LCMS and Evolution

[FaithT]

Yeah, that's precisely what he was talking about. Maybe giving it a listen one more time? Third time's the charm!

Tomorrow’s another day <sigh>

 

[FaithT]

Yeah, that's precisely what he was talking about. Maybe giving it a listen one more time? Third time's the charm!

And you’re sure it’s the third podcast, right?

 

[Daniel9v9]

And you’re sure it’s the third podcast, right?

While I think most of his arguments are in the third podcast, it's better to follow his whole line of reasoning and listen to all of his examples throughout. So I'd recommend listening to all three to better understand what he's saying. Because he starts by comparing the Scriptures and the theory of macroevolution, then he goes on to contrast the two and talks about the evidence for and against. Then his final conclusion is in the third interview. In other words, he's not just responding to one thing, but a series of things, and all of those things together explain his reasoning for rejecting the theory of macroevolution and theistic evolution.

 

[FaithT]

While I think most of his arguments are in the third podcast, it's better to follow his whole line of reasoning and listen to all of his examples throughout. So I'd recommend listening to all three to better understand what he's saying. Because he starts by comparing the Scriptures and the theory of macroevolution, then he goes on to contrast the two and talks about the evidence for and against. Then his final conclusion is in the third interview. In other words, he's not just responding to one thing, but a series of things, and all of those things together explain his reasoning for rejecting the theory of macroevolution and theistic evolution.

Sorry, but he’s talking about stuff that’s way over my head and I still didn’t hear anything about the reason the LCMS rejects theistic evolution, though it’s clear he is talking about the rejection of evolution (while admitting that there are some points for evolution).
Anyway I apologize for taking up so much of your time.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Sorry, but he’s talking about stuff that’s way over my head and I still didn’t hear anything about the reason the LCMS rejects theistic evolution, though it’s clear he is talking about the rejection of evolution (while admitting that there are some points for evolution).
Anyway I apologize for taking up so much of your time.

Hey, no problem! Let me see if I can help make the case a bit clearer for you. Here's an overview:

We have two sides: (1) God's Word, and (2) the theory of macroevolution. They say different things about the origin of the world. Christianity assumes that there is a God. Macroevolution theory assumes that there is no God.

God's Word
To use only one example, God's Word says that Adam was the first human on the earth. He was created by God directly and was a real person, not a symbolical figure. The Bible treats Adam as a real person in multiple accounts.

Reference: Genesis 1-5, 1 Chronicles 1:1, Hosea 6:7, Luke 3:23-38, Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Jude 1:14-15. See also our Lord's words in Matthew 19:3-6.


The theory of macroevolution
This is a theory that has an underlying assumption that there is no God. It's a theory that assumes that the universe has the power and will to create itself out of nothing, and to sustain and develop itself with remarkable precision, which I argue is essentially Pantheism. Pantheism is contrary to the Bible and is the belief that the universe itself is "god". This is the assumption that most secular people today operate under.

To use the same example as the above, advocates of macroevolution say that mankind had a slow and gradual development. In other words, according to this belief, Adam was not the first human on earth.


These two views are incompatible
One belief assumes God, and the other assumes no God, or more accurately, it assumes that the universe itself is a kind of "god".


Theistic evolution
This is an attempt to harmonise the two sides, namely, God's Word and the theory of macroevolution. But the problem with this view is that by attempting to harmonise or combine the two, you'll end up with something true to neither, but something new — a third belief. This is what theistic evolution theory is.


Dr. Doyle's argument
What Doyle first emphasised is how theistic evolution theory is not in line with what God's Word says. Then he went on to discuss different claims of people who hold to macroevolution and then challenged those views.


Conclusion
The point is this: Doyle's arguments against the theory of macroevolution are arguments against theistic evolution. When he highlights the problems with macroevolution as a Professor in Biology and as a Christian, he's highlighting the problems with the theory of theistic evolution. As a scientist, his emphasis is on scientific evidence. And what I always stress is that this discussion goes beyond science — it's really a discussion of philosophy and religion, not hard science. That is, for Christians and people who believe in the theory of macroevolution, whether they be Christian, agnostic, atheist or whatever, the origin of the world is a matter of faith to us all. The creation account is an article of faith, and to treat it as anything other than that I think often invites division. Therefore, it's not honest to say that theistic evolution is a fact.

Hope this helps! Blessings.

 

[FaithT]

Hey, no problem! Let me see if I can help make the case a bit clearer for you. Here's an overview:

We have two sides: (1) God's Word, and (2) the theory of macroevolution. They say different things about the origin of the world. Christianity assumes that there is a God. Macroevolution theory assumes that there is no God.

God's Word
To use only one example, God's Word says that Adam was the first human on the earth. He was created by God directly and was a real person, not a symbolical figure. The Bible treats Adam as a real person in multiple accounts.

Reference: Genesis 1-5, 1 Chronicles 1:1, Hosea 6:7, Luke 3:23-38, Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Jude 1:14-15. See also our Lord's words in Matthew 19:3-6.


The theory of macroevolution
This is a theory that has an underlying assumption that there is no God. It's a theory that assumes that the universe has the power and will to create itself out of nothing, and to sustain and develop itself with remarkable precision, which I argue is essentially Pantheism. Pantheism is contrary to the Bible and is the belief that the universe itself is "god". This is the assumption that most secular people today operate under.

To use the same example as the above, advocates of macroevolution say that mankind had a slow and gradual development. In other words, according to this belief, Adam was not the first human on earth.


These two views are incompatible
One belief assumes God, and the other assumes no God, or more accurately, it assumes that the universe itself is a kind of "god".


Theistic evolution
This is an attempt to harmonise the two sides, namely, God's Word and the theory of macroevolution. But the problem with this view is that by attempting to harmonise or combine the two, you'll end up with something true to neither, but something new — a third belief. This is what theistic evolution theory is.


Dr. Doyle's argument
What Doyle first emphasised is how theistic evolution theory is not in line with what God's Word says. Then he went on to discuss different claims of people who hold to macroevolution and then challenged those views.


Conclusion
The point is this: Doyle's arguments against the theory of macroevolution are arguments against theistic evolution. When he highlights the problems with macroevolution as a Professor in Biology and as a Christian, he's highlighting the problems with the theory of theistic evolution. As a scientist, his emphasis is on scientific evidence. And what I always stress is that this discussion goes beyond science — it's really a discussion of philosophy and religion, not hard science. That is, for Christians and people who believe in the theory of macroevolution, whether they be Christian, agnostic, atheist or whatever, the origin of the world is a matter of faith to us all. The creation account is an article of faith, and to treat it as anything other than that I think often invites division. Therefore, it's not honest to say that theistic evolution is a fact.

Hope this helps! Blessings.

Thanks!

 

[FaithT]

Hey, no problem! Let me see if I can help make the case a bit clearer for you. Here's an overview:

We have two sides: (1) God's Word, and (2) the theory of macroevolution. They say different things about the origin of the world. Christianity assumes that there is a God. Macroevolution theory assumes that there is no God.

God's Word
To use only one example, God's Word says that Adam was the first human on the earth. He was created by God directly and was a real person, not a symbolical figure. The Bible treats Adam as a real person in multiple accounts.

Reference: Genesis 1-5, 1 Chronicles 1:1, Hosea 6:7, Luke 3:23-38, Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Jude 1:14-15. See also our Lord's words in Matthew 19:3-6.


The theory of macroevolution
This is a theory that has an underlying assumption that there is no God. It's a theory that assumes that the universe has the power and will to create itself out of nothing, and to sustain and develop itself with remarkable precision, which I argue is essentially Pantheism. Pantheism is contrary to the Bible and is the belief that the universe itself is "god". This is the assumption that most secular people today operate under.

To use the same example as the above, advocates of macroevolution say that mankind had a slow and gradual development. In other words, according to this belief, Adam was not the first human on earth.


These two views are incompatible
One belief assumes God, and the other assumes no God, or more accurately, it assumes that the universe itself is a kind of "god".


Theistic evolution
This is an attempt to harmonise the two sides, namely, God's Word and the theory of macroevolution. But the problem with this view is that by attempting to harmonise or combine the two, you'll end up with something true to neither, but something new — a third belief. This is what theistic evolution theory is.


Dr. Doyle's argument
What Doyle first emphasised is how theistic evolution theory is not in line with what God's Word says. Then he went on to discuss different claims of people who hold to macroevolution and then challenged those views.


Conclusion
The point is this: Doyle's arguments against the theory of macroevolution are arguments against theistic evolution. When he highlights the problems with macroevolution as a Professor in Biology and as a Christian, he's highlighting the problems with the theory of theistic evolution. As a scientist, his emphasis is on scientific evidence. And what I always stress is that this discussion goes beyond science — it's really a discussion of philosophy and religion, not hard science. That is, for Christians and people who believe in the theory of macroevolution, whether they be Christian, agnostic, atheist or whatever, the origin of the world is a matter of faith to us all. The creation account is an article of faith, and to treat it as anything other than that I think often invites division. Therefore, it's not honest to say that theistic evolution is a fact.

Hope this helps! Blessings.

I come from a family that strongly believes in “evolution”. I think that with my going to a church that doesn’t, they might think I’ve lost my mind, though they haven’t voiced it. However, when talking to my husband about this stuff, it sounds to me like he actually believes in microevolution not macroevolution. I don’t think that my family is differentiating between the two.

 

[FaithT]

<<<<<<Theistic evolution
This is an attempt to harmonise the two sides, namely, God's Word and the theory of macroevolution. But the problem with this view is that by attempting to harmonise or combine the two, you'll end up with something true to neither, but something new — a third belief. This is what theistic evolution theory is. >>>>>>

What’s wrong with a third belief, though?

 

[Daniel9v9]

<<<<<<Theistic evolution
This is an attempt to harmonise the two sides, namely, God's Word and the theory of macroevolution. But the problem with this view is that by attempting to harmonise or combine the two, you'll end up with something true to neither, but something new — a third belief. This is what theistic evolution theory is. >>>>>>

What’s wrong with a third belief, though?

To think about it in simple terms, if we mix red and blue, we don't end up with a harmony between the two, but a new colour: purple. Purple is neither red nor blue. If what we want is red, then purple is close, but not the same.

If we mix what God's Word says with another philosophy, we don't get a harmony between the two, but something new: a new belief system. This new belief system is a mix of truth and error.

So, on one hand, we can rejoice in that there is truth to be found in it, but on the other, we want to defend against the error.

We should not apply Hegelian dialectic to God's Word. (cf. Definition of Hegelian dialectic | Dictionary.com)

So, because the theory of macroevolution is essentially Pantheistic (cf. Definition of pantheism | Dictionary.com), it makes no sense to attempt to harmonise it with God's Word, which is what theistic evolution is.

I can add to this that just as our Roman Catholic friends believe in Purgatory, we still rejoice in that they are our brothers and sisters in Christ, even though we reject the doctrine of Purgatory. So although many Christians believe in theistic evolution it doesn't mean that they are not Christian — they are Christian and we rejoice in that! — but as a servant of the Word, I'm bound by confessing what God's Word is saying in simplicity and not go beyond what is written. That's why I could never say, for example, that Adam wasn't a real person when in fact Scriptures plainly treat him as such. The fall into sin is not an analogy of a fall into sin, but it truly happened, which is why our Lord Jesus Christ truly suffered, died, and was raised for us, that we may die to sin and have life in Him.

Blessings!

 

[FaithT]

To think about it in simple terms, if we mix red and blue, we don't end up with a harmony between the two, but a new colour: purple. Purple is neither red nor blue. If what we want is red, then purple is close, but not the same.

If we mix what God's Word says with another philosophy, we don't get a harmony between the two, but something new: a new belief system. This new belief system is a mix of truth and error.

So, on one hand, we can rejoice in that there is truth to be found in it, but on the other, we want to defend against the error.

We should not apply Hegelian dialectic to God's Word. (cf. Definition of Hegelian dialectic | Dictionary.com)

So, because the theory of macroevolution is essentially Pantheistic (cf. Definition of pantheism | Dictionary.com), it makes no sense to attempt to harmonise it with God's Word, which is what theistic evolution is.

I can add to this that just as our Roman Catholic friends believe in Purgatory, we still rejoice in that they are our brothers and sisters in Christ, even though we reject the doctrine of Purgatory. So although many Christians believe in theistic evolution it doesn't mean that they are not Christian — they are Christian and we rejoice in that! — but as a servant of the Word, I'm bound by confessing what God's Word is saying in simplicity and not go beyond what is written. That's why I could never say, for example, that Adam wasn't a real person when in fact Scriptures plainly treat him as such. The fall into sin is not an analogy of a fall into sin, but it truly happened, which is why our Lord Jesus Christ truly suffered, died, and was raised for us, that we may die to sin and have life in Him.

Blessings!

A lot of celebrities must be pantheists because they talk about the universe.

 

[Daniel9v9]

A lot of celebrities must be pantheists because they talk about the universe.

Yes, you're quite right and that's a good observation! Pantheist beliefs can be specially noticed whenever people talk in terms of something being the will of the universe, or if someone blames the universe, or accuse the universe of being cruel or causing them hardship. Or when people talk about the universe balancing good and evil, or even hearing our prayers and helping us. I think this is particularly common among nones — that is, people who may claim to be spiritual but not religious, which I think many celebrities identify as. But even atheists who do not claim to be spiritual essentially treat the universe as God, which is the same idea.

It's very common in our time, but I think extremely few people understand it to be Pantheism or would admit to being Pantheists.

 

[FaithT]

To think about it in simple terms, if we mix red and blue, we don't end up with a harmony between the two, but a new colour: purple. Purple is neither red nor blue. If what we want is red, then purple is close, but not the same.

If we mix what God's Word says with another philosophy, we don't get a harmony between the two, but something new: a new belief system. This new belief system is a mix of truth and error.

So, on one hand, we can rejoice in that there is truth to be found in it, but on the other, we want to defend against the error.

We should not apply Hegelian dialectic to God's Word. (cf. Definition of Hegelian dialectic | Dictionary.com)

So, because the theory of macroevolution is essentially Pantheistic (cf. Definition of pantheism | Dictionary.com), it makes no sense to attempt to harmonise it with God's Word, which is what theistic evolution is.

I can add to this that just as our Roman Catholic friends believe in Purgatory, we still rejoice in that they are our brothers and sisters in Christ, even though we reject the doctrine of Purgatory. So although many Christians believe in theistic evolution it doesn't mean that they are not Christian — they are Christian and we rejoice in that! — but as a servant of the Word, I'm bound by confessing what God's Word is saying in simplicity and not go beyond what is written. That's why I could never say, for example, that Adam wasn't a real person when in fact Scriptures plainly treat him as such. The fall into sin is not an analogy of a fall into sin, but it truly happened, which is why our Lord Jesus Christ truly suffered, died, and was raised for us, that we may die to sin and have life in Him.

Blessings!

With my RCC background I sometimes worry if there really is a Purgatory and if I, as a semi-newly converted Lutheran am missing something.

 

[Daniel9v9]

With my RCC background I sometimes worry if there really is a Purgatory and if I, as a semi-newly converted Lutheran am missing something.

Let God's Word comfort you, for not only is the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory not in the Bible, it's even contrary to the Bible. When our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross cried out: "It is finished!" all sins were atoned for! He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! Not some sins, but all sins. So there are no sins that we need to atone for after we die, and even if there were, we couldn't!

What Christ has done no one can add to, so the notion of Purgatory is false. Furthermore, there's no command that we should know it or engage in practices related to it, such as prayers for the dead in Purgatory. There's no promise that God has made such a place. And there's no example of anyone talking about Purgatory in the Bible or even in the early Church. So there's no command, promise, or example of it in God's Word. Even in a Roman Catholic Dictionary by W.E. Addis and T. Arnold they say: “We doubt if [the Holy Scriptures] contain any explicit and direct reference to [Purgatory].”

So there's no reason to worry about Purgatory (nor Limbo) as it's simply not taught in God's Word but are in fact contrary to it.

 

[FaithT]

Let God's Word comfort you, for not only is the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory not in the Bible, it's even contrary to the Bible. When our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross cried out: "It is finished!" all sins were atoned for! He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! Not some sins, but all sins. So there are no sins that we need to atone for after we die, and even if there were, we couldn't!

What Christ has done no one can add to, so the notion of Purgatory is false. Furthermore, there's no command that we should know it or engage in practices related to it, such as prayers for the dead in Purgatory. There's no promise that God has made such a place. And there's no example of anyone talking about Purgatory in the Bible or even in the early Church. So there's no command, promise, or example of it in God's Word. Even in a Roman Catholic Dictionary by W.E. Addis and T. Arnold they say: “We doubt if [the Holy Scriptures] contain any explicit and direct reference to [Purgatory].”

So there's no reason to worry about Purgatory (nor Limbo) as it's simply not taught in God's Word but are in fact contrary to it.

Good to know! I was brought up buying Mass Cards for the families of friends who’ve died. My family spent money to buy them so they didn’t go to Pugatory. Or something.
And off topic, a priest at my former church insinuated that I wasn’t getting the Eucharist at the Lutheran church. He told me to contact him if I ever wanted to come back to the Eucharist. So, I was still trying to get used to the idea of the Eucharist at the Lutheran church then he said that and so, I’m wondering about that, too.

 

[Valletta]

Let God's Word comfort you, for not only is the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory not in the Bible, it's even contrary to the Bible. When our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross cried out: "It is finished!" all sins were atoned for! He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! Not some sins, but all sins. So there are no sins that we need to atone for after we die, and even if there were, we couldn't!

What Christ has done no one can add to, so the notion of Purgatory is false. Furthermore, there's no command that we should know it or engage in practices related to it, such as prayers for the dead in Purgatory. There's no promise that God has made such a place. And there's no example of anyone talking about Purgatory in the Bible or even in the early Church. So there's no command, promise, or example of it in God's Word. Even in a Roman Catholic Dictionary by W.E. Addis and T. Arnold they say: “We doubt if [the Holy Scriptures] contain any explicit and direct reference to [Purgatory].”

So there's no reason to worry about Purgatory (nor Limbo) as it's simply not taught in God's Word but are in fact contrary to it.

1 Cor 3:11-15
For no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

2 Mc 12:42-46
Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He 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 of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But 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. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

Rev 21:27
... but nothing unclean will enter it (the City of God), nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

 

[Daniel9v9]

1 Cor 3:11-15
For no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

2 Mc 12:42-46
Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He 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 of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But 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. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

Rev 21:27
... but nothing unclean will enter it (the City of God), nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Yes, precisely. There is no Scripture text about Purgatory here, except for one idea from an apocryphal text that can be loosely connected to the concept of it. But even if this was inspired, which it's not, it would be a reading into the text.

Not only are the Scriptures entirely void of any concept of Purgatory, but we find in early Church writings that the Two Ways doctrine was very prominent. I can recommend reading the Didache, for example, that knows nothing of Purgatory. The Roman Catholic understanding of Purgatory is a later development, and as already pointed out, even the Catholic Dictionary admits that there are no clear teachings on Purgatory in the Scriptures. Meaning, it's entirely from tradition. And this is really the heart of the issue: We value tradition, but we let God's Word govern it. We reject the concept of Holy Tradition. God promises to speak with us through His Word, and anything that goes beyond that or is contrary to that is not God's Word.

 

[Valletta]

Yes, precisely. There is no Scripture text about Purgatory here, except for one idea from an apocryphal text that can be loosely connected to the concept of it. But even if this was inspired, which it's not, it would be a reading into the text.

Not only are the Scriptures entirely void of any concept of Purgatory, but we find in early Church writings that the Two Ways doctrine was very prominent. I can recommend reading the Didache, for example, that knows nothing of Purgatory. The Roman Catholic understanding of Purgatory is a later development, and as already pointed out, even the Catholic Dictionary admits that there are no clear teachings on Purgatory in the Scriptures. Meaning, it's entirely from tradition. And this is really the heart of the issue: We value tradition, but we let God's Word govern it. We reject the concept of Holy Tradition. God promises to speak with us through His Word, and anything that goes beyond that or is contrary to that is not God's Word.

The OT times custom of Jews praying for the dead is right there, whether Luther rejected that book of the Bible as God-breathed or not. The concept of purgatory was there before the NT text was written. Matthew's “whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” implies purgatory as well.

 

[Daniel9v9]

The OT times custom of Jews praying for the dead is right there, whether Luther rejected that book of the Bible as God-breathed or not. The concept of purgatory was there before the NT text was written. Matthew's “whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” implies purgatory as well.

It's not as simplistic as Luther rejecting some books. It's about (1) who we claim our authority in doctrine is, and (2) hermeneutics.

First of all, even if the deuterocanonical books were inspired, it's not possible to draw the entire doctrine of Purgatory and everything that is attached to that from them (cf. Bellarmine's four parts of the underworld, Gregory pf Valentina's hierarchy, the concept of Mass for the dead etc). It would be dishonest to claim otherwise. This is to say that the doctrine of Purgatory comes from Holy Tradition, not Scriptures. On the contrary, God's Word overwhelmingly reveals to us the Two Ways, the way of damnation and the way of salvation. This is binary, and when Christ saves us, He saves us fully, not in part. The thief on the cross is a beautiful example of this, or consider our Lord's parable of Lazarus.

So, if we claim that God speaks to us through His Word, we are right to reject the doctrine of Purgatory. But if we say that God speaks to us through the Roman Catholic Church, which includes the Bible, the Pope, councils and what is considered Holy Tradition, then it is possible to argue for Purgatory. While we value tradition, we argue that God speaks to us by His Word alone. So tradition is always governed by His Word, and His Word knows nothing of Purgatory. If it did, then, once again, this would be made clear in the Catholic Dictionary, for example. What W.E. Addis and T. Arnold appeal to is Holy Tradition and not the Scriptures.

One of the rules for sound exegesis is that unclear passages should be understood in light of clear passages. For example, if we ever only heard Jesus' words in Luke 14:26, we might draw the conclusion that He encourages us to hate our family. But we know from both the immediate context and the broader context that this is not so, for Christ is the God of love. Regarding Purgatory, then, if everything we had of God's Word was 2 Maccabees 12:42-46, perhaps we could draw from it some concept of Purgatory, but even this would be speculation because the idea is not explicit. But given everything else Scripture says about salvation and how we are made pure, we can know that Purgatory is entirely foreign to the Scriptures. It may perhaps be possible to read it into Scripture in some vague sense, as with anything, but that would be to impose something on it that does not belong.

Purgatory is a doctrine that fits in the Roman Catholic system and it's a logical part of it, but it comes out of tradition — it's not by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has spoken through His Word, and this knows nothing of Purgatory.

We do not nor cannot atone for our own sins. It is for this exact reason that God promised us a Saviour already after the fall. Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and we resolve to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified.

There's a lot I can say about this, but if we restrain ourselves to only the Bible, even with the Apocrypha, the burden is not on me to prove Purgatory, because God's Word is overwhelmingly clear on heaven and hell and it does not know of any other realm such as Purgatory or Limbo.

 

[Valletta]

It's not as simplistic as Luther rejecting some books. It's about (1) who we claim our authority in doctrine is, and (2) hermeneutics.

First of all, even if the deuterocanonical books were inspired, it's not possible to draw the entire doctrine of Purgatory and everything that is attached to that from them (cf. Bellarmine's four parts of the underworld, Gregory pf Valentina's hierarchy, the concept of Mass for the dead etc). It would be dishonest to claim otherwise. This is to say that the doctrine of Purgatory comes from Holy Tradition, not Scriptures. On the contrary, God's Word overwhelmingly reveals to us the Two Ways, the way of damnation and the way of salvation. This is binary, and when Christ saves us, He saves us fully, not in part. The thief on the cross is a beautiful example of this, or consider our Lord's parable of Lazarus.

So, if we claim that God speaks to us through His Word, we are right to reject the doctrine of Purgatory. But if we say that God speaks to us through the Roman Catholic Church, which includes the Bible, the Pope, councils and what is considered Holy Tradition, then it is possible to argue for Purgatory. While we value tradition, we argue that God speaks to us by His Word alone. So tradition is always governed by His Word, and His Word knows nothing of Purgatory. If it did, then, once again, this would be made clear in the Catholic Dictionary, for example. What W.E. Addis and T. Arnold appeal to is Holy Tradition and not the Scriptures.

One of the rules for sound exegesis is that unclear passages should be understood in light of clear passages. For example, if we ever only heard Jesus' words in Luke 14:26, we might draw the conclusion that He encourages us to hate our family. But we know from both the immediate context and the broader context that this is not so, for Christ is the God of love. Regarding Purgatory, then, if everything we had of God's Word was 2 Maccabees 12:42-46, perhaps we could draw from it some concept of Purgatory, but even this would be speculation because the idea is not explicit. But given everything else Scripture says about salvation and how we are made pure, we can know that Purgatory is entirely foreign to the Scriptures. It may perhaps be possible to read it into Scripture in some vague sense, as with anything, but that would be to impose something on it that does not belong.

Purgatory is a doctrine that fits in the Roman Catholic system and it's a logical part of it, but it comes out of tradition — it's not by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has spoken through His Word, and this knows nothing of Purgatory.

We do not nor cannot atone for our own sins. It is for this exact reason that God promised us a Saviour already after the fall. Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and we resolve to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified.

There's a lot I can say about this, but if we restrain ourselves to only the Bible, even with the Apocrypha, the burden is not on me to prove Purgatory, because God's Word is overwhelmingly clear on heaven and hell and it does not know of any other realm such as Purgatory or Limbo.

Catholics believe the Word of God whether oral or written, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church pre-dated the New Testament. While belief in the understanding of the Holy Trinity, purgatory, etc. are not specifically spelled out in the Bible, they are supported by the Bible. The Catholic Church never intended the 73 books of the Bible to be a Catechism or Encyclopedia containing all knowledge of God, it is a collection of text that the Church deemed was God-breathed.

 

[FaithT]

Good to know! I was brought up buying Mass Cards for the families of friends who’ve died. My family spent money to buy them so they didn’t go to Pugatory. Or something.
And off topic, a priest at my former church insinuated that I wasn’t getting the Eucharist at the Lutheran church. He told me to contact him if I ever wanted to come back to the Eucharist. So, I was still trying to get used to the idea of the Eucharist at the Lutheran church then he said that and so, I’m wondering about that, too.

?????