Is Purgatory in the Bible?

I wish purgatory were real. That could be a second chance for those who were kind and tried their best to get closer to meeting God's standards, but as a result of that their sins and weaknesses were too strong , they were bewildered and waved, adding lives were short, so that they weren't able to collect enough merits for entering the gate of heaven. Also, towards the leading theme of survival in this world, some people may have made some mistakes involuntarily. Of course, the premise should be:1. they hadn't committed unforgivable significant sin, and all the lacked scores were from venial faults. 2. They struggled before the false moves and regreted after the errors made. And they repented the errors to God genuinely in heart, and they resolved to make progress.

I’m not answering the question, and I’m just sending my best wish to all kind people. After all, we’re just minors and immature before the Godlike subject of how to enter heaven. Again, everyone’s God’s little kid, no matter how old they are.

Refutation of Tim Staples and Catholic Answers, March 22,2017

Part 1

PanDeVida said:

By Tim Staples, Catholic Answers, January 17,2014

Click to expand...

We'll begin by making clear just what we mean by "Purgatory." The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

All who die in God’s grace, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven (1030).

Click to expand...

Which is based upon a fundamental error, that believers must develop perfection of character to be with God, meaning that most true believers cannot directly go to be with the Lord at death or His return but must become practically, actually good enough to be with God, first via the act of baptism, and then (since their sinful nature remains and is expressed) afterwards in "Purgatory."

Which is contrary to what Scripture teaches, that believers heart has been purified by faith, as Peter taught, (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) and made accepted in the Beloved and positionally seated with him in Heaven, (eph. 1:6; 2:6) and is given access with boldness into the holy of holies in Heaven. (Heb. 10:19)

And thus true believers directly go to be with the Lord at death or His return, which is what Scripture teaches wherever it manifestly teaches on the next conscious reality after this life, (Luke 23:43 [cf. 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7]; Acts 7:59; Philippians 1:21-23; 2 Corinthians 5:8). Thus the entire church goes to be forever with the Lord when He returns. (1 Corinthians 15:51ff'; 1 Thessalonians 4:17)

And that the only suffering shown after this life is at the judgment seat of Christ, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

In contrast, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that St. Augustine "describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness" etc.


And thus by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation..from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". For " they were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness". - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Purgatory

Likewise Catholic professor Peter Kreeft states,

"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224

Note also that in Catholic teaching while on one hand it is held that the newly baptized would directly go to be with the Lord if he then died, it is also held that after death one must become good enough (and atone for sins) via "purifying torments" in RC purgatory.

For the newly baptized is still far from perfect in character, while in Scripture the problem is rooted in the fleshly nature, in which "dwelleth no good thing," and which is only to die, as it cannot be made subject to the law of God, (Rm. 7:18; 8:7) thus "he that is dead is freed from sin," (Romans 6:7) and the only transformational change manifestly hope for and spoken of is that of the resurrection of the body at the Lord's return, which is when believers will be made like Christ.

Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. (Philippians 3:21)

Moreover, suffering itself does not make one perfect, but requires years of facing temptations which only this life is shown to provide, thus Christ was "made perfect"(in the sense that He was tempted in all points life as we are in this life, yet without sin: Hebrews 4:15; 5:8,9) I am quite sure that the so-called "good thief," who at first railed on the Lord, (Mt. 27:44) did not become free from character defects in a mere few hours of suffering on the cross so that He could then go to Heaven as He did. (Luke 23:39-43)

This seems so simple. Its common sense. Scripture is very clear when it says, "But nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, "You [God]... are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong..." How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace.

Click to expand...

Actually it ought to be common sense that man never will become perfect as God and be actually worthy to be with Him, and thus needs salvation. And it also ought to be common sense that if one is washed, sanctified and justified by faith (1Co. 6:11) and accepted in the Beloved and a present citizen of Heaven, and has access now to the holy of holies by the sinless shed blood of Christ, and will shed this defiled sinful nature at death, then he for "ever be with the Lord" at death or His return, which is what Scripture manifestly teaches.

Read Philippians 1:21-24 and 3:7-21. Peter knew he would be with the Lord if he "departed" by death, and once went to Paradise, the 3rd Heaven, (2Co. 12:1-4) and yet confessed that he was not "already perfect," but sought to be as much like a Christ and a resurrected person in this life as he could, but that it was the resurrection that he looked for as providing that likeness to Christ.

And even to the Corinthians Paul reiterates the preference "to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord," (2 Corinthians 5:8) using "we," and that not only at death but at the Lord's return "so shall we ever be with the Lord." (1Thessalonians 4:17)

And surely Paul, who could say "I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:26-27) and thus clearly spoke of the next life and the judgment seat of Christ that would follow, would not fail to manifestly warn of purgatory (which 1 Corinthians 3:8ff is not about), esp. when teaching on the next reality after this life. However, Rome presumes to do what Paul did not, and in contradiction to what he did teach.

In light of this, the truth about Purgatory is almost self-evident to Catholics. However, to many Protestants this is one of the most repugnant of all Catholic teachings. It represents “a medieval invention nowhere to be found in the Bible.”....

Click to expand...

Which absence, in fact, is the reality, contrary to Staple's sophistry, and while what is almost self-evident to Catholics includes prayer to created beings in Heaven, which is nowhere seen except among pagans, despite approx. 200 prayers in Scripture.

PanDeVida said:

By Tim Staples, Catholic Answers, January 17,2014

Click to expand...

Part 2

A Very Good Place to Start
Perhaps the best place to start is with the most overt reference to a “Purgatory” of sorts in the Old Testament....

Click to expand...

Its "of sorts" because it is not in the Hebrew OT and is called "the most overt" because it is not a even reference to “Purgatory” " and there is really no other that is.

In II Maccabees 12:39-46, we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection... and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”

There are usually two immediate objections to the use of this text when talking with Protestants. First, they will dismiss any evidence presented therein because they do not accept the inspiration of Maccabees. And second, they will claim these men in Maccabees committed the sin of idolatry, which would be a mortal sin in Catholic theology. According to the Catholic Church, they would be in Hell where there is no possibility of atonement. Thus, and ironically so, they will say, Purgatory must be eliminated as a possible interpretation of this text if you’re Catholic.

Click to expand...

Which conclusion is likely a straw man, and which is the only thing Staples can refute.

The Catholic Response:
Rejecting the inspiration and canonicity of II Maccabees does not negate its historical value.

Click to expand...

But it rejects it as being inspired by God and teaching a valid, God-ordained practice of the people of God. For instance, the Babylonian Talmud evidences that some Jews came to believe many absurd things, which "does not negate its historical value," but rejects it as being the word of God telling us how to believe.

Maccabees aids us in knowing, purely from an historical perspective at the very least, the Jews believed in praying and making atonement for the dead shortly before the advent of Christ. This is the faith in which Jesus and the apostles were raised. And it is in this context Jesus declares in the New Testament:

Click to expand...

Notice the sophistry. A historical document is presented as support for what the Jews rightly believed, yet which is nowhere seen in the Hebrew Scriptures, and evidence testifies to 2Mac not being held as Scripture by the Jews of Palestine, and those who sat in the seat of Moses. And Maccabees was even disputed or held in doubt among some notable RCs as being Scripture proper even for most of A.D. history.

Thus there simply is no "at the very least...This is the faith in which Jesus and the apostles were raised," but instead the Jews Christ was teaching would have not have known of any references to praying and making atonement for the dead in the Hebrew Scriptures - except by pagans!

And it is in this context Jesus declares in the New Testament:

And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:32, emphasis added).

This declaration of our Lord implies there are at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next life to a people who already believed it. If Jesus wanted to condemn this teaching commonly taught in Israel, he was not doing a very good job of it according to St. Matthew’s Gospel.

Click to expand...

Actually what the Lord most evidently condemns is taking away His millennial reign in which sins will be forgiven, since there will be mortals also inhabiting the earth: "And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain." (Zechariah 14:17)

An examination of the phrase "age/world to come" evidences that "Neither in this world, nor in the world to come” does not refer to purgatory (which is not even defined as being place), but refers to where the Father set [Christ] at his own right hand in the heavenly, Far above all principality...not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: (Ephesians 1:20,21) while believers here taste of "the powers of the world to come," (Hebrews 6:5) and shall receive manifold more than what they forsake for Christ "in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting. (Luke 18:30)

And which the world to come begins with the judgment seat of Christ at His return, (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) leading to the millennial reign of Christ on earth, with the temple being rebuilt and in which there will be forgiveness of sins since not all are believers. This second coming is a major and manifest theme, versus purgatory which is so important to those who must misconstrue Scripture to support.

The next objection presents a more complex problem. The punishment for mortal sin is, in fact, definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed in Hell according to Catholic teaching (see CCC 1030). But it is a non-sequitur to conclude from this teaching that II Maccabees could not be referring to a type of Purgatory.

Click to expand...

The strawman is that the argument is that 2Mac could not be referring to a "a type of Purgatory," while a "type" simply will not do. EOs believe in a "type of purgatory" and some have criticized Rome for teaching contrary to tradition on this (among other things) , while an evangelical I know sees the thousand year reign of Christ as a type of purgatory for carnal believers.

First of all, a careful reading of the text reveals the sin of these men to be carrying small amulets “or sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia” under their tunics as they were going in to battle. This would be closer to a Christian baseball player believing there is some kind of power in his performing superstitious rituals before going to bat than it would be to the mortal sin of idolatry.

Click to expand...

No, "a careful reading of the text" does not reveal anything warranting this is "closer to a Christian baseball player believing there is some kind of power in his performing superstitious rituals before going to bat," but instead seeing as they were executed for their sins, it indicated belief in a false god.

This was, most likely, a venial sin for them.

Click to expand...

Then according to Staple's, "this was, most likely," a case of souls being executed simply for one venial sin, since the text says "Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain." "they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain." (2 Maccabees 12:40,42)

The special pleading of Staples for mercy on idolators actually renders God more wrathful.

But even if what they did would have been objectively grave matter, good Jews in ancient times—just like good Catholics today—believed they should always pray for the souls of those who have died “for thou [O Lord], thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men” (II Chr. 6:30). God alone knows the degree of culpability of these “sinners.” Moreover, some or all of them may have repented before they died. Both Jews and Catholic Christians always retain hope for the salvation of the deceased this side of heaven; thus, we always pray for those who have died.

Click to expand...

Which is all so much pitiful special pleading in an attempt to save the text from contradicting Catholic theology, which is what it most clearly indicates, since rather than men executing these soldiers because they judged them to be idolators, God, who "only knowest the hearts of the children of men” (II Chr. 6:30) had them executed for their sin of idolatry.

Nor is there anything indicative of a death-bed repentance of these men who died in battle. Based on what we know, if anything they mostly likely were calling upon their false god.

In addition, there are zero prayers here or anywhere in Scripture address to anyone else but God, while the prayers and offerings that were made was in the hope that these idolators would see he resurrection, for "he was mindful of the resurrection: For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead." (2 Maccabees 12:43-44)

Yet in Catholic theology those in Purgatory are already assured of the resurrection, which is just one more contrast btwn what is taught in this apocryphal book and Scripture.

Furthermore, praying for the dead was a latter development among some Jews, flowing from paganism, not what was ordained by God.

...it is of course true that beliefs and mentalities do not change overnight, so it should come as no surprise that we do find instances, particularly in the domain of popular belief, in which non-Christians prayed for the suffering dead in the other world. Orphism [from the mythical pagan poet Orpheus, who descended into the Greek underworld and returned] is a case in point....

These practices developed around the beginning of the Christian era. They were a phenomenon of the times, particularly noticeable in Egypt, the great meeting ground for peoples and religions. Traveling in Egypt around 50 s.c., Diodorus of Sicily was struck by the funerary customs: "As soon as the casket containing the corpse is placed on the bark, the survivors call upon the infernal gods and beseech them to admit the soul to the place received for pious men. The crowd adds its own cheers, together with pleas that the deceased be allowed to enjoy eternal life in Hades, in the society of the good."

"The passage cited earlier from the Second Book of Maccabees, which was composed by an Alexandrian Jew during the half-century preceding Diodorus's journey, should no doubt be seen against this background... It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus--around 170 s.c., a surprisingly innovative period—prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews." (The Birth of Purgatory By Jacques Le Goff. pp. 45,46 , transcribed using Free Online OCR - convert scanned PDF and images to Word, JPEG to Word, emp. mine)

Also, as for these Maccabean Jews, a Jewish site tells us that the rededication of the Temple was,

led by Judas Maccabeus, third son of Mattathias the Hasmonean, whose successors established the Hasmonean high priesthood dynasty. But which were not a valid high priesthood due to invalid lineage, (Genesis 49:10) being not of the lineage of David, as the Zadoks were, and their line ended up opening the door to the Roman conquest. Their control ended when Herod eliminated every male in the Hasmonean line. (Though The Herodian Dynasty had Hasmonean blood thru two sons and two daughters. through Mariamne.)

Due to the unpopularity of its founders, Hanukkah itself came to be largely ignored within a few decades after its origins. Then when Rome’s crushing power began to be felt in Palestine, the people recognized in Hanukkah a message of hope that new Maccabees would rise and independence would be restored. - The Hasmonean Dynasty | My Jewish Learning

Thus Staples attempts to invoke a historical document as support for what the Jews rightly believed, yet which is nowhere seen in the Hebrew Scriptures, and evidence testifies to 2Mac not being held as Scripture by the Jews of Palestine, and those who sat in the seat of Moses.

And which text does not correspond to Purgatory, but is contrary to it, despite the sophistry of Staples who attempts to use a share similarity to support the whole.

PanDeVida said:

By Tim Staples, Catholic Answers, January 17,2014

Click to expand...

Part 3

A Plainer Text
In Matthew 5:24-25, Jesus is even more explicit about Purgatory.

Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny (Matthew 5:25-26).

Click to expand...

Rather then being "explicit about Purgatory," this either refers to this life or, less likely, of punishment in Hell, though that is the context of Matthew 5:24-25 (Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:27-29; cf. Mark 9:43)

And note that while the text here refers to a place, RCs can easily deny a spatial existence to Purgatory, as well in time, except when they are not, when it is polemically useful to them.

Rather than taking the section in isolation as Staples does, we should first see what manner of offense is being dealt with.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. (Matthew 5:21-26)

Thus we see such a serious sins as to render one in danger of "the judgment" and "the council," and "hell fire." In the rest of Scripture the only postmortem council, judgment and sentencing that has to do with prolonged suffering is that of Hell. The rich man went to Hell as basic judgment (Luke 16:19-31) but awaits the great white throne judgment of Revelation 20:11-15, in which Lazarus shall be a witness, for his actual sentencing.

Moreover, there simply is no judgment of believers apart from the judgment seat of Christ at His return, (1Cor. 3:8ff; 1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) which as shown further below cannot refer to Purgatory.

In the light of all this and other texts on postmortem judgment, then "Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing" would be a warning of an infinite penalty (while Catholics must assert that "till" in Mathew 1:25 does not indicate a terminus, though that is rare, here they must insist "till" means fulfillment).

However, if we understand at least part of Matthew 5:21-26 as referring to punishment in this life, that of the judicial judgments and sentencing corresponding to spiritual binding in church discipline, then we see the only other understanding which conflates with what manifestly refers to Divine judgment.

For looking to the epistles which alone reliably reveal how the NT church understood the gospels, we see nothing about any postmortem suffering of the lost except that which is indicative of eternity (with Christ being the judge, saints being the council, and angels being the officer), nor of the judgment of believers save for the judgement seat of Christ at His coming.

But what we do see in this life is corporate ecclesiastical spiritual judgment, with Paul (as judge) with the church (corespondent to the council) binding a man in the house of suffering as it were, till repentance was affected, and thus corporate forgiveness was exhorted (for the power of binding and loosing is corporate, even 2 or 3 truly gathered in the person of Christ).

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:18-20)

For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 5:3-5)

Thus either the judgment of the lost (with an infinite penalty) is meant by Matthew 5:21-26 or at least spiritual judgment in this life, while what is utterly absent is that of believers facing the council and judge at death and delivered over to retributive punishment.

Moreover, in RC purgatory one is perfected in character, and is also tormented in order to pay for venial sins he failed to do sufficient penance for though they were already forgiven:

..every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. (CCC 1472)

"Through repentance he may have gained the grace needed to be worthy of heaven, which is to say, he has been forgiven and his soul is spiritually alive. But that’s not sufficient for gaining entrance into heaven. He needs to be cleansed completely." (Catholic Answers>Purgatory)

But in Matthew 5:22-26, rather than a mere venial sin, the description here sounds more like one of the many a "mortal sins" by a man who has committed such an offense as to make him at least "in danger of the council."

For "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." (1 John 3:10) "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?" (1 John 3:17)

Also, one may suffer chastising consequences for sins, from that which works repentance, (1Co. 5:4,5) to consequences of obesity, gambling, etc., to Davidic-type punishment for his murder, which punishment was determined before he was forgiven and which made a public example of him as the king of Israel. (2 Samuel 12) and was not making expiation for his sins. However, in Scripture such chastising is always in this life except for the lost, or the loss of rewards at the judgment seat of Christ (and thus the Lord's disapproval), which is believer is saved despite of, not because of.

And texts such as "And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins" (1 Peter 4:8) refers to God showing mercy to the merciful, since we often sin unawares for which God can judge us, but "With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright." (Psalms 18:25)

Thus at best Staples has done do is take a text in isolation and assert it is "explicit about Purgatory" when that is the very thing that is farthest from the contextually possible meanings here, let alone being explicit.

For Catholics, Tertullian for example, in De Anima 58, written in ca. AD 208, this teaching is parabolic, using the well-known example of “prison” and the necessary penitence it represents, as a metaphor for Purgatorial suffering that will be required for lesser transgressions, represented by the “kodrantes” or “penny” of verse 26.

Click to expand...

So Staples selectively invokes Tertullian to teach what he can only wish Scripture did.

But for many Protestants, our Lord is here giving simple instructions to his followers concerning this life exclusively. This has nothing to do with Purgatory.
This traditional Protestant interpretation is very weak contextually.

Click to expand...

So now Staples is concerned with context? What is "weak contextually" is making this man - who must now pay for what he had been forgiven for because of his severe treatment of a contrite man after having received far greater mercy himself - into a believer who must suffer for venial sins that he failed to do sufficient penance for.

Thus while this rather ambiguous text does not concern this life exclusively it simply does not translate into Purgatory.

Further, as St. John points out in John 20:31, all Scripture is written “that believing, you may have [eternal] life in his name.” Scripture must always be viewed in the context of our full realization of the divine life in the world to come.

Click to expand...

Now now Staples contends for what he does not practice. For as said, wherever the NT manifestly speaks of the next reality for believers immediately after this life, it is with the Lord. Not only did the penitent criminal go to "paradise" (Lk. 23:43; cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7) as did Stephen, (Acts 7:59) but so would Paul and co. be with the Lord once absent from the body (Phil. 1:23,24) - even though Paul told the Philippians that was he not “already perfect.” (Phil. 3:12). Likewise he stated to the Corinthians, "We [plural] are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." (2 Corinthians 5:8) and so would every resurrected Corinthian believer (1Cor. 15:51ff) or Thessalonian if the Lord returned in their lifetime, “to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1Thess. 4:17) - even though in the former case at least believers were in need of greater purification. (2Cor. 7:1)

And that the only suffering shown after this life is at the judgment seat of Christ, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

When we add to this the fact that the Greek word for prison, phulake, is the same word used by St. Peter, in I Peter 3:19, to describe the “holding place” into which Jesus descended after his death to liberate the detained spirits of Old Testament believers, the Catholic position makes even more sense. Phulake is demonstrably used in the New Testament to refer to a temporary holding place and not exclusively in this life.

Click to expand...

Which as a argument for Purgatory is spurious, for phulake is simply the word for any prison, and occurs 47 times in the NT, while the prison of 1 Peter 3:19 is where Christ preached judgment (in rejecting Noah you rejected me) to the lost vast number of disobedient souls in the time of Noah were, whose wickedness is why the Lord was grieved that He made man and destroyed them all, "wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." (1 Peter 3:20)

This was not believers in Purgatory, but were lost souls, apparently in negative side of Hades, with Abraham's bosom being the other, a great gulf being btwn the two, and which was not Purgatory either, but is only described as place of comfort. (Lk. 16:11-31) Which OT saints went to since blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, and the way into the holiest in the Heavenly place was not yet opened, and thus Christ went to Paradise the day of His death, descending first into lower places of the earth, led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men, and many of the OT saints arose and appeared unto many. (Hebrews 9:8,26; 10:4; Matthew 27:50-53; Ephesians 4:9-10)

Thus this far all of Staple's support for RC Purgatory has been vaporous.

PanDeVida said:

By Tim Staples, Catholic Answers, January 17,2014

Click to expand...

Part 4

The Plainest Text
I Corinthians 3:11-15 may well be the most straightforward text in all of Sacred Scripture when it comes to Purgatory:

For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

No Christian sect I know of even attempts to deny this text speaks of the judgment of God where the works of the faithful will be tested after death.

Click to expand...

That this is even held as speaking of Purgatory, let alone as "The Plainest Text" testifies to the ignorance of this RC apologist as well as his desperation, and how easily he ignores his own advocation "that Scripture must always be viewed in the context of our full realization of the divine life in the world to come." For while according to Rome the suffering of Purgatory basically commences at death so that souls are now experiencing it, yet as shown, the only suffering shown after this life is at the judgment seat of Christ, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4)

This alone disqualifies I Corinthians 3 from referring Purgatory!

[Going further into eschatology, the Bible most apparently teaches that the resurrected saints (who have part in the first resurrection - the resurrection of life:” Jn. 5:29a; Rev. 20:6,7,14) will return with the LORD from Heaven to execute judgment, and stand before Him at His judgment seat, and to reign with with Him for the 1,000 year millennium. (Rv. 2:27; 19:15; 20:6 - and during which the Jews shall be tested), and finally to sit as judges at the final judgment: “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (Jude 1:14-15; cf. Mal. 3:18; Mt 16:27; 19:28; Mt 24:30,31; 25:31; Lk. 22:20; 1Co. 6:3; 2Th 1:7,8; Re 1:7; 5:10; 19:6-20; 20:4) “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” (Mt. 13:43) And as stars differs from one another in glory, (1Cor. 15:41) it is not unreasonable to suppose that in eternity some saints might shine brighter than another, depending upon how single their eye was on earth, (Mt. 6:22) and how they responded to the light and grace they received. (Lk. 12:48)]

"It says our works will go through “fire,” figuratively speaking. In Scripture, “fire” is used metaphorically in two ways: as a purifying agent (Mal. 3:2-3; Matt. 3:11; Mark 9:49); and as that which consumes (Matt. 3:12; 2 Thess. 1:7-8). So it is a fitting symbol here for God’s judgment. Some of the “works” represented are being burned up and some are being purified. These works survive or burn according to their essential “quality” (Gr. hopoiov - of what sort). "

Click to expand...

Which is typical of the sophistry of Staples, in which he uses something that refers to an aspect of Purgatory as support for what it contextually simply does not refer to. Indeed fire purifies as well as consumes, but here the fire only does one thing, which is the latter. Nothing is said of works being purified. They either are consumed by the test of fire or they are not, while the works represent the manner of workmanship used to build the church with, which are people, who as "lively stones, are built up a spiritual house," (1 Peter 2:5) or wood, hay, stubble=tares.

For the context of this chapter is people, builders of the church and the people who make up the church/building, with the foundation stone being Christ, not a character trait:

For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:4-11)

"What is being referred to cannot be heaven because there are imperfections that need to be “burned up” (see again, Rev. 21:27, Hab. 1:13).

Click to expand...

Staples is reading into the text what is not there, that the works are actually present at this judgment (versus the judgment of "the day" revealing it), and are personal imperfections that need to be “burned up,” when in reality it is the material used to build the church with, which contextually is people, tares or wheat, the manner of which shall be revealed in the day of the Lord, with the tares being consumed. Thus ultimately without repentance, "if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy," nor purify.

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1 Corinthians 3:11-17)

It cannot be hell because souls are being saved. So what is it? The Protestant calls it “the Judgment” and we Catholics agree. We Catholics simply specify the part of the judgment of the saved where imperfections are purged as “Purgatory.”

Click to expand...

"
Once again a commonality does not translate into the Purgatory, and trying to make the works/labor here into personal imperfections is beyond "weakness" but is contrary to the context.

Objection!
The Protestant respondent will immediately spotlight the fact that there is no mention, at least explicitly, of “the cleansing of sin” anywhere in the text. There is only the testing of works. The focus is on the rewards believers will receive for their service, not on how their character is cleansed from sin or imperfection. And the believers here watch their works go through the fire, but they escape it!

Click to expand...

Talk about "weak contextually," how can Staples fail to see that the works, as in the manner of labor (and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour) refers to the manner of material the builders used in building the church, which is people? The fire burns up the fake stones, which are correspondent to the tares of Mt. 13:40 at the end, and here are represented here as wholly combustible material, wood, hay or stubble, while the precious stones with fire-tried faith (1Pt. 1:7) endure, and gain rewards for the instruments of their faithfulness when Christ returns.

Thus Paul says to the Thessalonians, "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming? " (1 Thess. 2:19; cf. Rv. 3:11) And to the Corinthians, “we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 2Cor. 1:14) And to the Philippians, that being “my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.” (Phil. 4:1)

The building is the church, and the the precious stones are believers, not personal character traits, though the elect bear fruit of the Spirit. (Hebrews 6:9)

First, what are sins, but bad or wicked works (see Matthew 7:21-23, John 8:40, Galatians 5:19-21)? If these “works” do not represent sins and imperfections, why would they need to be eliminated?

Click to expand...

More sophistry. That sins can be evil works does not mean "work" cannot also be people as being the fruit of labor, which is contextually the case here with the Corinthians, of whom Paul asks, "are not ye my work in the Lord?" (1 Corinthians 9:1)

Second, it is impossible for a “work” to be cleansed apart from the human being who performed it.

Click to expand...

More ignorance or sophistry, for besides there being no cleansing here of works, but only works being consumed or enduring the test by fire, yet indeed a work, as in the fruit of one's labor, can be dealt with apart from the laborer, and the context here is just that, of laborers and the manner of their workmanship, which makes up God's building, "ye are God's building." (v. 9) The only connection is how the fruit of one's labor reflects upon the laborer, and determines his manner of reward, or loss thereof.

We are, in a certain sense, what we do when it comes to our moral choices. There is no such thing as a “work” floating around somewhere detached from a human being that could be cleansed apart from that human being. The idea of works being separate from persons does not make sense.

Click to expand...

More sophistry, for while there is a connection btwn the fruit of one's labor and his manner of reward, or loss thereof, this simply is not the same thing as one being cleansed from personal defects himself.

Most importantly, however, this idea of “works” being “burned up” apart from the soul that performed the work contradicts the text itself. The text does say the works will be tested by fire, but “if the work survives... he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, heshall suffer loss.” And, “he will be saved, but only as through fire” (Gr. dia puros). The truth is: both the works of the individual and the individual will go through the cleansing “fire” described by St. Paul in order that “he” might finally be saved and enter into the joy of the Lord. Sounds an awful lot like Purgatory

Click to expand...

.
More eisegesis, for again, not only is the believer already with the Lord, but contextually the works are that which the church is built with, namely people, while rather than the builder being saved by fire purifying him of personal defects he is saved despite the loss of some material, not because he was made good enough to be with God by being cleansed of personal faults:

For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1 Corinthians 3:9-17)

Moreover, this judgement seat of Christ which takes place at His return is not described a prolonged period (of course RCs can protest that their Purgatory may not be a described as a place or a time period, except when they are describing as such, as here), and Staples the sophist is exposed as another perverse polemical propagandist.

Thus both when this judgment takes place and the nature of the works and judgment excludes I Corinthians 3 from referring to Purgatory, let alone it being "the most straightforward text in all of Sacred Scripture when it comes to Purgatory," of purifying torments commencing at death in order to atone for sins and making one good enough to be with God.

Instead, believers are accepted in the Beloved and made to sit with Him in Heaven at conversion by faith in counted as righteousness, but which faith, if true, enables and motivates practical holiness and works of faith, "things that accompany salvation," (Hebrews 6:9) which justify one as being a true believer of salvific faith, and fit to be rewarded under grace, but which effects are not the cause of his salvation. Yet only God is actually worthy of credit for such, as the author of both the ability and motivation for obedience, to Him be the glory forever.

To see a little more about this section of I Corinthians 3 , click here by the grace of God.

Standing Up said:

They do and say all sorts of things that aren't infallible. The point is the Pope knew about it, approved it, and sent Tetzel forth to sell indulgences. It worked for awhile, until their members rebelled.

Click to expand...

This turns out to be incorrect. While Leo X might have asked Tetzel to find a way to make more money for the church (which I really doubt, and I would like evidence), then it was up to Tetzel to decide how to do it--as if Tetzel was the marketing department.

PeaceByJesus said:

Which is based upon a fundamental error, that believers must develop perfection of character to be with God, meaning that most true believers cannot directly go to be with the Lord at death or His return but must become practically, actually good enough to be with God, first via the act of baptism, and then (since their sinful nature remains and is expressed) afterwards in "Purgatory."

Click to expand...

Excuse me? God is holy. The only standard that we can show to Jesus is His standard. What happens if we aren't holy ENOUGH? If we still have personality defects, and so on. Do we automatically go to Hell? Even the good Christians on these fora who claim that they have no sin? They are deluded!

Let's face it, how many people here on these fora believe that, since they are saved and elected, they have no sin? 1 John1:8 says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

Now if all of the people on these fora that CLAIM they have no sin, because they are saved, elect, and have been living a good, solid Christian life for 80 years, are deceived, then how can anyone enter into the Kingdom of Heaven? The answer is NONE! Because God will not allow unholy things into heaven. Remember: “Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.” (1Peter 1:16)

Monk Brendan said:

This turns out to be incorrect. While Leo X might have asked Tetzel to find a way to make more money for the church (which I really doubt, and I would like evidence), then it was up to Tetzel to decide how to do it--as if Tetzel was the marketing department.

Click to expand...

Everyone knows Tetzel sold indulgences and for what purpose. You really don't think Leo X knew about Tetzel? Didn't ask where all that money came from? Just sat in his corner office apart from his sheep? Eventually, due to Luther's push back, the issue was clarified, but the damage was done.

Monk Brendan said:

This turns out to be incorrect. While Leo X might have asked Tetzel to find a way to make more money for the church (which I really doubt, and I would like evidence), then it was up to Tetzel to decide how to do it--as if Tetzel was the marketing department.

Click to expand...

Actually Leo X declared that anyone who contributed to the cathedral would be granted an indulgence, and at least indirectly employed Tetzel to sell indulgences, though the latter went overboard as a salesmen in doing so.

More interesting history than is needed:

Warlike Pope Julius II died in 1513, and his successor, Giovanni de' Medici, took the name Pope Leo X. If Julius loved to fight, Leo preferred amusement. His self-indulgence destroyed the unity of the western church when he bartered sin for money in the most infamous indulgence of church history.

From birth Leo had been earmarked for the church. At the age of seven he was made a monk. By thirteen he was a cardinal. In between, the boy had been abbot. He became pope before turning forty.

His tastes were costly. He was only too happy to spend lavishly on himself and voluptuous entertainment. Humanists with few morals swarmed at a papal court where wit mattered more than witness. Plays and shows, ballets and games abounded. No chance for a hunt was turned down. The papal treasury funded preeminent artists such as Raphael. Julius left a full treasury. Leo drained it in eight short years.

St. Peter's basilica was being rebuilt, but there was no money. Leo decided to solve the problem in time-honored fashion. On this day March 15, 1517 he declared that anyone who contributed to the cathedral would be granted an indulgence.

Although in theory an indulgence was only a remission of penalties meted out in this world by the church, in practice it was hawked as if it covered the actual guilt of sins and could release souls from Purgatory. The gist of the indulgence was as follows:

"... absolve you ...from all thy sins, transgressions, and excesses, how enormous soever they be...and remit to you all punishment which you deserve in purgatory on their account and I restore you...to the innocence and purity which you possessed at baptism; so that when you die the gates of punishment shall be shut... and if you shall not die at present, this grace shall remain in full force when you are at the point of death." - Infamous Indulgence Led to Reformation

Leo X authorized the sale of a special Saint Peter's indulgence to finance his building plans in Rome. The archbishop of the Wittenberg area, Albert Mainz, received a share of the profits (which he needed to pay off the debt he incurred by purchasing his office) and was an enthusiastic supporter of this Indulgence sale. (A History of Western Society, Combined Volume, p. 409)

Leo X needed someone to raise money to support New St. Peter's and his lifestyle. For these, he found two primary money-raisers: Albert of Mainz-Magdeburg and Johann Tetzel. Leo X, Albert, and Tetzel were successful for a time. Their methods however,angered many people, particularly one Augustinian monk, Martin Luther of Wittenburg , Germany....

The pope's budget of 60,000 ducati annually depended on "the income from indulgences," and by 1520, Germany, Portugal, and Spain were all protesting against Julius II's St. Peter's indulgence bull...nstead of responding to the "angst of the German people, including clergy," in 1514 Leo X committed "the unpardonable error of proclaiming an indulgence for the building of New St. Peter's on an even more extensive scale than the one proclaimed by Julius II." 21

The Mainz-Magdeburg indulgence exemplified corruption, mainly because its foundation lay in greed. In 1514, a 24-year old Hohenzollern prince, Albert of Brandenburg, wanted to become archbishop of two sees: Mainz and Magdeburg. Despite resistance from the Vatican, however, Albert "succeeded in securing the financial assistance of the Fugger bank, whose branch office transacted much ecclesiastical business, including the entire indulgence traffic between the empire and the Hol y See." 22

After lengthy negotiations with Leo X and the cardinals in Rome, Albert was made Archbishop of Mainz-Magdeburg in Germany and "entrusted with the St. Peter's indulgence" for those bishoprics plus the diocese of Halberstadt. 23 Half of the revenue from the indulgence went toward St. Peter's and the other half was used to pay for Albert's bishopric fees.

Albert also appointed himself indulgence commissioner and compiled a team of sub-commissioners and salesmen. The salesmen were experienced preacher s who "commanded a high percentage of the take and were accompanied by their own retinue of assistants, including servants." 25 They arrived in towns "with the hoopla of a traveling circus."

According to author Charles Mee: The front men went out ahead with the message "The grace of God and of the Holy Father is at your gates," and the town's church bells rang and priests and nuns led the welcoming procession with their lighted candles to the edge of town. There they met the preacher and his retinue and escorted him to the church. Leading the way was the papal bull of the day, held aloft on a velvet cushion, and the people sang and chanted and prayed through the town. Then at the altar the large red cross was set up and the pope's coat of arms was suspended from it, and the preacher mounted the pulpit and opened his pitch.

The most famous, some might say notorious, of the salesmen, was Johann Tetzel, a seventy-three year old Dominican who had been an indulgence salesman since 1502.

Tetzel entered the service of Albert in 1516. He was paid "80 ducati monthly, had an unlimited expense account, and which were similar to a commission and that exceeded his salary considerably." 28 In January 1517, Tetzel arrived in Jutterbog, near Luther's town, Wi ttenberg, to preach his indulgences. Tetzel garnered Martin Luther's attention. 30 The hard- sale methods used to market Magdeburg indulgence, and the hawkers preying on the innocent and enraged Martin Luther , who firmly believed that faith, not indulgences, would ensure one's entry into heaven. Tetzel also broke from papal authority and was granting indulgences for the dead...

In addition, Tetzel's sales pitch implied that the buyer was also freed from the sin as well as the penance attached to it. According to Pastor, "Tetzel was prone to exaggerations, and was wanting in modesty and simplicity. His manner was arrogant and pretentious, and he carried out the duties of his office in such a business-like way that scandals could not fail to arise." 33 Luther recognized the indulgence Tetzel was selling was not "a document of Christian piety, creating a means to salvation, but solely as a business venture." 34 While Luther was angry over the method of indulgence sales, he was more angry with Albert and the pope for allowing these practices than he was with Tetzel...

Martin Luther was not opposed to indulgences per se, it was the avarice behind them during that time that riled him. Luther's eighty-second thesis states, "They ask, e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing , with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose." (Rollins College Rollins Scholarship Online, The Role of Indulgences in the Building of New Saint Peter's Basilica Ginny Justice Rollins College)

Leo allowed the sale of indulgences not only for past sins as had been customary in the past but for future sins (so you could guarantee in advance that your planned affair would not lead to a painful afterlife). Dominican Friar Tetzel was the best known of the indulgence sellers. The Friar's most famous jingle was "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, a soul from Purgatory upward springs." (Jakob Fugger and the Reformation)

Monk Brendan said:

Excuse me? God is holy. The only standard that we can show to Jesus is His standard. What happens if we aren't holy ENOUGH? If we still have personality defects, and so on. Do we automatically go to Hell?

Click to expand...

Yes, you do go to Hell for not being as good enough, and for presuming that you can become worthy to be with God by becoming as good as Christ. Therefore you need to be saved on Christ's account, by repentant faith in the Son sent by the Father to save you by His sinless shed blood, whereby you are accepted in the Beloved on His account, and are made to positionally sit with Him in Heaven, (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6) and have access with boldness into the very holy of holies in Heaven. (Hebrews 10:19)

Not because you are actually good enough - though holiness and works of obedience are necessary fruits if faith is salvific - but on Christ's account, by faith in whom one is washed, sanctified and justified. (1 Corinthians 6:11) and accounted righteous. (Romans 4:5) And thus

And thus true believers directly go to be with the Lord at death or His return, which is what Scripture teaches wherever it manifestly teaches on the next conscious reality after this life, (Luke 23:43 [cf. 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7]; Acts 7:59; Philippians 1:21-23; 2 Corinthians 5:8). Thus the entire church goes to be forever with the Lord when He returns. (1 Corinthians 15:51ff'; 1 Thessalonians 4:17)

Do you really think God grants this acceptance in the Beloved and citizenship in Heaven, etc. because one is actually good enough (as Christ is) to be with God, or that having granted the believer this justified status and acceptance and access to God in the holy of holies, and who at death will shed his vile body, God will then tell him he needs to actually develop Divine perfection in order to be with Him?

This basically reduces the atonement to merely providing for the forgiveness of man, and with grace given to actually attain practical perfection in order to be actually worthy to be with God, which essentially is salvation by actual merit. Works do justify one as being a true believer, and fit to be rewarded under grace for work of faith which only God actually deserves credit for, but which is not the actual cause of salvation, but the effect.

Yet i am not surprised that the gospel of grace is so foreign to Catholics, as despite denials, they actually do preach salvation by works, by actually attaining the perfection of character needed to be with God.

Is Purgatory in the Bible?
Yes, in that it was a place for believers to go before Christ's resurrection though not all use the term as "purgatory". Believers before Christ looked forward in faith to His redemption (we look back). But the Scripture is very clear for us by stating that Jesus purged our sins. Hebrews 1:3. Not until Christ resurrrected and took believers to heaven could they go, as He had not yet purged their sin!

No one can make himself pure enough to go to the Father. This is a misnomer... one goes "as he is" to Jesus and Jesus purges his sins and removes them as far as the east is from the west... all sin past present "future".... (btw all OUR sins were in "future" even when Christ died for us)..."For all have sinned and fallen short..." But then Christ clothes us in HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS so that as God the Father sees us, He sees Christ's righteousness. We are to have the mind of Christ. Surely a carnal person cannot do this! God never says we are to do something if it's impossible for us... but with the Spirit within we are without sin and clothed in righteousness.

Purgatory is false. Look at peters words, we are already purifying ourselves. No purgatory mentioned here. We are born again, not fried again in the fires of purgatory.

1 Peter 1:2 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, 23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,



and this scripture that another poster posted, come on, you can see that purgatory doctrine contradicts this scripture. Why no mention of purgatory?

1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

drjean said:

Is Purgatory in the Bible?
Yes, in that it was a place for believers to go before Christ's resurrection though not all use the term as "purgatory". Believers before Christ looked forward in faith to His redemption (we look back). But the Scripture is very clear for us by stating that Jesus purged our sins. Hebrews 1:3. Not until Christ resurrrected and took believers to heaven could they go, as He had not yet purged their sin!

Click to expand...

Purgatory is a place of torment--of punishment. That's how one's sins are allegedly being "purged." It's not the Bosom of Abraham or Paradise which you appear to me to be describing.


]

PeaceByJesus said:

His tastes were costly. He was only too happy to spend lavishly on himself and voluptuous entertainment. Humanists with few morals swarmed at a papal court where wit mattered more than witness. Plays and shows, ballets and games abounded. No chance for a hunt was turned down. The papal treasury funded preeminent artists such as Raphael. Julius left a full treasury. Leo drained it in eight short years.

Click to expand...

I didn't say he was a good pope. I have always found the way he lived to be abhorrent.

And all the time that Julius was being a warmonger, he was also funding Michelangelo's painting of the Sistine Chapel.

PeaceByJesus said:

Yet i am not surprised that the gospel of grace is so foreign to Catholics, as despite denials, they actually do preach salvation by works, by actually attaining the perfection of character needed to be with God.

Click to expand...

The teaching of the Catholic Churches has never spoken of works. They speak of salvation by grace, through faith in our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ. We teach of the destitute position we are in, and of God's Grace, given to us freely, and that all one needs to do is to believe in Him, and accept the work that He has done for you. But all of the Pre-Reformation Churches admit that such grace comes at a price--not just the cost of Jesus' life but of your own as well.

Why is it that when Protestants start bashing the Catholics, they focus on the Roman Catholics, and on peripheral things, such as Mary, the Saints, and Purgatory.

I brought up a question earlier in this thread, and nobody has answered me. If we are to enter heaven as perfect (remember, God will not allow anything unholy into heaven), then where do those saved people go to finish the refining process--you know, the wood, hay, and stubble being burned off, and the gold, silver, and gems being refined and purified? It can't be in heaven, and it can't be in hell (unless you are willing to condemn all mankind to hell), and, according to Protestants, there is no other place. Where?

PeaceByJesus said:

Yes, you do go to Hell for not being as good enough, and for presuming that you can become worthy to be with God by becoming as good as Christ. Therefore you need to be saved on Christ's account, by repentant faith in the Son sent by the Father to save you by His sinless shed blood, whereby you are accepted in the Beloved on His account, and are made to positionally sit with Him in Heaven, (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6) and have access with boldness into the very holy of holies in Heaven. (Hebrews 10:19)

Click to expand...

Sorry, but unless you are completely pure and holy, you can have no place in heaven, and the boldness you claim is presumption!

Monk Brendan said:

I brought up a question earlier in this thread, and nobody has answered me. If we are to enter heaven as perfect (remember, God will not allow anything unholy into heaven), then where do those saved people go to finish the refining process--you know, the wood, hay, and stubble being burned off, and the gold, silver, and gems being refined and purified? It can't be in heaven, and it can't be in hell (unless you are willing to condemn all mankind to hell), and, according to Protestants, there is no other place. Where?

Click to expand...

At the foot of the cross.

PanDeVida said:

We'll begin by making clear just what we mean by "Purgatory." The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

All who die in God’s grace, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven (1030).

This seems so simple. Its common sense. Scripture is very clear when it says, "But nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, "You [God]... are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong..." How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace.

In light of this, the truth about Purgatory is almost self-evident to Catholics. However, to many Protestants this is one of the most repugnant of all Catholic teachings. It represents “a medieval invention nowhere to be found in the Bible.” It's often called "a denial of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice." It is said to represent "a second-chance theology that is abominable." We get these and many more such charges here at Catholic Answers

Click to expand...

This is the part of the post I actually do agree with.

Perhaps the best place to start is with the most overt reference to a “Purgatory” of sorts in the Old Testament. I say a “Purgatory of sorts” because Purgatory is a teaching fully revealed in the New Testament and defined by the Catholic Church. The Old Testament people of God would not have called it “Purgatory,” but they did clearly believe that the sins of the dead could be atoned for by the living as I will now prove.

Click to expand...

Purgatory is about the dead atoning for their own sins after death until they themselves are purified "purged" to the point of being ready for heaven.

"Indulgences" is the teaching that deals with how the living might atone for the sins of the dead.

This is a constitutive element of what Catholics call “Purgatory.”

In II Maccabees 12:39-46, we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection... and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”

There are usually two immediate objections to the use of this text when talking with Protestants.

1. First, they will dismiss any evidence presented therein because they do not accept the inspiration of Maccabees.

2. And second, they will claim these men in Maccabees committed the sin of idolatry, which would be a mortal sin in Catholic theology. According to the Catholic Church, they would be in Hell where there is no possibility of atonement. Thus, and ironically so, they will say, Purgatory must be eliminated as a possible interpretation of this text if you’re Catholic.

Click to expand...

I agree with that as well.

And #3 I would add - in the actual account .. in the text deleted by the author we find that even in Maccabees - NO BENEFIT was assumed to accrue to the dead - as a result of whatever animal sacrifice they offered - except at the resurrection of the dead.

43He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind;44for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.45But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.

The part in red - is the part the author deleted from his response. Because the whole POINT of the doctrine on indulgences is that the dead benefit BEFORE being bodily resurrected!

Monk Brendan said:

The teaching of the Catholic Churches has never spoken of works. They speak of salvation by grace, through faith in our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ. We teach of the destitute position we are in, and of God's Grace, given to us freely, and that all one needs to do is to believe in Him, and accept the work that He has done for you. But all of the Pre-Reformation Churches admit that such grace comes at a price--not just the cost of Jesus' life but of your own as well.

Why is it that when Protestants start bashing the Catholics, they focus on the Roman Catholics, and on peripheral things, such as Mary, the Saints, and Purgatory.

I brought up a question earlier in this thread, and nobody has answered me. If we are to enter heaven as perfect (remember, God will not allow anything unholy into heaven), then where do those saved people go to finish the refining process--you know, the wood, hay, and stubble being burned off, and the gold, silver, and gems being refined and purified? It can't be in heaven, and it can't be in hell (unless you are willing to condemn all mankind to hell), and, according to Protestants, there is no other place. Where?

Click to expand...

You're not seeing the beautiful irony in your words (bolded)?

BobRyan said:

I would add - in the actual account .. in the text deleted by the author we find that even in Maccabees - NO BENEFIT was assumed to accrue to the dead - as a result of whatever animal sacrifice they offered - except at the resurrection of the dead.

Click to expand...

It's worse than that. WHATEVER the Jews who were mentioned in this passage did, the scripture itself (if we assume it to be inspired for the sake of this point) says nothing about their actions being effective, commendable, right, or anything of the sort. These men, not identified as representative of anything in particular, are reported as having done this, that's all.

As with all the other so-called 'proofs' of Purgatory, there is a word or phrase here or there that the reader is supposed to run with, filling in 95% of the rest of the description of Purgatory or evidence for it from the catechism of the church that invented the concept.