Trent does not only consider the "grave matter" of mortal sin; it also recalls that its necessary condition is "full awareness and deliberate consent". In any event, both in moral theology and in pastoral practice one is familiar with cases in which an act which is grave by reason of its matter does not constitute a mortal sin because of a lack of full awareness or deliberate consent on the part of the person performing it. Even so, "care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of 'fundamental option' — as is commonly said today — against God", seen either as an explicit and formal rejection of God and neighbour or as an implicit and unconscious rejection of love. "For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God's love for humanity and the whole of creation: the person turns away from God and loses charity. Consequently, the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by particular acts. Clearly, situations can occur which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint, and which influence the sinner's subjective imputability. But from a consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot proceed to create a theological category, which is precisely what the 'fundamental option' is, understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin".117

The separation of fundamental option from deliberate choices of particular kinds of behaviour, disordered in themselves or in their circumstances, which would not engage that option, thus involves a denial of Catholic doctrine on mortal sin: "With the whole tradition of the Church, we call mortal sin the act by which man freely and consciously rejects God, his law, the covenant of love that God offers, preferring to turn in on himself or to some created and finite reality, something contrary to the divine will (conversio ad creaturam). This can occur in a direct and formal way, in the sins of idolatry, apostasy and atheism; or in an equivalent way, as in every act of disobedience to God's commandments in a grave matter".118

 

[anna ~ grace]

Thank you for posting that. It is extremely detailed, and helpful. I would like to someday have the time and leisure to sit down and study more of the nuances of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Will the deceptions keep increasing every day ?

Thank you for posting that. It is extremely detailed, and helpful.....

 

[Christodoulos]

Not that I do not share doubts of purgatory, I do firmly believe in atonement for the dead in hell.

I ask you, why would Jesus hold the keys to hell, if the door could not be opened?

Jesus delivered the faithful dead when He descended into hell for three days before His resurrection.

1 Peter 4:6. For this reason the gospel was preached also to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in spirit.

Do you not believe in the eternal word of God?

Hello, in the first place, there is NO hope for any person after they die. This is very clearly seen from Hebrews 9:27, "And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment". In the Greek, "ἅπαξ" (once), is literally, "once and for all, one time), which rules out "reincarnation". After this time, when they have died, the only thing awaiting these, is "judgement", which is "κρίσις", noting, "punishment", and not "a second chance".

Secondly, you refer to 1 Peter 4:6, to support after death salvation. However, the verse does not say this at all. The phrase "the Gospel was preached", is from the Greek, "εὐαγγελίζω", which is the first aorist passive, which speaks of the Gospel Message that was preached to the dead BEFORE they died, when they were still alive. The strict use of the grammar in the Greek does not allow for any salvation after a person dies.

Thirdly, the Bible warns time and again that we need to repent NOW, and not hope for some post-death possibility. There is not a shred of evidence in the Teachings of Jesus for any possibility of salvation after a person were to die. As it warns in Hebrews 3:13, "But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.". What is the point of "entreating" people to repent (as the context teaches), "TODAY", that is in this life, if there were a possibility after death?

Fourthly, it would be a complete mockery that any person could be saved after they died. This will allow sinners to live a life that is completely in rebellion to God and everything He stands for and says in His Word, the Holy Bible, knowing that after they died, there was that opportunity to repent and go to heaven! So the sinner "wins" in this life, and in the next!!! Where then is the punishment for their sins???

I am convinced that the devil, who is the FATHER OF LIES, has deceived MILLIONS into believing fairy-tales about sin, salvation and the after life!

There is NO HOPE after you die, so we ALL must get right with God BEFORE we breath our last.

May God the Holy Spirit open our eyes to His Truth as taught in the Holy Bible, which is the ONLY sure Word of Almighty God