Purgatory - thoughts?

[Albion]

I think you just don't want to admit there is and are shutting out the evidence for convincing you, because you love your doctrine. I can't force you in accepting them but to deny that the Bible has no scriptural proof and at the same time the logical reasoning behind an intermediate state before heaven and hell is just out of your own bias now.

[quote Matt 12:32 already tells you that the unforgivable sin can't be forgiven in this life or the next,

implying that other sins are forgiven after.

It does not imply that. Neither does Maccabees. The Matthew passage simply says that the unforgivable sin will not be forgiven anywhere! Not here and not anywhere else we might ask about either.

More to the point, Purgatory is not a state or place in which sins ARE forgiven. He is right about Purgatory being an invention without Scriptural backing. You are speculating on the logic of there being some sort of intermediate state in which a second chance at salvation is possible, but the fact remains that "Purgatory" has been defined by the people who invented it, and their definition says that it exists for a number of purposes but forgiving sins is not one of them.

If, therefore, there were some place such as that which you are surmising must exist in the afterlife, it would not be Purgatory.

 

[Cis.jd]

It does not imply that. Neither does Maccabees. The Matthew passage simply says that the unforgivable sin will not be forgiven anywhere! Not here and not anywhere else we might ask about either.

Yes, i think i said that.

More to the point, Purgatory is not a state or place in which sins ARE forgiven. He is right about Purgatory being an invention without Scriptural backing. You are speculating on the logic of there being some sort of intermediate state in which a second chance at salvation is possible, but the fact remains that "Purgatory" has been defined by the people who invented it, and their definition says that it exists for a number of purposes but forgiving sins is not one of them.

If, therefore, there were some place such as that which you are surmising must exist in the afterlife, it would not be Purgatory.

Purgatory is cleaning the soul before entering heaven right? You really think that every catholic thinks that means we are getting a bath before going into heaven? Maybe "forgiving" isn't the word i should have used, but more of "justified".

The problem with most protestants is that they think "purified" is universally understood by all catholics to be something like taking a bath before entering heaven. it's not, it's simply payment of your debts. Hence the Matt 5:25 being one of the verses used in Catholic apologetic sources for this verse.

St. Augustine:
As also, after the resurrection, there will be some of the dead to whom, after they have endured the pains proper to the spirits of the dead, mercy shall be accorded, and acquittal from the punishment of the eternal fire. For were there not some whose sins, though not remitted in this life, shall be remitted in that which is to come, it could not be truly said, “They shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in that which is to come.

 

[Justified112]

To me it's natural that people pray for those close to them who died. That happens even in today's funerals. It by no means says that God will take those prayers. It only says that we don't know what their ending is that we pray for them. We have to leave that decision to God whether they are finally saved.

I myself doubt that God will take prayers from those who died as the wicked. He knows before hand who they are, and the chances of repentance end with one's physical death, which others may do nothing about.

Praying for the dead is a pointless act. There are no second chances after death. If you die without Jesus, no amount of prayer will change your eternal future. The ONLY way to Heaven is by faith in Jesus Christ. Absent that, all who die simply go to Hell and prayer will not change that outcome.

 

[Justified112]

I think you just don't want to admit there is and are shutting out the evidence for convincing you, because you love your doctrine. I can't force you in accepting them but to deny that the Bible has no scriptural proof and at the same time the logical reasoning behind an intermediate state before heaven and hell is just out of your own bias now.

Matt 12:32 already tells you that the unforgivable sin can't be forgiven in this life or the next,

implying that other sins are forgiven after. You would understand this if you read Maccabees.

The book of Maccabees is not the word of God. The Bible itself has no evidence of purgatory. In fact, Purgatory is a post biblical doctrine that some have tried to retroactively read into the Bible. The Bible (which does not include Maccabees) teaches either Heaven or Hell.

The unpardonable sin is unforgivable because it is rooted in a refual to repent. The New Treasury of Scripture knowledge explains it this way:

"The sin against the Holy Spirit unpardonable because of its own nature: It consists in the rejection of way of salvation by Christ, in opposition to the fullest evidence and the only evidence that shall be given (Heb. 2: 3)

The sin against the Holy Spirit consists in continual impenitence and unbelief. It is not an act, but habit. It is the calm, determined, and persevering rejection of Jesus Christ as the Savior of man, in opposition to all the testimony of His word and Spirit. Consequently, its nature is incapable of forgiveness. No one who is afraid of having committed this sin has done so; for its very nature is to have no fear on that account. It is committed and continued in delightedly and knowingly, where it is committed at al. Fear is not compatible with its nature."

So unforgivable sin is part of a lifestyle and habitual practice of rebellion; it is not a single act. And since it is rooted in unbelief, it is not something a Christian could commit. A person committing that on going state of habitual rebellion would go to Hell, not some mythical purgatory.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think you just don't want to admit there is and are shutting out the evidence for convincing you, because you love your doctrine. I can't force you in accepting them but to deny that the Bible has no scriptural proof and at the same time the logical reasoning behind an intermediate state before heaven and hell is just out of your own bias now.

Matt 12:32 already tells you that the unforgivable sin can't be forgiven in this life or the next,

implying that other sins are forgiven after. You would understand this if you read Maccabees.

Ok let’s examine this idea. Let’s look at Matthew 12:32.

“He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭12:30-32‬

Where does Jesus say there is forgiveness in the age to come? How can someone reach this conclusion according to the context here? The RCC says well because Jesus said blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come then THIS MUST MEAN THERE IS FORGIVENESS IN THE AGE TO COME. Now is that what Jesus actually said? No it’s what He said that is an assumption. The message Jesus was in fact trying to convey is that blasphemy against the Spirit will never be forgiven period. This is very clear in the parallel passages in Luke 12:10.

“but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭12:9-10‬

Notice in Luke 12:10 there is no mention of the age to come. The only point Jesus is making is that blasphemy against the Spirit will never be forgiven. Like I said you cannot reach the conclusion of the existence of purgatory without making assumptions that are not supported in the text. The problem with the doctrine of purgatory is that it’s not taught a being a possibility but instead it is taught as being a fact. If the RCC were teaching purgatory is a possibility then I could understand that but there is no conclusive evidence that it is a fact. I’m going to stop here on this point and continue in another post. I don’t like to make my posts too long with too many points. It’s best to keep each point separated so they don’t get lost in the discussion and can be addressed one at a time.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think you just don't want to admit there is and are shutting out the evidence for convincing you, because you love your doctrine. I can't force you in accepting them but to deny that the Bible has no scriptural proof and at the same time the logical reasoning behind an intermediate state before heaven and hell is just out of your own bias now.

Matt 12:32 already tells you that the unforgivable sin can't be forgiven in this life or the next,

implying that other sins are forgiven after. You would understand this if you read Maccabees.

Ok now let’s examine 2 Maccabees 12:38-46

38 So Judas having gathered together his army, came into the city Odollam: and when the seventh day came, they purified themselves according to the custom, and kept the sabbath in the place.

39 And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers.

40 And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain.

41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden.

42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain.

43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,

44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)

45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.

46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

In verses 44-46 we see that Judas prayed for the dead in hopes that they would be resurrected. He considered that the men who died were godly and that God would grant them grace that they may be loosed from sin. This is all speculation. Nothing here actually says that God will forgive anyone for sins after death. So how does the RCC reach this conclusion? Again by making assumptions that are not specifically mentioned in the scriptures.

 

[Albion]

Purgatory is cleaning the soul before entering heaven right?

The word literally means purging, and the method is punishment for sins committed in this life. The church has contended that the punishment is similar to that experienced by souls in hell...except that it is not eternal (unlike hell).

You really think that every catholic thinks that means we are getting a bath before going into heaven?

There is no telling what "every catholic" thinks about this or anything else, but I agree that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of Purgatory among Catholics, that there is some interest in the church about junking it altogether, and a lot of different theories among people generally.

That said, it looks like the discussion is beginning to wander. My point has been, all along, that Purgatory--according to the church that created the doctrine and the only one that believes in it--is not a place or state in which the soul gets a second chance to qualify for salvation. All the souls in Purgatory are, according to the RCC, already saved and bound for heaven.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think you just don't want to admit there is and are shutting out the evidence for convincing you, because you love your doctrine. I can't force you in accepting them but to deny that the Bible has no scriptural proof and at the same time the logical reasoning behind an intermediate state before heaven and hell is just out of your own bias now.

Matt 12:32 already tells you that the unforgivable sin can't be forgiven in this life or the next,

implying that other sins are forgiven after. You would understand this if you read Maccabees.

How about the RCC favorite 1 Corinthians 3:15? Let’s examine that one to see if anything actually supports purgatory or if the only way to reach the conclusion of purgatory is by making another assumption. Before we just jump straight to verse 15 let’s make this clear that in verses 12-15 Paul is using an illustration to support his discussion in verses 1-11. So we need to expamine the full context of what Paul is discussing and not just read verse 15 all by itself.

“And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3:1-15‬

Paul is writing to the Corinthians explaining to them that both he and Apollos were merely servants of God and that it is God Himself that has caused them to believe and grow in their faith thru them. Both Paul and Apollos will receive rewards in heaven according to their works of building on the foundation of Christ. This is highlighted because this is a significant piece of the message. The works Paul is mentioning is not sin. Sin is transgression against God not building on the foundation of Christ. A person cannot build on the foundation of Christ with sin. Now in verse 12 Paul begins his illustration with the words

“Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3:12-13‬

The fire will test the quality of each man’s work. The fire is not testing or purifying the builder himself.

“If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3:14‬

If any man’s work which he has built on the foundation of Christ remains he will receive a reward. Again Paul is referring to work that is built on the foundation of Christ which cannot be sin. Sin does not build on the foundation of Christ.

“If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3:15‬

If any man’s work built on the foundation of Christ is burned up (having no quality or value) the builder will suffer loss (loss of rewards in heaven) but he himself will be saved so as thru fire. So what does it means the builder will be saved “so yet as thru fire”?

From the context of the scriptures we don’t really know. It is not defined in the scriptures or the context. To say this is referring to purgatory is a huge error because there is absolutely nothing in this entire chapter that mentions anything about sin which is what purgatory is all about according to the catechism. The works built upon the foundation of Christ that survive the test of fire are works that are of quality and of value. These works produced fruit. The works that did not survive the test of fire were not of quality or value and did not produce fruit. Either way the builder will be saved because he was working for God. His salvation is not dependent upon his success but his rewards in heaven are dependent upon his success. The RCC claim that this is referring to purgatory is not just an assumption it’s a complete error because the works described here cannot be referred to as sin. Sin can in no way be considered as works done in building on the foundation of Christ.

 

[Cis.jd]

How about the RCC favorite 1 Corinthians 3:15? Let’s examine that one to see if anything actually supports purgatory or if the only way to reach the conclusion of purgatory is by making another assumption. Before we just jump straight to verse 15 let’s make this clear that in verses 12-15 Paul is using an illustration to support his discussion in verses 1-11. So we need to expamine the full context of what Paul is discussing and not just read verse 15 all by itself.

“And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3:1-15‬

Paul is writing to the Corinthians explaining to them that both he and Apollos were merely servants of God and that it is God Himself that has caused them to believe and grow in their faith thru them. Both Paul and Apollos will receive rewards in heaven according to their works of building on the foundation of Christ. This is highlighted because this is a significant piece of the message. The works Paul is mentioning is not sin. Sin is transgression against God not building on the foundation of Christ. A person cannot build on the foundation of Christ with sin. Now in verse 12 Paul begins his illustration with the words

“Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3:12-13‬

The fire will test the quality of each man’s work. The fire is not testing or purifying the builder himself.

“If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3:14‬

If any man’s work which he has built on the foundation of Christ remains he will receive a reward. Again Paul is referring to work that is built on the foundation of Christ which cannot be sin. Sin does not build on the foundation of Christ.

“If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3:15‬

If any man’s work built on the foundation of Christ is burned up (having no quality or value) the builder will suffer loss (loss of rewards in heaven) but he himself will be saved so as thru fire. So what does it means the builder will be saved “so yet as thru fire”?

From the context of the scriptures we don’t really know. It is not defined in the scriptures or the context. To say this is referring to purgatory is a huge error because there is absolutely nothing in this entire chapter that mentions anything about sin which is what purgatory is all about according to the catechism. The works built upon the foundation of Christ that survive the test of fire are works that are of quality and of value. These works produced fruit. The works that did not survive the test of fire were not of quality or value and did not produce fruit. Either way the builder will be saved because he was working for God. His salvation is not dependent upon his success but his rewards in heaven are dependent upon his success. The RCC claim that this is referring to purgatory is not just an assumption it’s a complete error because the works described here cannot be referred to as sin. Sin can in no way be considered as works done in building on the foundation of Christ.

We use a lot of verses for Purgatory, not just the verses that have fire and purification for it. Please don't cherry pick random verses and automatically claim that speaks the entire doctrine, it doesn't. You can even look at catholic answers and see the same verses I gave.
As I said before, the definition of purgatory isn't completely doctrine that every catholic views Purgatory as an afterlife bath house. People just draw that, much more protestants, due to the wording. There are catholics like myself who lean more towards the concept of the Orthodoxy, but that doesn't mean we reject the catholic doctrine of it we just don't literalize the "fire" or "purification".

Hell has it's definition in mostly every church but not everybody cosigns the popular concepts of it. Some people take the concept such as the likes of Dante's inferno, while some view hell to be more emotional related in where the disconnection from God causes the soul to experience a form of pain internally, while others believe that the soul just simply ceases to exists (perishes, dies).

so why are protestants not thinking the same with Purgatory or just the intermediate state in general?
here is another example of pov whether you want to define it as purging or unjustified sins being justified.. it's all a clean up either way.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think you just don't want to admit there is and are shutting out the evidence for convincing you, because you love your doctrine. I can't force you in accepting them but to deny that the Bible has no scriptural proof and at the same time the logical reasoning behind an intermediate state before heaven and hell is just out of your own bias now.

Matt 12:32 already tells you that the unforgivable sin can't be forgiven in this life or the next,

implying that other sins are forgiven after. You would understand this if you read Maccabees.

Now I must ask how can the doctrine of purgatory not contradict Colossians 1:22?

Colossians 1:22

22 in the body of his flesh through the death, to present you holy, and unblemished, and unblameable before himself,

The words holy, unblemished, and unblameable mean without a single fault, or blemish, with no spot, having no blame, that cannot be called into account, unaccused, unreprovable, irreproachable.

Before you quote verse 23 let’s examine that as well.

Colossians 1:23

23 if also ye remain in the faith, being founded and settled, and not moved away from the hope of the good news, which ye heard, which was preached in all the creation that [is] under the heaven, of which I became – I Paul – a ministrant.

Paul gives the contingency if we remain steadfast founded and settled in our faith not moved away from the hope of the gospel. He does not say this is contingent upon living a sinless life. 1 John 1:9 says if we confess our sins He is faithful to forgive us and to cleanse us of all righteousness. John does not say we are not forgiven if we do not confess our sins. Keep in mind Colossians is an epistle. Paul was not present with these people and had no way of knowing whether they had unconfessed sins or not but he is fully confident to say if they remain in their faith they are presently Holy, blameless, and unblemished. So how does purgatory not contradict this scripture?

 

[BNR32FAN]

We use a lot of verses for Purgatory, not just the verses that have fire and purification for it. Please don't cherry pick random verses and automatically claim that speaks the entire doctrine, it doesn't. You can even look at catholic answers and see the same verses I gave.
As I said before, the definition of purgatory isn't completely doctrine that every catholic views Purgatory as an afterlife bath house. People just draw that, much more protestants, due to the wording. There are catholics like myself who lean more towards the concept of the Orthodoxy, but that doesn't mean we reject the catholic doctrine of it we just don't literalize the "fire" or "purification".

Hell has it's definition in mostly every church but not everybody cosigns the popular concepts of it. Some people take the concept such as the likes of Dante's inferno, while some view hell to be more emotional related in where the disconnection from God causes the soul to experience a form of pain internally, while others believe that the soul just simply ceases to exists (perishes, dies).

so why are protestants not thinking the same with Purgatory or just the intermediate state in general?
here is another example of pov whether you want to define it as purging or unjustified sins being justified.. it's all a clean up either way.

I’m not cherry picking I’m addressing each passage one at a time. Like I said if the RCC considered and taught purgatory simply as a possibility I could understand that but they have made it into a doctrine of undoubtedly being a real place of punishment, payment, purification, and atonement of sin. That is the problem with the doctrine because it’s being taught as fact and the scriptures do not give enough conclusive evidence to support it being a fact.

 

[Albion]

...not to mention all the additional facts that the church has concocted in order to explain the workings of Purgatory.

For example: Indulgences, the Treasury of Merit, and punishment for having committed mortal sins at some time in ones life even though they have been forgiven (in the sacrament of Penance/Confession/Reconciliation).

Even if there were Scriptural proof of the existence of Purgatory -- and you are correct that there isn't -- there is nothing about these other parts of the doctrine of Purgatory.

 

[Cis.jd]

Now I must ask how can the doctrine of purgatory not contradict Colossians 1:22?

Colossians 1:22

22 in the body of his flesh through the death, to present you holy, and unblemished, and unblameable before himself,

The words holy, unblemished, and unblameable mean without a single fault, or blemish, with no spot, having no blame, that cannot be called into account, unaccused, unreprovable, irreproachable.

Before you quote verse 23 let’s examine that as well.

Colossians 1:23

23 if also ye remain in the faith, being founded and settled, and not moved away from the hope of the good news, which ye heard, which was preached in all the creation that [is] under the heaven, of which I became – I Paul – a ministrant.

Paul gives the contingency if we remain steadfast founded and settled in our faith not moved away from the hope of the gospel. He does not say this is contingent upon living a sinless life. 1 John 1:9 says if we confess our sins He is faithful to forgive us and to cleanse us of all righteousness. John does not say we are not forgiven if we do not confess our sins. Keep in mind Colossians is an epistle. Paul was not present with these people and had no way of knowing whether they had unconfessed sins or not but he is fully confident to say if they remain in their faith they are presently Holy, blameless, and unblemished. So how does purgatory not contradict this scripture?

Why do these verses conflict purgatory? Pope John Paul II wrote a letter about this.
check this link out so i don't need to reply with tl;dr

 

[Cis.jd]

The book of Maccabees is not the word of God. The Bible itself has no evidence of purgatory. In fact, Purgatory is a post biblical doctrine that some have tried to retroactively read into the Bible. The Bible (which does not include Maccabees) teaches either Heaven or Hell..

The book of Maccabees is still considered historical, even to the Jews. It's just as received to them as the Talmud (which isn't canon either) What do you think Hanukkah is all about? What i find funny is how you go out about "post biblical doctrines", when your denomination and it's doctrines birthed after the 1600's.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why do these verses conflict purgatory? Pope John Paul II wrote a letter about this.
check this link out so i don't need to reply with tl;dr

I don’t see what the link you’ve posted has to do with this discussion. Can you perhaps paste which part of his statements you believe are relevant to this discussion? Allow me to compare the doctrine of purgatory according to the catechism to Colossians 1:22 so that you might see my point.

The catechism

1031. "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. [Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547): 1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000.] The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire. [Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.] As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come. [St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. Mt 12:32-36.]"


1472. "To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the 'eternal punishment' of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the 'temporal punishment' of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain. [Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1712-1713; (1563): 1820.]"

Colossians 1:21-22

And you once being alienated, and enemies in the mind, in the evil works, yet now did he reconcile, in the body of his flesh through the death, to present you holy, and unblemished, and unblameable before himself,

So we have a contradiction here. The catechism states “every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory while Colossians 1:22 clearly says we are unblemished (ámōmos G299 without blemish as a sacrifice without spot or blemish morally: without blemish, faultless, unblameable). The catechism implies that we are not without blemish and must be purified of “unhealthy attachments” of sin.

 

[Cis.jd]

I don’t see what the link you’ve posted has to do with this discussion. Can you perhaps paste which part of his statements you believe are relevant to this discussion? Allow me to compare the doctrine of purgatory according to the catechism to Colossians 1:22 so that you might see my point.

Read the link, it speaks about the views in regards to Colossians. As long as purgatory was and as long as Colossians was known, you'd think that it's verses went out unnoticed? It explains the whole context of Colossians. Take the time to read it before shoot commenting about it not being relevant.

1031. "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. [Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547): 1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000.] The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire. [Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.] As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come. [St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. Mt 12:32-36.]"


1472. "To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the 'eternal punishment' of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the 'temporal punishment' of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain. [Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1712-1713; (1563): 1820.]"

Colossians 1:21-22

And you once being alienated, and enemies in the mind, in the evil works, yet now did he reconcile, in the body of his flesh through the death, to present you holy, and unblemished, and unblameable before himself,

So we have a contradiction here. The catechism states “every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory while Colossians 1:22 clearly says we are unblemished (ámōmos G299 without blemish as a sacrifice without spot or blemish morally: without blemish, faultless, unblameable). The catechism implies that we are not without blemish and must be purified of “unhealthy attachments” of sin.

Are you currently unblemished, do you have no sin right now in your life?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Read the link, it speaks about the views in regards to Colossians. As long as purgatory was and as long as Colossians was known, you'd think that it's verses went out unnoticed? It explains the whole context of Colossians. Take the time to read it before shoot commenting about it not being relevant.



Are you currently unblemished, do you have no sin right now in your life?

Are you referring to the very last portion of the article where some 13th century writer named St Thomas gives his theology concerning atonement and the sacraments? He doesn’t even address Colossians 1:22 or say a single word about purgatory. Did you read the article yourself? It’s mostly a discussion refuting Calvinism. Why would I care about what a 13th century Roman Catholic believed concerning the scriptures? He’s not even pre schism. His theology does not reflect the teachings of the early church fathers.

And in answer to your question yes I am in fact without blemish according to Colossians 1:22. I am standing firm in my faith and in the hope of the gospel taught by the apostles. Do you think the Colossians lived without sin when Paul wrote his epistle to the Colossians?

 

[Cis.jd]

Are you referring to the very last portion of the article where some 13th century writer named St Thomas gives his theology concerning atonement and the sacraments? He doesn’t even address Colossians 1:22 or say a single word about purgatory. Did you read the article yourself? It’s mostly a discussion refuting Calvinism. Why would I care about what a 13th century Roman Catholic believed concerning the scriptures? He’s not even pre schism. His theology does not reflect the teachings of the early church fathers.

You didn't really read it because the title has Colossians 1:24 as the topic, so obviously this is about your views on 1:22-23 being some refutation on purgatory.

Col 1:24 “Now I rejoice in my suffering for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church”. (find another translation too if you want)

I would like to see how you fit this verse in the context you are proposing of Col 1:22-23, before giving you my actual response to your interpretation of Col 1:22.

And in answer to your question yes I am in fact without blemish according to Colossians 1:22. I am standing firm in my faith and in the hope of the gospel taught by the apostles. Do you think the Colossians lived without sin when Paul wrote his epistle to the Colossians?

So you have no sin, and you are confident that from today till the day you die you are sinless, refer to Colossians 1:24 to complete the entire message of that context.

As for your question, no i don't think the Colossians lived without any sin.

 

[david tyler]

DELETED

 

[Tutorman]

I particularly like the way the great C.S Lewis said about purgatory:

Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, "It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy."? Should we not reply, "With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first." "It may hurt, you know"--"Even so, sir."

I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. But I don't think suffering is the purpose of the purgation. I can well believe that people neither much worse nor much better than I will suffer less than I or more. "No nonsense about merit." The treatment given will be the one required, whether it hurts little or much.

My favourite image on this matter comes from the dentist's chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am "coming round", a voice will say, "Rinse your mouth out with this." This will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of this may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure. But More and Fisher shall not persuade me that it will be disgusting and unhallowed.​

Source

​