Good tidings of great joy, which shall be to SOME people?

[Shrewd Manager]

I believe that Protestants made many theological errors. But removing the concept of a purgatory for most Christians was not a mistake. A purgatory for most Christians was only a scheme to make money and keep believers in fear and thus in the Catholic Church. It was quite right for the Reformers to teach that true believers go directly to Paradise.

Rev 14:13 Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Yes,” says the Spirit, “they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them.”

I think Purgatory existed in Catholic doctrine since at least around the 5th century. The system of indulgences didn't arise until the 12th century. It was only opportunism based on satisfaction atonement theory that led to the problem. But why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

More generally, I believe that Purgatory was only a 'saving' of the earlier UR purification eschatology in order to avoid the logical consequence of universal damnation necessitated by infernalism. Anyway, further research is required, may start a thread, dv.

 

[Hmm]

But why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

More generally, I believe that Purgatory was only a 'saving' of the earlier UR purification eschatology in order to avoid the logical consequence of universal damnation necessitated by infernalism.

Interesting hypothesis. Seems very plausible.

Anyway, further research is required, may start a thread, dv

It would be an good topic and interesting to learn what the historical record says.

 

[Andrewn]

I think Purgatory existed in Catholic doctrine since at least around the 5th century. . . . More generally, I believe that Purgatory was only a 'saving' of the earlier UR purification eschatology in order to avoid the logical consequence of universal damnation necessitated by infernalism.

No, not really.

"According to Jacques Le Goff, the conception of purgatory as a physical place came into existence in Western Europe towards the end of the twelfth century.[8] Le Goff states that the conception involves the idea of a purgatorial fire, which he suggests "is expiatory and purifying not punitive like hell fire".[9] At the Second Council of Lyon in 1247, when the Catholic Church defined, for the first time, its teaching on purgatory, the Eastern Orthodox Church did not adopt the doctrine."

Purgatory - Wikipedia

 

[Andrewn]

I found it all phony and after a while left for the safe recesses of the Church of England where the Holy Spirit wouldn't dare behave like that /s. But that often feels like a nice social club with very little interaction and service with the wider local community so I often find it quite boring tbh.

A church that is Spirit-filled is where you experience the Spirit. It is not a church that labels itself as Spirit-filled.

I believe in the gift of speaking in tongues, but I do not believe in publicly speaking in tongues. I think the Apostle Paul has made this clear in 1Co 14.

 

[Hmm]

A church that is Spirit-filled is where you experience the Spirit. It is not a church that labels itself as Spirit-filled.

I believe in the gift of speaking in tongues, but I do not believe in publicly speaking in tongues. I think the Apostle Paul has made this clear in 1Co 14.

Yes, I believe that a church can be Spirit-filled too but just not on demand. At the church I mentioned, the Holy Spirit (supposedly) always appeared at the same point in the service and only after being formally invited by the pastor and staying for just the right amount of time that was scheduled. A very obliging HS.

I also believe in speaking in tongues and I think this may have happened to me once for a few seconds. This was in private, or at least with one other person if that counts as private.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

No, not really.

"According to Jacques Le Goff, the conception of purgatory as a physical place came into existence in Western Europe towards the end of the twelfth century.[8] Le Goff states that the conception involves the idea of a purgatorial fire, which he suggests "is expiatory and purifying not punitive like hell fire".[9] At the Second Council of Lyon in 1247, when the Catholic Church defined, for the first time, its teaching on purgatory, the Eastern Orthodox Church did not adopt the doctrine."

Purgatory - Wikipedia

Not so fast there, you have the reference to a materialisation of Purgatory. I'll see your Wikipedia and raise it...a Wikipedia:

In the early 5th century, Augustine spoke of the pain that purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life.[28] And Gregory the Great said that those who after this life "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and he adds "that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life."[29]

Pope Gregory the Great's Dialogues, written in the late 6th century, evidence a development in the understanding of the afterlife distinctive of the direction that Latin Christendom would take:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.[31]

History of purgatory - Wikipedia

Let those be appalled because of their shame who say to me, “Aha, Aha!” (Lol).

 

[Saint Steven]

I know what you mean but, for myself, I'm too cynical to enjoy a church that labels itself as Spirit-filled. I did attend to a church like that for a while and they always had a time when the pastor invited the Holy Spirit into the congregation (which I thought was odd anyway) and then it was always the same guy who started (apparently) speaking in tongues in a very frenzied way. The pastor would then ask someone to interpret it and this was always done by a select view. After a few weeks of this, I began to recognise certain words and phrases that the speaking in tongues guy said but the interpretation was always completely different, often related to the big news stories of the day. I found it all phony and after a while left for the safe recesses of the Church of England where the Holy Spirit wouldn't dare behave like that /s. But that often feels like a nice social club with very little interaction and service with the wider local community so I often find it quite boring tbh.

I suppose the best solution is somewhere between those two extremes.

 

[Hmm]

I suppose the best solution is somewhere between those two extremes.

Yes, and balance is the hardest thing to find. I'm increasing thinking that only a church that uncategoricaly denounces God as Torturer, IOW a Christian universalist church, is able to communicate God and the height, width and depth of His love effectively. Otherwise it's going to tend to become one of these extremes - either a detached social club or a Team Hell special forces unit operating behind enemy lines where the enemy is 99% of the population, neither of which brings very much glory to God.

 

[Saint Steven]

I believe in the gift of speaking in tongues, but I do not believe in publicly speaking in tongues. I think the Apostle Paul has made this clear in 1Co 14.

In my study and experience, I have identified five kinds of tongues. The gift of tongues is number 2 below.

Five Different Kinds of Tongues
1) Personal prayer language
2) Prophetic message (addressed to the congregation)
3) Intercessory prayer language (praying for others)
4) Singing in the Spirit (worship activity)
5) Evangelistic tongues (as happened at Pentecost)

As I understand it, the Apostle Paul only criticized congregational prophetic tongues when not accompanied by an interpretation.

1 Corinthians 14:5 NIV
I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

1 Corinthians 14:39-40 NIV
Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, and balance is the hardest thing to find. I'm increasing thinking that only a church that uncategoricaly denounces God as Torturer, IOW a Christian universalist church, is able to communicate God and the height, width and depth of His love effectively. Otherwise it's going to tend to become one of these extremes - either a kindly social club or a Team Hell Secret Services outpost operating behind enemy lines, neither of which brings very much glory to God.

I'm quite fortunate to be in an area with many good churches. We chose one of the three we were visiting, and I still play guitar for worship once every month or two at our previous church.

These are lovely Christian people and I bear in mind that I was very much like them ten years ago. There are uncomfortable moments, but few and far between. No "hell fire and brimstone" stuff, or fear-based appeals.

 

[Hmm]

These are lovely Christian people and I bear in mind that I was very much like them ten years ago.

I'm sure they are but I personally feel more for the many people they put off God, who was tortured and killed Himself, by their portrayal of Him as a torturer Himself.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm sure they are but I personally feel more for the many people they put off God, who was tortured and killed Himself, by their portrayal of Him as a torturer Himself.

Of course.
What do you believe about the crucifixion?

 

[Hmm]

Of course.
What do you believe about the crucifixion?

That's a big question! Rather than say what I do believe about it, let me say what I don't believe.
I don't believe Team Hell's answer that Jesus died on the cross to save us from eternal torture.

If He did - if the wages of our sin is ECT and Jesus paid that price for us - that would mean that Jesus is condemned to eternal torture/torment. Is that really the Good News that anyone should be preaching to non-Christians?

 

[Saint Steven]

That's a big question! Rather than say what I do believe about it, let me say what I don't believe.
I don't believe Team Hell's answer that Jesus died on the cross to save us from eternal torture.

If He did - if the wages of our sin is ECT and Jesus paid that price for us - that would mean that Jesus is condemned to eternal torture/torment. Is that really the Good News that anyone should be preaching to non-Christians?

Right.
The wages of sin is DEATH. That is what Jesus "paid". (if I can use that term here)

 

[Hmm]

Right.
The wages of sin is DEATH. That is what Jesus "paid". (if I can use that term here)

It's complex.isnt it? Does anyone really understand what the resurrection means and why it was needed?

The way I understand it is that by resurrecting Jesus, God was confirming that Jesus was His perfect likeness on Earth and also announcing that His project of putting right the world after the Fall had begun. The resurrected Jesus was a transformation into something new - the start of the new heaven and new earth that Revelation talks about. The thought that it has already begun means that we are called to help build this new world, that acts of good that we do in this world are never useless because God will use them in building His kingdom.

I'm sure the cross means many other things too but that's something of what it means to me. It also says to me that by resurecting a human body God.was.saying something important about people - that there is something intrinsically valuable about every person.

As you say, it was a victory over death. It is death and sin, not sinners, that has been or will be destroyed. It's hard to see where torture chambers fit anywhere into this picture. That is Dante's Inferno, not the Bible.

 

[Saint Steven]

It's complex.isnt it? Does anyone really understand what the resurrection means and why it was needed?

The way I understand it is that by resurrecting Jesus, God was confirming that Jesus was His perfect likeness on Earth and also announcing that His project of putting right the world after the Fall had begun. The resurrected Jesus was a transformation into something new - the start of the new heaven and new earth that Revelation talks about. The thought that it has already begun means that we are called to help build this new world, that acts of good that we do in this world are never useless because God will use them in building His kingdom.

I'm sure the cross means many other things too but that's something of what it means to me. It also says to me that by resurecting a human body God.was.saying something important about people - that there is something intrinsically valuable about every person.

As you say, it was a victory over death. It is death and sin, not sinners, that has been or will be destroyed. It's hard to see where torture chambers fit anywhere into this picture. That is Dante's Inferno, not the Bible.

Yes.
There is also the prophetic aspect.

Acts 26:22-23 NIV
But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— 23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 NIV
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

 

[Hmm]

Very informative.

would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles

It would hardly be a "message of light" if we were going to be hurled head first, or even feet first, into a fiery lake forever more.

Christ died for our sins

Yes, not just for my and my bestest friend's sins.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Does anyone really understand what the resurrection means and why it was needed?

May I suggest at it's most basic level it is the guarantee that all will be resurrected and renewed. Jesus as the last Adam is representative of God's plan for creation, to raise it to life, born again into spirit. We just need to look to our old friend 1 Cor 15 verses 42 - 48 for some St Paul power gospel revelation:

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

Now that's the good oil.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

a fitting and orderly way.

So there's standards! Sorry, but from what I've seen it's pretty hard to maintain a 'fitting and orderly' approach to tongues, in my limited experience it seems to almost invariably devolve into a cringey mess of phoney and demonic-sounding gobbledegook. It could just be due to my poverty of faith.

 

[Hmm]

May I suggest at it's most basic level it is the guarantee that all will be resurrected and renewed.

Yes, would you say that when Revelation talks about a "new heaven and a new earth" that this world itself is transformed, as well as the entire physical universe I guess? So heaven isn't a spiritual realm somewhere up there in the clouds that some lucky few are beamed up to. That would imply that everything, all animals and trees etc as well as people, are recreated anew, which makes sense to me. God saw that all of His original creation was good and so would want to restore everything in it.