Efficacy of prayers for the dead

[-57]

that also was not the point, the point is prayer for the dead. ixcn pointed out that Christ prayed to the Father prior to His bringing him back to life.

he quoted you as saying prayer for the dead is not Biblical, and then he referenced Christ doing it. ixcn did not quote anything about salvation for someone who died even though that is how the conversation went.

I don't thin you understand the reason why Jesus raised Lazarus you'll find it in verse 22

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't thin you understand the reason why Jesus raised Lazarus you'll find it in verse 22

I know why He did, that just is not ixcn's point. I am saying you are not actually addressing what he was saying

 

[-57]

I know why He did, that just is not ixcn's point. I am saying you are not actually addressing what he was saying

ixcn's point....fell short of acyually being a point.

 

[ArmyMatt]

ixcn's point....fell short of acyually being a point.

except for your earlier point that praying for the dead is unbiblical. you actually have Christ referencing a prayer for the dead that He made, prior to His raising of Lazarus.

so it actually didn't fall short at all, especially looking at what he quoted you as having said.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sounds like Onesiphorus is alive.

That's an assumption that the text itself does not seem to justify.

Technically, Lutherans may pray for the dead as our confessions state it is a practice to be retained. In practice, few do explicitly. I'd like to see that change. Praying for the dead can be a good way to come to terms with our own loss.

 

[ClementofA]

2 Clement says there is no repentance after death

"For after that we have departed out of the world, we can no more make
confession there, or repent any more." (2 Clem 8:3)

OTOH...

"The Saviour also exerts His might because it is His work to save; which accordingly He also did by drawing to salvation those who became willing, by the preaching [of the gospel], to believe on Him, wherever they were. If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend; it was either to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved, although they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there; since God’s punishments are saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion, and choosing rather the repentance them the death of a sinner; and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly, because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh."[3]

Notice the main features above: (i) the Saviour is mighty to save; (ii) through preaching the gospel; (iii) even posthumously in hades; (iv) where the ‘punishments’ are saving and disciplinary; (v) leading to repentance and conversion; (vi) because death has freed them to perceive. Clement hopes that all will respond and he permits me to hope.

[3] Clement, Stromata, 6.6.46.


Permit Me to Hope

 

[ClementofA]

Today is the day of salvation. So I would say pray for the living to be comforted in their losses and pray for the spiritually dead to become alive in Christ.

Young's Literal Translation
for He saith, 'In an acceptable time I did hear thee, and in ***A*** day of salvation I did help thee, lo, now is a well-accepted time; lo, now, ***A*** day of salvation,' -- (2 Cor 6:2)

For He is saying, "In a season acceptable I reply to you, And in a day of salvation I help you.Lo! Now is a most acceptable era! Lo! Now is a day of salvation!" (CLV)

For he saith—In an approved season, have I hearkened unto thee, and, in a day of salvation, have succoured thee;—Lo! now, a well-approved season, Lo! now, a day of salvation: (Rotherham)

If it is "a" day of salvation that doesn't equate to "the only" day of salvation.

If today is "a" day of salvation, tomorrow may be another day.

To the Lord a day is as a thousand years (2 Pet.3:8).

Now is "a" day of salvation. The present moment is always "now", whether today or in a 1000 years after Paul wrote that or in 3000, 5000 or 10,000 years after he wrote it.

1Pet.3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

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


1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. These things command and teach.

 

[ArmyMatt]

OTOH...

"The Saviour also exerts His might because it is His work to save; which accordingly He also did by drawing to salvation those who became willing, by the preaching [of the gospel], to believe on Him, wherever they were. If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend; it was either to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved, although they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there; since God’s punishments are saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion, and choosing rather the repentance them the death of a sinner; and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly, because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh."[3]

Notice the main features above: (i) the Saviour is mighty to save; (ii) through preaching the gospel; (iii) even posthumously in hades; (iv) where the ‘punishments’ are saving and disciplinary; (v) leading to repentance and conversion; (vi) because death has freed them to perceive. Clement hopes that all will respond and he permits me to hope.

[3] Clement, Stromata, 6.6.46.


Permit Me to Hope

except that Clement of Alexandria is not the only lens we see eschatology, and he is not a universally recognized saint in the Church.

forgive me, but I don't understand the point of your posts

 

[ClementofA]

except that Clement of Alexandria is not the only lens we see eschatology, and he is not a universally recognized saint in the Church.

OTOH, the author of 2 Clement is not even known.

 

[ClementofA]

Heb 9:21 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

That would be Heb.9:27.

The reference to Hebrews 9:27 does not speak of "an expiration date" for salvation or God's love. After death comes judgement for all, sinners & saints. Judgement can be a good thing:

"When your judgments come upon the earth, the people of the world learn righteousness." (Isa.26:9)

The Greek word for "chastening" here can mean correction:

The Lord is acquainted with the rescue of the devout out of trial, yet is keeping the unjust for chastening in the day of judging. (2 Pet.2:9)

Heb.9:27 says it is appointed to men once to die. Does that deny men can die twice? No. Does it say "only" once? No. If New England is appointed to play the Buffalo Bills twice, does that deny they won't meet again in the playoffs? No. How many times did those raised before the general resurrections die?

I think, in light of the Rapture theory, many Christians would disagree with the statement that 100% of mankind will die and face judgment. Not only that, but Hebrews 9:27 does not say men are "only" going to die once. Lazarus, for one, is a Biblical example of one who died twice & the book of Revelation speaks of the "second death"."

I already provided examples proving Heb.9:27 does not mean death occurs "once & only once". If it did there would be a Bible contradiction & the Bible would be lying.

Paul says "once was i stoned" (2 Cor.11:25). Does that mean he could never be stoned again or stoned twice? Obviously not.

Scripture reveals there are those who will not die even once & implies there are those who will die at least a second time.
There are those who will never die, not even once:

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 says: “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the
coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 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.”

It says what it says, and all of the conjectures will not change its meaning. V28 shows the context of v27 and example, Heb 9:27-28 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. No hope for repentance after death.

We can agree that "it says what it says". But your words do not equate to the "meaning" of the verse, nor have you provided any reason why it should be understood according to - your - opinion - that it establishes a doctrine of "no hope for repentance after death".

Let's be clear. The passage nowhere uses your words "no hope", "hope" or "repentance".

The passage does not rule out repentance "after...judgement".

Neither does it rule out the possibility of repentance after death & before judgement.

It simply doesn't address such issues.

 

[ClementofA]

the bible doesn't seem to say you can become saved after you die.

It does. What about babies & children who died as such?

 

[ArmyMatt]

OTOH, the author of 2 Clement is not even known.

that's a moot point. the Didache has unknown authorship. we accept it because it is correct. Orthodoxy begins with proper theology of the experience of the risen Christ. so even if a saint gets off track, we just admit that he/she was wrong and accept what is correct.

 

[ClementofA]

In the Koine greek Eternal torment is the word Kolasis (Matthew 25:46, 1 John 4:17-18) It originally meant amputation or pruning. Jesus said it is better to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand and enter heaven maimed than be cast out. Its interesting to note that in modern greek Kolasis is the equivalent word to hell. In other words we must strive to cut off those vices which has infected the soul. Kolasis is also similar to the greek word Kola which means glue, or to be stuck etc.

Words change meaning over the period of centuries & millenniums, so how modern Greek uses the term kolasis is irrelevant to its use in Mt.25:46. What is of more significance is how it was used in the world of ancient Greek:

"In the late 2nd century/early 3rd century, Clement of Alexandria clearly distinguished between kólasis and timoria: “For there are partial corrections [padeiai] which are called chastisements [kólasis], which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish [timoria], for punishment [timoria] is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually” (Strom. 7.16)."

Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever: Aiónios and the Universalist Hope

In Philo (c. 20 BC- 50 AD) who was contemporary with Christ, kolasis/kolazo "is for those who will not listen to reason, and it is the best remedy for the foolish (Agr. 40)." (NIDNTTE, ed Moises Silva, p.716).


Philo says "...punishment is the greatest good to foolish persons, great as the remedies of the physician are to those who are ill in the body."

Philo: On Husbandry

Aulus Gellius says that kolasis is given that a man may be corrected, timoria is given that dignity and authority may be vindicated.

"According to Aristotle kolasis “is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer,” where as timoria is inflicted “in the interest of him who inflicts it, that he may obtain satisfaction” (Rhet.1369b13). The same was indicated by Plato in Gorg. 476A-477A, in which kolasis, provided that it is just, is described as good for the person who is chastised, in that he becomes better."

 

[ArmyMatt]

Words change meaning over the period of centuries & millenniums, so how modern Greek uses the term kolasis is irrelevant to its use in Mt.25:46. What is of more significance is how it was used in the world of ancient Greek:

"In the late 2nd century/early 3rd century, Clement of Alexandria clearly distinguished between kólasis and timoria: “For there are partial corrections [padeiai] which are called chastisements [kólasis], which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish [timoria], for punishment [timoria] is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually” (Strom. 7.16)."

Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever: Aiónios and the Universalist Hope

In Philo (c. 20 BC- 50 AD) who was contemporary with Christ, kolasis/kolazo "is for those who will not listen to reason, and it is the best remedy for the foolish (Agr. 40)." (NIDNTTE, ed Moises Silva, p.716).


Philo says "...punishment is the greatest good to foolish persons, great as the remedies of the physician are to those who are ill in the body."

Philo: On Husbandry

Aulus Gellius says that kolasis is given that a man may be corrected, timoria is given that dignity and authority may be vindicated.

"According to Aristotle kolasis “is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer,” where as timoria is inflicted “in the interest of him who inflicts it, that he may obtain satisfaction” (Rhet.1369b13). The same was indicated by Plato in Gorg. 476A-477A, in which kolasis, provided that it is just, is described as good for the person who is chastised, in that he becomes better."

I am not reading your point here. what your quoting doesn't dispute our understanding, especially what buz said.

 

[ClementofA]

I am not reading your point here. what your quoting doesn't dispute our understanding, especially what buz said.

My point is that these remarks, even if true, are irrelevant to the true meaning of kolasis in Matt. 25:46, or anywhere else the word is used in ancient Greek:

"Its interesting to note that in modern greek Kolasis is the equivalent word to hell."

"...Kolasis is also similar to the greek word Kola which means glue, or to be stuck etc."

BTW this statement was wrong:

"In the Koine greek Eternal torment is the word Kolasis..."

The phrase "eternal torment" in Mt.25:46 is two different Greek words, not one. And who translates kolasis as "torment"?

 

[ArmyMatt]

My point is that these remarks, even if true, are irrelevant to the true meaning of kolasis in Matt. 25:46, or anywhere else the word is used in ancient Greek:

"Its interesting to note that in modern greek Kolasis is the equivalent word to hell."

"...Kolasis is also similar to the greek word Kola which means glue, or to be stuck etc."

BTW this statement was wrong:

"In the Koine greek Eternal torment is the word Kolasis..."

The phrase "eternal torment" in Mt.25:46 is two different Greek words, not one. And who translates kolasis as "torment"?

well, buz in my experience is very knowledgeable being in the Greek Archdiocese, Greek himself, or fluent so I think I would trust him.

plus he brought it out as a simple sidebar, so what is your actual point?

 

[ClementofA]

well, buz in my experience is very knowledgeable being in the Greek Archdiocese, Greek himself, or fluent so I think I would trust him.

plus he brought it out as a simple sidebar, so what is your actual point?

Trust him regarding what? His entire post missed the mark.

None of the things you mention are pertinent to the issue, which is related to a knowledge of Koine Greek.

Also, if you don't mind, I'll trust the 10 or so NT lexicons by Koine Greek scholars sitting on my bookshelves above an internet amateur who was obviously wrong.

I'd suggest that blind trust in him on this matter perhaps illustrates a more general problem with "the church"?

 

[buzuxi02]

My point is that these remarks, even if true, are irrelevant to the true meaning of kolasis in Matt. 25:46, or anywhere else the word is used in ancient Greek:

"Its interesting to note that in modern greek Kolasis is the equivalent word to hell."

"...Kolasis is also similar to the greek word Kola which means glue, or to be stuck etc."

BTW this statement was wrong:

"In the Koine greek Eternal torment is the word Kolasis..."

The phrase "eternal torment" in Mt.25:46 is two different Greek words, not one. And who translates kolasis as "torment"?

Im not sure what your disputing exactly. Now as for Matthew 25:46:

46 καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

If you mean you dont like the word translated as torment but more accurately as punishment, thats fine. In 1John 4:18 the KJV translates the word as torment.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Trust him regarding what? His entire post missed the mark.

None of the things you mention are pertinent to the issue, which is related to a knowledge of Koine Greek.

Also, if you don't mind, I'll trust the 10 or so NT lexicons by Koine Greek scholars sitting on my bookshelves above an internet amateur who was obviously wrong.

I'd suggest that blind trust in him on this matter perhaps illustrates a more general problem with "the church"?

not sure I mentioned anything so I am not trying to be pertinent to the issue. I was simply asking a question.

and that's fine for you if you wanna trust them. knowing academia, I could probably find some Greek scholars who would dispute what the ones on your shelf say (and, of course, you could probably find counters).

I don't have blind trust in him, but I certainly am not going to put much stock in someone who comes to an Orthodox forum, speaks as if he has authority, and yet does not know who St Maximos the confessor is or how we know how "Church" is defined.

plus, simply saying that you have volumes of the NT in Greek is the same thing JW's do. probably not the best defense for exegesis.

 

[ClementofA]

I don't have blind trust in him, but I certainly am not going to put much stock in someone who comes to an Orthodox forum, speaks as if he has authority, and yet does not know who St Maximos the confessor is or how we know how "Church" is defined.

Has authority or 'is an authority'?

OTOH my impression is, as a rule, i know very little or nothing about everything.