Purgatory!

[Albion]

Shocker, Catholics are Christians.

It looks like the comment may not have meant what you took it to mean. Of course, it wasn't helped by being worded in an awkward way and suffered from a typo.

So, enlighten me, as you are called to as a Christian, defending the hope that is in you..

We know that it's common to put it that way when meaning "BECAUSE you are called..."

 

[Shocker]

It looks like you may have misread his meaning (even though it was worded in an awkward way and suffered from a typo).



"As you are called to (be) a Christian...." doesn't seem to me to mean "IF you are called" or, OTOH, "you are BEING called...."

It's just the way that a lot of people say "BECAUSE you (like all of us) are called..." Yes, we've been called by Our Lord; I'm sure we can all agree to that.

"So, enlighten me, as you are called to (do) as a Christian, defending the hope that is in you.."

As Christians we are called to give an account of the hope that is in us. I meant exactly what I said. I added the "do" for clarity to what I just said.

We are called to enlighten our brethren to the hope that is in us.


1Pe_3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

 

[Erose]

I was hoping the purgatory position could be directly supported by scripture.. You know, the source of all truth, the Bible..

See my previous post.

Not sure where you are going here..

Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine that comes from Scripture.

"Someone who acts in place of" Something the pope is not capable of, or any human for that matter.

All saints are called to preach the Gospel..

He isn't? Are we not all called to represent Christ here on earth? When we feed the poor or preach the Good News to the ignorant are we not acting in the place of Christ? Are we not acting in the Person of Christ or what we call Persona Christi? When pastors stand in front of a congregation and preach to that congregation the Word of God, are they not acting in the place of Christ?

Is the word Catholic in the Bible? No.

But Christian is..

Act_11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

So are you calling me a non-Christian?

 

[Shocker]

See my previous post.

I read it.. I think you are reaching, and didn't provide me with an objective understanding of purgatory mentioned in scripture. I do however understand your premise given those scriptures, I just don't see the purgatory doctrine hidden anywhere in there..

Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine that comes from Scripture.

I highly doubt that.. There is only one Written Word.. The source by which all truth comes from, Jesus Christ, who is God.

If it isn't scripture, I don't honestly care what it says... Unless it supports and is supported by scripture..

He isn't? Are we not all called to represent Christ here on earth? When we feed the poor or preach the Good News to the ignorant are we not acting in the place of Christ? Are we not acting in the Person of Christ or what we call Persona Christi? When pastors stand in front of a congregation and preach to that congregation the Word of God, are they not acting in the place of Christ?

What I am saying for example is that the pope, who calls himself a "vicar" and adorns himself in expensive attire and precious Jewels and gold crosses doesn't represent the image of the meek and lowly Christ Jesus of the Bible.

The pope is just as lost as any of us are, he has no spiritual authority over anyone, he is a broken sinner just as dependent on Christs precious blood as we are..

So are you calling me a non-Christian?

Ill call you a catholic if you like, but Id prefer to call you what you are, which is a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ.

 

[Erose]

I read it.. I think you are reaching, and didn't provide me with an objective understanding of purgatory mentioned in scripture. I do however understand your premise given those scriptures, I just don't see the purgatory doctrine hidden anywhere in there..

I understand your position. One of the issues that all of us have of various faith traditions is that we don't understand many passages the same way for we always are understanding Scripture through the lens of our faith tradition. It is just the way it is.

I highly doubt that.. There is only one Written Word.. The source by which all truth comes from, Jesus Christ, who is God.

If it isn't scripture, I don't honestly care what it says... Unless it supports and is supported by scripture..

Jesus Christ is not a book. He is a man who is also God. I follow the God-man, who started a Church, and whose vicars (bishops) through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote 27 inspired writings; and whose vicars (bishops) told us which books were inspired; and this series of inspired writings should be revered and used for our edification.

My point being is that the Bible no where claims that it is the only source of divine revelation. It isn't written in a way that one would be able to say that it's intent was to be the sum of all divine revelation. Thus believing that Scripture is the only source of divine revelation is either a man-devised doctrine or a product of one's faith tradition, which would mean that the entire basis of one's theology has to be built upon a traditional doctrine, and not a biblical one.

What I am saying for example is that the pope, who calls himself a "vicar" and adorns himself in expensive attire and precious Jewels and gold crosses doesn't represent the image of the meek and lowly Christ Jesus of the Bible.

ok. That can be a legitimate argument, but it is not your original one.

The pope is just as lost as any of us are, he has no spiritual authority over anyone, he is a broken sinner just as dependent on Christs precious blood as we are..

True, and I don't know many popes who have claimed otherwise. Pope John Paul II went to confession daily as pope. Neither Benedict nor Francis have pretended to be anything more than human, and they also most probably go to confession daily. The doctrine of papal infallibility has nothing to do with the condition of their souls. We have had some pretty bad popes over the centuries, and we will probably have a few more before Christ comes again, if he tarries more than a few centuries.

I'll call you a catholic if you like, but Id prefer to call you what you are, which is a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ.

Thank you. It just makes it easier here. Catholic is a term that began to be used quite commonly at least by the 3rd century to differentiate the Orthodox church from the heretical ones. Catholic means universal or complete, and as such it was used as a means to differentiate those of the Catholic Church that had the fullness of faith, from those such as the Arians who did not have that fullness.

 

[Albion]

Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine that comes from Scripture.

Whenever I read that talking point, I don't know whether to be irritated or amused. Scripture isn't Scriptural? Hmmm. Scripture doesn't explicitly rule out something, so by inference it becomes OK? Really?

Imagine all the weird theories that could be justified by reference to THAT line of thought? For example, the Book of Mormon isn't mentioned in the Bible, so by the Catholic way of arguing things, the BoM is true! Oh, Brother

 

[Shocker]

Whenever I read that talking point, I don't know whether to be irritated or amused. Scripture isn't Scriptural? Hmmm. Scripture doesn't explicitly rule out something, so by inference it becomes OK? Really?

Imagine all the weird theories that could be justified by reference to THAT line of thought? For example, the Book of Mormon isn't mentioned in the Bible, so by the Catholic way of arguing things, the BoM is true! Oh, Brother

I don't think that's what Erose was saying.

Just that the verbatim doctrine of "scripture alone" isn't specified.


Its in the Bible for sure, its the reason Christ and the prophets say "It is written".

Its also why Jesus quotes the OT so much.

 

[Albion]

I don't think that's what Erose was saying.

You're right that I took on the corollary that comes with the "Scripture Alone isn't in the Bible" line. For clarity's sake, I probably should not have done that there.

Just that the verbatim doctrine of "scripture alone" isn't specified.

Of course that's what he meant. But it's laughable to say (even though we often hear it said) that if a certain set of words isn't to be found, the idea isn't valid either, no "ifs" "and" or "buts" about it.

Its in the Bible for sure, its the reason Christ and the prophets say "It is written".

Its also why Jesus quotes the OT so much.

And not only that, but there are at least fifteen verses in Scripture that describe Scripture as of the highest worth. If that doesn't mean "there's nothing else that's of this value" I don't know what else it could mean.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So you cant show me purgatory in the Bible?

In reading the Bible, Ive never once come across anything that doctrinally supports the notion of "purgatory"..

So, enlighten me, as you are called to as a Christian, defending the hope that is in you..


Im all ears.. Please, show me in the Bible.

I did give you the passages before. Here they are again.

2 Maccabees 12:39-45 KJV

(39) And upon the day following, as the use had been, Judas and his company came to take up the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen in their fathers' graves.
(40) Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.
(41) All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid,
(42) Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain.
(43) And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
(44) For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
(45) And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.​

1 Corinthians 3:9-14 KJV

(9) For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
(10) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
(11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
(12) Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
(13) Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
(14) If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.​

Hebrews 12:18-24 KJV

(18) For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
(19) And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:
(20) (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
(21) And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake: )
(22) But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
(23) To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
(24) And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.​

 

[Shocker]

was there a corresponding commentary or something?

Im not seeing what you are trying to communicate to me with these verses.. Care to expound on your opinion here?

 

[MoreCoffee]

was there a corresponding commentary or something?

Im not seeing what you are trying to communicate to me with these verses.. Care to expound on your opinion here?

My earlier posts will help.

 

[Shocker]

My earlier posts will help.

Probably agree to disagree, I don't see what you are seeing in the verses you posted, apparently Im not the only one..

 

[Rick Otto]

I would've thought the purgatory belief to be based on misinterpreting this:
1Cor3:13: Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14: If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
[15] If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

 

[Shocker]

I would've thought the purgatory belief to be based on misinterpreting this:
1Cor3:13: Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14: If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
[15] If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

I can kinda see what you are saying here..


But "fire" is also being used figuratively here, meaning, at least what I perceive, to mean "tried by fire" in the sense of struggling and marching on through tribulation..

Or the convicting fire of the Lord..

Either way, fire is the allegorical approach to spiritual "refinement".


Your thoughts?

 

[Albion]

I would've thought the purgatory belief to be based on misinterpreting this:
1Cor3:13: Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14: If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
[15] If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Yeh, that's one passage that is sometimes cited. The passage from
2 Maccabees that proves even less seems to be the 'go-to' text, though.

Ironically, this verse you cited provides a rebuttal to the efforts being made these days to pass off Purgatory as merely some sort of celestial shower room.

 

[Erose]

Whenever I read that talking point, I don't know whether to be irritated or amused. Scripture isn't Scriptural? Hmmm. Scripture doesn't explicitly rule out something, so by inference it becomes OK? Really?

Here is the difference. As a Catholic I know that the Bible is Sacred Scripture because our Sacred Tradition says it is so. Thus I revere the Bible for what we know from Tradition it is, which is the Word of God.

When you make the claim that nothing can be doctrinal unless it has basis in Scripture, and everything else is man-made ideas; you force yourself into at best a circular argument, if you feel you can justify your views from Scripture that Scripture says it is Scripture thus it is Scripture. It would be the same as a hobo on the street claiming that he is the queen of England, because he claims to be the queen of England. No the queen of England is recognized as being the queen of England from an external source, not just because she says she is.

Now the best way in my opinion is if one wants to hold onto Sola Scriptura then one should just claim that it is part of their Faith Tradition. But when you do that, it takes away your perceived ability to argue against those Faith Traditions that recognize that their Deposit of Faith is larger than just the Bible. So you put yourself in a quandary in my opinion.

Imagine all the weird theories that could be justified by reference to THAT line of thought? For example, the Book of Mormon isn't mentioned in the Bible, so by the Catholic way of arguing things, the BoM is true! Oh, Brother

What an insane assumption. By the Catholic way of arguing things as you say, if it contradicts our Deposit of Faith, which IS our Sacred Tradition and our Sacred Scriptures, then it can't be true.

The Book of Mormon, and the position behind it contradicts our Deposit of Faith so it can't be true. But on the other hand, since the position held by those who adhere to Sola Scriptura, must be at least silent on the Mormons having the Book of Mormon, for the Bible does not claim what is and is not Scripture. The table of contents is not inspired as the rest of the writings are. Nor does the Bible claim that only it can be viewed as Scripture. So if you don't access some form of Sacred Tradition, that tells you what writings are inspired, and that only those books are inspired; then you cannot complain against Mormons for viewing more than the 66 books as sacred.

 

[Shocker]

Here is the difference. As a Catholic I know that the Bible is Sacred Scripture because our Sacred Tradition says it is so. Thus I revere the Bible for what we know from Tradition it is, which is the Word of God.

When you make the claim that nothing can be doctrinal unless it has basis in Scripture, and everything else is man-made ideas; you force yourself into at best a circular argument, if you feel you can justify your views from Scripture that Scripture says it is Scripture thus it is Scripture. It would be the same as a hobo on the street claiming that he is the queen of England, because he claims to be the queen of England. No the queen of England is recognized as being the queen of England from an external source, not just because she says she is.

Now the best way in my opinion is if one wants to hold onto Sola Scriptura then one should just claim that it is part of their Faith Tradition. But when you do that, it takes away your perceived ability to argue against those Faith Traditions that recognize that their Deposit of Faith is larger than just the Bible. So you put yourself in a quandary in my opinion.

What an insane assumption. By the Catholic way of arguing things as you say, if it contradicts our Deposit of Faith, which IS our Sacred Tradition and our Sacred Scriptures, then it can't be true.

The Book of Mormon, and the position behind it contradicts our Deposit of Faith so it can't be true. But on the other hand, since the position held by those who adhere to Sola Scriptura, must be at least silent on the Mormons having the Book of Mormon, for the Bible does not claim what is and is not Scripture. The table of contents is not inspired as the rest of the writings are. Nor does the Bible claim that only it can be viewed as Scripture. So if you don't access some form of Sacred Tradition, that tells you what writings are inspired, and that only those books are inspired; then you cannot complain against Mormons for viewing more than the 66 books as sacred.

Ill put it to you like this.

Any scriptural truth in the Bible cannot be disagreed on.

For example, Jesus Christ is God incarnate.

No Christian can deny this, it is written.

Nor de we, as Christians, deny the deity of Christ.

Put a stamp on it "Agreed upon".


So when a doctrine like "purgatory" comes up, we have to say to ourselves..

Is this irrefutably agreed upon? And the answer is obviously no, its clearly not.


The Bible talks about what is "sound doctrine" and "by the mouth of witnesses"..


But there can be no disagreement in true biblical doctrine, there is only one true Christian faith, that faith is free of Catholicism, Protestantism, and whatever other "isms" you want to call them..


This also applies to things like dispensationalism.. Its just a doctrine..

 

[Erose]

I can kinda see what you are saying here..


But "fire" is also being used figuratively here, meaning, at least what I perceive, to mean "tried by fire" in the sense of struggling and marching on through tribulation..

Or the convicting fire of the Lord..

Either way, fire is the allegorical approach to spiritual "refinement".


Your thoughts?

In reality it could be only figurative. We truly don't know. Obviously if purgatory exists, and that only spirits endure purgatory, then that which we know as fire, shouldn't effect them as fire would effect us. So if there is a cleansing fire in purgatory, it wouldn't be a material fire; nor would the sufferings be the same as those endured by us when we are burned.

The key here is that the purpose would be the cleansing. How we are cleansed and if there is a spiritual fire involved and how does it effect the soul is open to speculation.

Tertullian, Augustine, Cyprian and the council of Florence referred to the probability of it being a fire, due to the reading from 1Cor 3.

Another tidbit, is that even though the word "place" is used frequently to refer to purgatory, the official definition is uses the word "state", in that "place" is a physical property, and it is unknown if this is a spiritual property as well. Descartes argues fairly effectively against the notion that a spirit can be spatial, enough I think that it does raise a reasonable question.

 

[Albion]

Here is the difference. As a Catholic I know that the Bible is Sacred Scripture because our Sacred Tradition says it is so.

You mean that you agree to accept it as Sacred Scripture.

Thus I revere the Bible for what we know from Tradition it is, which is the Word of God.

When you make the claim that nothing can be doctrinal unless it has basis in Scripture, and everything else is man-made ideas; you force yourself into at best a circular argument, if you feel you can justify your views from Scripture that Scripture says it is Scripture thus it is Scripture. It would be the same as a hobo on the street claiming that he is the queen of England, because he claims to be the queen of England.

I consider that to be simply nonsense. Scripture has proven its reliability. I do not believe it merely because I've picked it off my bookshelf and said to myself "I'm going to choose this book to consider as God's infallible word, and then I'll build a religion around it."

Now the best way in my opinion is if one wants to hold onto Sola Scriptura then one should just claim that it is part of their Faith Tradition.

Make Sola Scriptura into its opposite IOW.

What an insane assumption.

Let's not start throwing around words like that, please.

That said, why don't you just go ahead and answer the questions I put forth earlier? That would get us rolling towards a real discussion and, possibly, a resolution of something here.

 

[Erose]

Ill put it to you like this.

Any scriptural truth in the Bible cannot be disagreed on.

For example, Jesus Christ is God incarnate.

No Christian can deny this, it is written.

Nor de we, as Christians, deny the deity of Christ.

Put a stamp on it "Agreed upon".

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but I truly don't think this is correct. The Arians very effectively convinced many a Christian that Jesus Christ wasn't God incarnate, through Scripture to the point that at one time most Christians were Arians.

Every Christian heresy has its roots in Scripture. Every single one. Why because when you remove Sacred Tradition, then all bets are off, for you no longer possess a bar, by which to read Scripture.

You ask a Mormon or a JW or Oneness Pentecostal, where they get their beliefs from they will tell you from Scripture, and they think that we are the ones that moved from Scripture in our development of the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

So no consensus doesn't work.

So when a doctrine like "purgatory" comes up, we have to say to ourselves..

Is this irrefutably agreed upon? And the answer is obviously no, its clearly not.


The Bible talks about what is "sound doctrine" and "by the mouth of witnesses"..


But there can be no disagreement in true biblical doctrine, there is only one true Christian faith, that faith is free of Catholicism, Protestantism, and whatever other "isms" you want to call them..


This also applies to things like dispensationalism.. Its just a doctrine..

In the West the doctrine was irrefutably agreed upon, until the Protestant Revolution. In the East there is the belief similar but not as developed, in that they teach that their prayers and Divine Liturgies for the
dead are edifying to the dead someway. Apostolic Churches are universal in the belief that we should pray for the dead.