Is Purgatory real?
- Thread starter Lybrah
- Start date
Alithis
Disciple of Jesus .
- Nov 11, 2010
- 15,750
- 2,180
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
More ambiguous waffle and then you throw in a topic change..(i believe they call it a red herring..Or ..a strawman) to avoid facing the truth.
Its not in scripture it's not even implied.
Do try and stick to the topic.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
You are correct about that, but not about Purgatory and its evolving meaning for Catholics. What you've done here is try to base your point on the most minor of disagreements, incidentals, whereas the traditional Catholic teaching about Purgatory--ordained by a church council and reaffirmed by the Magisterium for 500 years--concerns a number of very basic, very fundamental aspects which define Purgatory.
These include how it works, who goes there, how merit can be created, indulgences, Treasury of Merit, length of stay, etc. etc. The difference between the traditional view and the newer one, between the "same as hell except not forever" view and the "celestial mudroom" idea is really like the difference between night and day.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Alithis
Disciple of Jesus .
- Nov 11, 2010
- 15,750
- 2,180
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Because the word church in the bible is the word ekklesia .it means called out ones who gather to Jesus.
Not man made organisation who imposes itself as boss.
Add to that if the opinions and teachings of your man made organisation disagrees with the word of God (and None of The apostles Nor Jesus taught the lie of pugatory) then one of you are lying..and it's not the Lord Jesus.
He does not contradict himself ever.
But like others ..your just waffling on with ambiguity to avoide submitting to the screamingly obvious fact.
Purgatory is not in not of the bible.
Never was never will be.
It is a lie.
Upvote
0
PeaceB
Well-Known Member
- Apr 20, 2017
- 1,592
- 662
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
Well then, we will have to agree to disagree on it then. You have your interpretation of Scripture, and I have mine. All the arguments on both sides have been discussed to death numerous times on this site and elsewhere.
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
That's not how life and truth works.
Neither you nor those you trust have shown purgatory to be in Scripture, any more than there are fire breathing dragons today.
It's not there, and the only thing we can agree on is that
IN tradition of some groups purgatory is taught,
that's it.
IN tradition that contradicts God's Word.
IN tradition in a group that puts tradition OVER and INSTEAD OF CHRIST/ over and instead of GOD'S WORD.
Upvote
0
PeaceB
Well-Known Member
- Apr 20, 2017
- 1,592
- 662
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
Could you kindly produce the specific councils that you claim as including "the traditional Catholic teaching about Purgatory"? And who is it specifically that is pushing this "celestial mudroom" idea of yours?
Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say, which was written roughly 100 years ago:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Purgatory
Catholic doctrine
Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.
The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined:
"Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful" (Denzinger, "Enchiridon", 983).
Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go, but the tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen must be consulted to explain the teachings of the councils, and to make clear the belief and the practices of the faithful.
Concerning the "traditional view" that the fires of purgatory are the same as the fires of hell, here is what the article has to say:Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.
The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined:
"Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful" (Denzinger, "Enchiridon", 983).
Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go, but the tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen must be consulted to explain the teachings of the councils, and to make clear the belief and the practices of the faithful.
Epiphanius (Haer., lxxv, P.G., XLII, col. 513) complains that Aërius (fourth century) taught that prayers for the dead were of no avail. In the Middle Ages, the doctrine of purgatory was rejected by the Albigenses, Waldenses, and Hussites. St. Bernard (Serm. lxvi in Cantic., P.L. CLXXXIII, col. 1098) states that the so-called "Apostolici" denied purgatory and the utility of prayers for the departed. Much discussion has arisen over the position of the Greeks on the question of purgatory. It would seem that the great difference of opinion was not concerning the existence of purgatory but concerning the nature of purgatorial fire; still St. Thomas proves the existence of purgatory in his dissertation against the errors of the Greeks, and the Council of Florence also thought necessary to affirm the belief of the Church on the subject (Bellarmine, "De Purgatorio," lib. I, cap. i). The modern Orthodox Church denies purgatory, but is rather inconsistent in its way of putting forth its belief.
. . .
Some stress too has been laid upon the objection that the ancient Christians had no clear conception of purgatory, and that they thought that the souls departed remained in uncertainty of salvation to the last day; and consequently they prayed that those who had gone before might in the final judgment escape even the everlasting torments of hell. The earliest Christian traditions are clear as to the particular judgment, and clearer still concerning a sharp distinction between purgatory and hell. The passages alledged as referring to relief from hell cannot offset the evidence given below (Bellarmine, "De Purgatorio," lib. II, cap. v). Concerning the famous case of Trajan, which vexed the Doctors of the Middle Ages, see Bellarmine, loc. cit., cap. Viii.
In Origen the doctrine of purgatory is very clear. If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter. "For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (1 Corinthians 3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works." (P.G., XIII, col. 445, 448).
. . .
The Apostolic practice of praying for the dead which passed into the liturgy of the Church, is as clear in the fourth century as it is in the twentieth. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Mystagogical Catechesis V.9) describing the liturgy, writes: "Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops that are dead; and in short for all those who have departed this life in our communion; believing that the souls of those for whom prayers are offered receive very great relief, while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar." St. Gregory of Nyssa (P.G., XLVI, col. 524, 525) states that man's weaknesses are purged in this life by prayer and wisdom, or are expiated in the next by a cleansing fire. "When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil." About the same time the Apostolic Constitution gives us the formularies used in succouring the dead. "Let us pray for our brethren who sleep in Christ, that God who in his love for men has received the soul of the departed one, may forgive him every fault, and in mercy and clemency receive him into the bosom of Abraham, with those who in this life have pleased God" (P.G. I, col. 1144). Nor can we pass over the use of the diptychs where the names of the dead were inscribed; and this remembrance by name in the Sacred Mysteries--(a practice that was from the Apostles) was considered by Chrysostom as the best way of relieving the dead (Homily 41 on First Corinthians, no. 8).
. . .
Purgatorial fire
At the Council of Florence, Bessarion argued against the existence of real purgatorial fire, and the Greeks were assured that the Roman Church had never issued any dogmatic decree on this subject. In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37, no. 3) speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, "gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita" (P.L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of 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" (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. "Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur", and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; "Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta". How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops "to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification', and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion" (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio").
So it seems to me that there have always been a diversity of opinions concerning the nature of the purgatory and the purgatorial fires in particular.. . .
Some stress too has been laid upon the objection that the ancient Christians had no clear conception of purgatory, and that they thought that the souls departed remained in uncertainty of salvation to the last day; and consequently they prayed that those who had gone before might in the final judgment escape even the everlasting torments of hell. The earliest Christian traditions are clear as to the particular judgment, and clearer still concerning a sharp distinction between purgatory and hell. The passages alledged as referring to relief from hell cannot offset the evidence given below (Bellarmine, "De Purgatorio," lib. II, cap. v). Concerning the famous case of Trajan, which vexed the Doctors of the Middle Ages, see Bellarmine, loc. cit., cap. Viii.
In Origen the doctrine of purgatory is very clear. If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter. "For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (1 Corinthians 3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works." (P.G., XIII, col. 445, 448).
. . .
The Apostolic practice of praying for the dead which passed into the liturgy of the Church, is as clear in the fourth century as it is in the twentieth. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Mystagogical Catechesis V.9) describing the liturgy, writes: "Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops that are dead; and in short for all those who have departed this life in our communion; believing that the souls of those for whom prayers are offered receive very great relief, while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar." St. Gregory of Nyssa (P.G., XLVI, col. 524, 525) states that man's weaknesses are purged in this life by prayer and wisdom, or are expiated in the next by a cleansing fire. "When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil." About the same time the Apostolic Constitution gives us the formularies used in succouring the dead. "Let us pray for our brethren who sleep in Christ, that God who in his love for men has received the soul of the departed one, may forgive him every fault, and in mercy and clemency receive him into the bosom of Abraham, with those who in this life have pleased God" (P.G. I, col. 1144). Nor can we pass over the use of the diptychs where the names of the dead were inscribed; and this remembrance by name in the Sacred Mysteries--(a practice that was from the Apostles) was considered by Chrysostom as the best way of relieving the dead (Homily 41 on First Corinthians, no. 8).
. . .
Purgatorial fire
At the Council of Florence, Bessarion argued against the existence of real purgatorial fire, and the Greeks were assured that the Roman Church had never issued any dogmatic decree on this subject. In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37, no. 3) speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, "gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita" (P.L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of 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" (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. "Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur", and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; "Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta". How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops "to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification', and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion" (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio").
Upvote
0
fide
Well-Known Member
The Council of Trent defined "purgatory" for the Church - as opposed to local catechetical teachings that may or may not have been actual Catholic doctrine. Below is "A modern translation of the Decree on Purgatory by the Council of Trent, 25th session, 1563, the authoritative statement of Catholic dogma on the subject":
Council of Trent
It was at the Council of Trent that Catholic doctrine on purgatory was defined. The Council in its decree affirms the existence of purgatory and the great value of praying for the deceased. Yet at the same time it sternly instructs that preachers not distract, confuse, and mislead the faithful with unnecessary speculations concerning the nature and duration of purgatorial punishments. From the fifth session, 1563.
The Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Spirit and in accordance with sacred Scripture and the ancient Tradition of the Fathers, has taught in the holy Councils and most recently in this ecumenical Council that there is a purgatory and that the souls detained there are helped by the acts of intercession (suffragia) of the faithful, and especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar.
Therefore this holy Council commands the bishops to strive diligently that the sound doctrine of purgatory, handed down by the Holy Fathers and the sacred Councils, be believed by the faithful and that it be adhered to, taught and preached everywhere.
But let the more difficult and subtle questions which do not make for edification and, for the most part, are not conducive to an increase of piety (cf. I Tim. 1:4), be excluded from the popular sermons to uneducated people. Likewise they should not permit opinions that are doubtful and tainted with error to be spread and exposed. As for those things that belong to the realm of curiosity or superstition, or smack of dishonorable gain, they should forbid them as scandalous and injurious to the faithful.
Therefore this holy Council commands the bishops to strive diligently that the sound doctrine of purgatory, handed down by the Holy Fathers and the sacred Councils, be believed by the faithful and that it be adhered to, taught and preached everywhere.
But let the more difficult and subtle questions which do not make for edification and, for the most part, are not conducive to an increase of piety (cf. I Tim. 1:4), be excluded from the popular sermons to uneducated people. Likewise they should not permit opinions that are doubtful and tainted with error to be spread and exposed. As for those things that belong to the realm of curiosity or superstition, or smack of dishonorable gain, they should forbid them as scandalous and injurious to the faithful.
Related Canon 30 from the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification (Sixth Sesssion, 1547)
30. If anyone says that after the grace of justification has been received the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out for any repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this world or in the other, in purgatory, before access can be opened to the kingdom of heaven, anathema sit [“let him be anathema” or excommunicated].
Maybe you could furnish official Catholic doctrine on the matter that fits your summaries better.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Aug 4, 2013
- 4,999
- 2,485
- 75
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
I reply to your reply above, with your replies quoted below, along with my answers.....
Other than what you have shared from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the rest is not answers but your opinion, which is wrong, especially in the case of the Covenant of God, which you do not know and keep presenting in the Calvinist fashion.
I have studied the Covenant of God for a long time, and while I am not an expert in it, I have a considerable knowledge about it. And you are wrong. The sad part is that you will not listen and appear to be unteachable at this point in your life.
I was born into Orthodoxy and I will also inform you that the Orthodox position with reference to Romans 2:13-16, does not infer salvation to none believers.
Which is why you are unteachable. You think that because you were born into Orthodoxy you know everything. A little humility would go a long way with you.
If you like, I could elaborate on another post in relation to Romans 2 and what it means in context, as I did for 1 Corinthians 3 for our friend.
There is no elaboration necessary. It is written plainly and clearly and only those who don't wish to believe in God's abundant mercy can take issue with it. You appear to prefer Latinist judgmental law over God's mercy.
Let's look at Romans 2, shall we?
Rom 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
You see that, sir? Paul states that men can do by nature that which the law demands without ever once hearing of the Law or the Gospel. The next verse tells us why this is utterly possible.
Rom 2:15
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.
I guess you would limit the work of the Holy Spirit to only those who are in the Orthodox Church. Not what Paul says.
Rom 2:16
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
If you quote Jesus, then you need to quote Jesus and qualify the other place in scripture that refers to the idea that a person would not come out of punishment until the last farthing is paid. Bear in mind that Jesus was talking to the living and was referring to this lifetime and not an afterlife salvation scenario.
Mat 5:25 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.
Mat 5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
The context of the verse surrounding this indicate the Judgment Day.
Highlight the words FATHER and RETURN. With reference to your previous replies which suggests that all will be saved, including those who are without God, meaning the Fatherless. A son must know the Father in this lifetime, as Jesus said no one comes to the Father, except through me, which is a pertinent requirement of a person identifying with the Father.
This is your interpretation entirely. You have nothing to prove that a man could not repent after death and ask to be adopted into the family of God, and as I mentioned in Romans 2, this seems completely possible.
It would be pointless for Jesus to teach a parable to the living, if the message was not of grave importance for people in this lifetime to make that decision to RETURN to the FATHER, before they die and leave this temporal life. If the message applied to people in the afterlife, then the urgency and vital importance to return to the Father before one perishes becomes mute and the parable is rendered ineffective as to highlight the urgency within this lifetime to return to the Father.
If it was of such "grave importance" to get this message, then how come Jesus didn't go to China with it, to Japan, to the Native Americans in the Americas, to the Russians and Slavic people? If it was so important that one MUST hear the message and be baptized into the Church to become a child of the Father, and if it is God's will that all be saved, then why did God not promote this message to certain groups of people for thousands of years? Is such the actions of a Father who loves His children and wishes them all to be saved, to keep the salvific message from the greater majority of them? What kind of salvation program is this that puts such a demand upon mankind and then does not do everything possible to fulfill the terms and conditions needed for salvation? Those are not the actions of a God who has said He wills the salvation of all mankind. They would be more in line with that of a tyrant (i.e. the "god" of Calvinism).
I was born into Orthodoxy.
Yeah. I know. I'm not impressed. Sometimes being born into something can terribly close one's mind to further examination of the truth.
Their Liturgy speaks volumes, that is.....
Let him that has not received baptism, depart.
Let him that has not received the sign of life, depart.
Let him that does not accept It [the Holy Communion], depart.
Let the hearers go, and watch the doors.
Prayers of the Catechumens. I know them. You have taken them out of context of the salvation program we are discussing here. The catechumens were not allowed to stay and see the Holy Mysteries. You know this. You are being disingenuous here to try to mix this liturgical formula with God's salvation.
No, prayers never are a waste of breath. They comfort and embolden the believers to stay the course of faith. Liturgy never ventures into any form of purgation workings of the realm of the dead, their prayers are for the hope of a believer to migrate from this temporal life to eternal life with Christ. This is the sending off salute for Orthodox Christians and it does in no way declare that one is actually 100% saved, for it is just a sending off salute.
Now back to your contention about a covenant being a relationship as opposed to a contract. Well we can do the same thing by substituting contract/relationship in place of covenant, as follows.....
A contract is not a relationship. This is where you have run right off the rails.
Let's take an example of a contract. A young woman in a mini-skirt stands at a street corner. A man drives up and conversation ensues. Both have something the other wants. They make a verbal agreement (contract) and drive to the nearest seedy hotel, where the contract is worked out on a bed filled with bedbugs and DNA from previous attendants. Then they leave and go their ways.
That is a contract. No personal concern for each other, no giving of self to each other. It is an exchange of goods only, and when it is finished - that's it.
That is far, FAR different from a covenant, which is a relationship of self-giving love. This is how the Bible describes the Covenant of God. So intimate is it, even between God and Israel as nation, that God purposely uses the analogy of marriage in the Book of Hosea, and constantly refers to the nation as His cheating spouse. The spousal language continues in the New Covenant, with Jesus as the divine Bridegroom and the Church as the Bride of Christ. This is the language of deep intimacy, and is as far from a contract as black is from white.
Firstly, you have to understand that a covenant is a contract as opposed to a relationship.
I have shown you that you have utterly missed the boat here. When I bought my house in 1972 from Mrs. Lillian King, I never even met her. I signed the contract with a proxy because she was in a nursing home. I never met her, cared one second for her, or had a relationship with her. If you cannot see that this is far, far different from the marital relationship which the Bible uses to describe our relationship with Christ/God, then you are, as I said before, unwilling to learn. And I am wasting my time.
Lastly, once you gain the understanding that we are in contract with God,
Wrong again. You are making a habit of this. Speaking on a basis of covenant, we have no relationship with God. It is Jesus the Christ who has the covenant relationship with the Father. We know this because He is the Great High Priest of the New Covenant and acts as the Last Adam (1 Corin. 15:45) in representing us to God through His Blood.
We do not make covenant with God. We make covenant with Christ by being baptized into Him (Romans 6:3) He is the Bridegroom and we are the Bride. That is the language of the Bible. Through being in covenant with Christ Jesus (i.e. married to Him) we have a relationship with the Father. All our relationship with the Trinity comes by being in the covenant which is made with Jesus by baptism.
through a personal relationship with his Son
(Evangelical language. You are Orthodox. Stop it!!!)
Death discharges the legality of being subjects
SUBJECTS!!!!! That is so Calvinist language it is not funny. We are His BRIDE!!! You really need to learn covenant relationships.
A covenant is a contract and it is not between the Trinity, rather it is between God and man.
Nope. Before the foundation of the world, before Creation, God existed in a trinitarian covenant. And this is not me saying this. It is theologians far, far more brilliant than I could ever hope to be. The Trinity is an eternal covenant of existence - God IS - and mankind was created into it and invited to share in the love of the Trinity by growing into godlikeness.
You have strange ideas for someone who identifies as Orthodox. I'm sorry, but they sound like the Calvinism I came out of and not Orthodox at all.
(Yeah, I know....I know....You were born Orthodox. So sue me!)
Other than what you have shared from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the rest is not answers but your opinion, which is wrong, especially in the case of the Covenant of God, which you do not know and keep presenting in the Calvinist fashion.
I have studied the Covenant of God for a long time, and while I am not an expert in it, I have a considerable knowledge about it. And you are wrong. The sad part is that you will not listen and appear to be unteachable at this point in your life.
I was born into Orthodoxy and I will also inform you that the Orthodox position with reference to Romans 2:13-16, does not infer salvation to none believers.
Which is why you are unteachable. You think that because you were born into Orthodoxy you know everything. A little humility would go a long way with you.
If you like, I could elaborate on another post in relation to Romans 2 and what it means in context, as I did for 1 Corinthians 3 for our friend.
There is no elaboration necessary. It is written plainly and clearly and only those who don't wish to believe in God's abundant mercy can take issue with it. You appear to prefer Latinist judgmental law over God's mercy.
Let's look at Romans 2, shall we?
Rom 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
You see that, sir? Paul states that men can do by nature that which the law demands without ever once hearing of the Law or the Gospel. The next verse tells us why this is utterly possible.
Rom 2:15
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.
I guess you would limit the work of the Holy Spirit to only those who are in the Orthodox Church. Not what Paul says.
Rom 2:16
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
If you quote Jesus, then you need to quote Jesus and qualify the other place in scripture that refers to the idea that a person would not come out of punishment until the last farthing is paid. Bear in mind that Jesus was talking to the living and was referring to this lifetime and not an afterlife salvation scenario.
Mat 5:25 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.
Mat 5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
The context of the verse surrounding this indicate the Judgment Day.
Highlight the words FATHER and RETURN. With reference to your previous replies which suggests that all will be saved, including those who are without God, meaning the Fatherless. A son must know the Father in this lifetime, as Jesus said no one comes to the Father, except through me, which is a pertinent requirement of a person identifying with the Father.
This is your interpretation entirely. You have nothing to prove that a man could not repent after death and ask to be adopted into the family of God, and as I mentioned in Romans 2, this seems completely possible.
It would be pointless for Jesus to teach a parable to the living, if the message was not of grave importance for people in this lifetime to make that decision to RETURN to the FATHER, before they die and leave this temporal life. If the message applied to people in the afterlife, then the urgency and vital importance to return to the Father before one perishes becomes mute and the parable is rendered ineffective as to highlight the urgency within this lifetime to return to the Father.
If it was of such "grave importance" to get this message, then how come Jesus didn't go to China with it, to Japan, to the Native Americans in the Americas, to the Russians and Slavic people? If it was so important that one MUST hear the message and be baptized into the Church to become a child of the Father, and if it is God's will that all be saved, then why did God not promote this message to certain groups of people for thousands of years? Is such the actions of a Father who loves His children and wishes them all to be saved, to keep the salvific message from the greater majority of them? What kind of salvation program is this that puts such a demand upon mankind and then does not do everything possible to fulfill the terms and conditions needed for salvation? Those are not the actions of a God who has said He wills the salvation of all mankind. They would be more in line with that of a tyrant (i.e. the "god" of Calvinism).
I was born into Orthodoxy.
Yeah. I know. I'm not impressed. Sometimes being born into something can terribly close one's mind to further examination of the truth.
Their Liturgy speaks volumes, that is.....
Let him that has not received baptism, depart.
Let him that has not received the sign of life, depart.
Let him that does not accept It [the Holy Communion], depart.
Let the hearers go, and watch the doors.
Prayers of the Catechumens. I know them. You have taken them out of context of the salvation program we are discussing here. The catechumens were not allowed to stay and see the Holy Mysteries. You know this. You are being disingenuous here to try to mix this liturgical formula with God's salvation.
No, prayers never are a waste of breath. They comfort and embolden the believers to stay the course of faith. Liturgy never ventures into any form of purgation workings of the realm of the dead, their prayers are for the hope of a believer to migrate from this temporal life to eternal life with Christ. This is the sending off salute for Orthodox Christians and it does in no way declare that one is actually 100% saved, for it is just a sending off salute.
Now back to your contention about a covenant being a relationship as opposed to a contract. Well we can do the same thing by substituting contract/relationship in place of covenant, as follows.....
A contract is not a relationship. This is where you have run right off the rails.
Let's take an example of a contract. A young woman in a mini-skirt stands at a street corner. A man drives up and conversation ensues. Both have something the other wants. They make a verbal agreement (contract) and drive to the nearest seedy hotel, where the contract is worked out on a bed filled with bedbugs and DNA from previous attendants. Then they leave and go their ways.
That is a contract. No personal concern for each other, no giving of self to each other. It is an exchange of goods only, and when it is finished - that's it.
That is far, FAR different from a covenant, which is a relationship of self-giving love. This is how the Bible describes the Covenant of God. So intimate is it, even between God and Israel as nation, that God purposely uses the analogy of marriage in the Book of Hosea, and constantly refers to the nation as His cheating spouse. The spousal language continues in the New Covenant, with Jesus as the divine Bridegroom and the Church as the Bride of Christ. This is the language of deep intimacy, and is as far from a contract as black is from white.
Firstly, you have to understand that a covenant is a contract as opposed to a relationship.
I have shown you that you have utterly missed the boat here. When I bought my house in 1972 from Mrs. Lillian King, I never even met her. I signed the contract with a proxy because she was in a nursing home. I never met her, cared one second for her, or had a relationship with her. If you cannot see that this is far, far different from the marital relationship which the Bible uses to describe our relationship with Christ/God, then you are, as I said before, unwilling to learn. And I am wasting my time.
Lastly, once you gain the understanding that we are in contract with God,
Wrong again. You are making a habit of this. Speaking on a basis of covenant, we have no relationship with God. It is Jesus the Christ who has the covenant relationship with the Father. We know this because He is the Great High Priest of the New Covenant and acts as the Last Adam (1 Corin. 15:45) in representing us to God through His Blood.
We do not make covenant with God. We make covenant with Christ by being baptized into Him (Romans 6:3) He is the Bridegroom and we are the Bride. That is the language of the Bible. Through being in covenant with Christ Jesus (i.e. married to Him) we have a relationship with the Father. All our relationship with the Trinity comes by being in the covenant which is made with Jesus by baptism.
through a personal relationship with his Son
(Evangelical language. You are Orthodox. Stop it!!!)
Death discharges the legality of being subjects
SUBJECTS!!!!! That is so Calvinist language it is not funny. We are His BRIDE!!! You really need to learn covenant relationships.
A covenant is a contract and it is not between the Trinity, rather it is between God and man.
Nope. Before the foundation of the world, before Creation, God existed in a trinitarian covenant. And this is not me saying this. It is theologians far, far more brilliant than I could ever hope to be. The Trinity is an eternal covenant of existence - God IS - and mankind was created into it and invited to share in the love of the Trinity by growing into godlikeness.
You have strange ideas for someone who identifies as Orthodox. I'm sorry, but they sound like the Calvinism I came out of and not Orthodox at all.
(Yeah, I know....I know....You were born Orthodox. So sue me!)
Upvote
0
Alithis
Disciple of Jesus .
- Nov 11, 2010
- 15,750
- 2,180
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Nope.I do not agree to disagree.I do not agree that the scripture is possibly wrong.
It a not.
Yes iv seen many many debates and threads on the topic..
And they all result the same.
The rcc adherants say ..
“it is real because we say it is“
They have no interest in what God states in his recorded word.they care not that they contradict him.
They have altogether gone their Own way.
Purgatory is not real not scriptural and is a lie.
Its just the fact.
And ..it's not a matter of interpreting scripture. I Do have my interpretation OF SCRIPTURE.. But on this topic you have no scripture on the topic to interpret. -it is not in there!
Upvote
0
PeaceB
Well-Known Member
- Apr 20, 2017
- 1,592
- 662
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
We have different beliefs, and I have no intention of arguing the point further with you, so you will have to agree to disagree, whether you like it or not. Nor am I concerned with your conclusion that I have lost my way. May the peace of Christ be with you.
Upvote
0
- Aug 4, 2013
- 4,999
- 2,485
- 75
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Tell me then what you think happens to our imperfections and everything that is not like God when we die.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Albion
Facilitator
They are resolved, just as our sins are forgiven.
You do not get fried in agony for eons in order to be purged of sins that you have already repented of and been forgiven for, let alone minor, 'venial', sins that the church itself says would not keep anyone from heaven. Yet that is the what Purgatory supposedly exists to do.
Upvote
0
PeaceB
Well-Known Member
- Apr 20, 2017
- 1,592
- 662
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
Are your evil inclinations resolved by your own power or your perfect moral desire to let go of them, or does God remove them despite your imperfect moral desires?
As for your characterizations of purgatory, I already provided you with the Catechism, so it seems that you are being disingenuous.
Upvote
0
The Times
Well-Known Member
Again I will reply to your reply above, by answering your quoted comments below....
Sorry, Calvinist's didn't exist at the time of the Apostles and the understanding of the Orthodox view of what a covenant means. A contract has conditions and throughout scriptures God declares if you do this, then I will honour that and if you do that, then I will discharge to you my promises. Conditions which are tied to the hope of receiving the promises need to be complied with, in the same manner a subject needs to comply within the legalities of an agreed contract between two parties.
What has speaking truthly to do with having a little humility. I believe that I have been more than fair and truthful in presenting an unbiased Orthodox view, which Protestants happen to also hold, so what is wrong with that.
The emphasis of agreeing with thine adversary quickly has an urgent connotation to it, that obligates the person to agree before he meets the judge. Paul writes all men are destined to die once then judgement. Therefore agreeing would need to be done in this life and not the afterlife when a person comes face to face with the judge. You see how easy it is to desiminate the basics of before and after, which is taught at the very fundemental years in Kindergarten.
Well, you used Matthew 5:25-26 as scriptural evidence that requests a man to agree with his adversary and to repent, before he is brought before the judge.
Why? Why? Why? He asks.....ok very welll.....why don't you consider the parable of the workers in the vineyard...
1“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3“About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
7“ ‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
8“When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
God has been hiring workmen throughout the Great Harvest and he calls the last ones first, to pay them first, which goes to show how fair the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel is.
Because I say that after death comes judgment as scripture declares it so, makes me closed minded?
Second time Jesus appears for people, is as their judge.
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. (Hebrew speaking 9:28)
Paul writes that before he is to be executed.......
Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day--and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing. (2 Timothy 4:8)
Saint Stephan in Acts 7:55 also beheld the Lord's appearing, when his time came to depart from this temporal life.
In Orthdoxy prayer for the dead, we say such and such has migrated from this temporal life, to eternal life, to be present with the Lord.
Death presents the subjects of the blood contract before their maker for judgment of the works of faith done in the earthly body.
I disagree with your opinion.
A contract is a conditional agreement between two parties, who is God and man. Throughout scripture God declares the conditions of his contract/covenant, as follows.....
If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time, 21then my covenant with David my servant—and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me—can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne. (Jeremiah 33:20-21)
It is a contract between God and man and there is a ransom that was paid in full, in initiating the new contract which is made legal in the blood of the Lamb of God. Within this contract, it includes a real and intangible relationship with the Son.....
Kiss his son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. (Psalm 2:12)
Again, you never seen the Father, but it is the Father that Christians are in contract with, for God the Father said....
"This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
The caring, loving obedience to the Father is through His only begotten Son, that he is well pleased in. So no one can say that they have made a contract with a person, they know not, because Jesus said if you have seen me, you have also seen the Father and that you may only come to the Father through me.
You cannot plead ignorance in not knowing the other party, whom you are in contract with. This is where your statement above is a fallacy.
The covenant is not within the Trinity between God the Father and God the Son as you claim, rather the contract is between God the Father and man, through the Son and the Holy Ghost (John 3:5). We are in contract with the other party, who is the one Triune God.
Really! Is that all you have to say about all that I have laboriously explained to you and others?
We are Christ's subjects within the conditions of the blood contract, until Christ delivers all those who are written in the book of life to God the Father, then he also becomes subject to the Father. We are Christ's bride, but Paul also writes that we are his prisoners who need to abide in him, as would a bride need to abide in her husband. The act of a marriage in Jewish framework is a contract in itself.
The covenant was not from the beginning, the Word was from the beginning and the Word is God. When man was created, then we had the Adamic Covenant, Abrahmic covenant, the Mosaic Old Covenant, Davidic Covenant, the Christ Covenant.
All these covenants were between the Creator and his Creatures and never a covenant within the Trinity.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
It's all in God's hands just as we believe that he is the one who forgives sin on account of Christ's death and resurrection...not that the only way to get rid of sin (or inclinations) is for him to run each of us through some sort of celestial car wash.
In fact, the proposition is so Medieval that one wonders how a devotee of Purgatory thinks that people who, upon death, are bound for heaven are supposed to be "cleansed" of all their earthly inclinations, imperfections, and the like.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Aug 4, 2013
- 4,999
- 2,485
- 75
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Sorry, Calvinist's didn't exist at the time of the Apostles and the understanding of the Orthodox view of what a covenant means. A contract has conditions and throughout scriptures God declares if you do this, then I will honour that and if you do that, then I will discharge to you my promises. Conditions which are tied to the hope of receiving the promises need to be complied with, in the same manner a subject needs to comply within the legalities of an agreed contract between two parties.
Covenant relationships also have conditions. Think of the vows that are made between husband and wife. The vows are promises made to each other which define the boundaries of the relationship. For instance, both spouses promise to love each other solely, to share their body with no one else. The corellary of that would be "Thou shalt have no other gods....."
In Deuteronomy 28, you can see what is called the "blessings and curses" of the covenant relationship. God tells the Israelites that if they keep the conditions of the covenant (vows) He will bless them. If not, He enumerates many curses which will fall on them.
The same is true with the marriage. Keep the marriage vows and you have blessing. Break them and the cookies hit the fan.
A contract is a conditional agreement between two parties, who is God and man. Throughout scripture God declares the conditions of his contract/covenant, as follows.....
And a covenant is also a conditional agreement, but the difference is that in a contract, as I showed you by my example of buying my house (to which you gave no answer), in a contract, you have no personal interest in the other person. It is business. A covenant is the giving of one person to another. It is intimate.
It is a contract between God and man and there is a ransom that was paid in full, in initiating the new contract which is made legal in the blood of the Lamb of God. Within this contract, it includes a real and intangible relationship with the Son.....
I'm sorry, but this is the language of Calvinism.
The covenant is not within the Trinity between God the Father and God the Son as you claim, rather the contract is between God the Father and man, through the Son and the Holy Ghost (John 3:5). We are in contract with the other party, who is the one Triune God.
Again, this is exactly how Calvinists write about the covenant. Everything I have read which is Orthodox and refers to our salvation speaks of the healing of our natures, not the payment of some legal fine.
We are Christ's subjects within the conditions of the blood contract, until Christ delivers all those who are written in the book of life to God the Father, then he also becomes subject to the Father. We are Christ's bride, but Paul also writes that we are his prisoners who need to abide in him, as would a bride need to abide in her husband. The act of a marriage in Jewish framework is a contract in itself.
You really don't "hear" yourself speaking. I've been there and done that, in terms of believing what you are preaching. It is Calvinism. You can claim it is Orthodoxy, but when I read the Early Fathers speaking of the Eucharist as the "Medicine of Immortality," I know they are not talking about some legal contract with God. They are speaking of healing a broken nature and our relationship being healed.
Covenant relationships also have conditions. Think of the vows that are made between husband and wife. The vows are promises made to each other which define the boundaries of the relationship. For instance, both spouses promise to love each other solely, to share their body with no one else. The corellary of that would be "Thou shalt have no other gods....."
In Deuteronomy 28, you can see what is called the "blessings and curses" of the covenant relationship. God tells the Israelites that if they keep the conditions of the covenant (vows) He will bless them. If not, He enumerates many curses which will fall on them.
The same is true with the marriage. Keep the marriage vows and you have blessing. Break them and the cookies hit the fan.
A contract is a conditional agreement between two parties, who is God and man. Throughout scripture God declares the conditions of his contract/covenant, as follows.....
And a covenant is also a conditional agreement, but the difference is that in a contract, as I showed you by my example of buying my house (to which you gave no answer), in a contract, you have no personal interest in the other person. It is business. A covenant is the giving of one person to another. It is intimate.
It is a contract between God and man and there is a ransom that was paid in full, in initiating the new contract which is made legal in the blood of the Lamb of God. Within this contract, it includes a real and intangible relationship with the Son.....
I'm sorry, but this is the language of Calvinism.
The covenant is not within the Trinity between God the Father and God the Son as you claim, rather the contract is between God the Father and man, through the Son and the Holy Ghost (John 3:5). We are in contract with the other party, who is the one Triune God.
Again, this is exactly how Calvinists write about the covenant. Everything I have read which is Orthodox and refers to our salvation speaks of the healing of our natures, not the payment of some legal fine.
We are Christ's subjects within the conditions of the blood contract, until Christ delivers all those who are written in the book of life to God the Father, then he also becomes subject to the Father. We are Christ's bride, but Paul also writes that we are his prisoners who need to abide in him, as would a bride need to abide in her husband. The act of a marriage in Jewish framework is a contract in itself.
You really don't "hear" yourself speaking. I've been there and done that, in terms of believing what you are preaching. It is Calvinism. You can claim it is Orthodoxy, but when I read the Early Fathers speaking of the Eucharist as the "Medicine of Immortality," I know they are not talking about some legal contract with God. They are speaking of healing a broken nature and our relationship being healed.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
