Purgatory!

[BobRyan]

For sake of the discussion, I decided to offer up the following to display that Catholics do have a justification from Scripture for the doctrine of purgatory. ...

The doctrine of purgatory is relatively simple and not as complex as some here would like everyone to believe. The Catechism of the Catholic church states simply:

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. 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:

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.

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore Judas Maccabeus made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.

To simplify, purgatory is a state or condition of cleansing, that occurs after the death of someone who is saved and yet is not pure enough to enter God's presence. This state of cleansing is temporal. And our prayers edify those that are in this condition.

Since the scripture argument that you make follows - I just want to comment here on the non-scripture element above.

1. IF indeed there is some mythical "need" by the saints after death but before heaven to be "cleansed" or to be purified or acquire "holiness" that is not at all "punishment for sin" -- then what is the "benefit" of going to heaven WITHOUT it? why work so hard to end the work of purification before it is done? Is there a supposed desire by the dead to enter heaven in an unpurified state? Is their great fear that they might enter heaven "purified"??

Does it even make sense to urge that God not purify them as needed??

2. 2Macc 12 is explicit in stating that there is NO BENEFIT to the dead in the actions taking place in their prayers and that ONLY in the resurrection would there be any benefit at all.

3. The sin of being devotees to pagan idols is even by RCC standards a "mortal sin" and so these guys died in a state of unconfessed, unforgiven "mortal sin" even by Catholic standards Purgatory does not apply in such cases.

Ok - so that is the non-Bible part of the discussion.


Next the Bible topic.

But before that - I just want to applaud you on taking a more factual approach to the subject.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BEFORE we get to the bible texts - it is helpful to remember the salient point of the Catholic stories about purgatory.

1. They claim that there is a need aFTER death but BEFORE heaven for saints to be purified by fire.

2. They claim that this is specifically related to sins done in this life.

3. they describe it as 'torment' and 'torture' as burning the PERSON in flames - after death and before heaven - and not covered by the death of Christ.

4. They claim that the person is not worthy, fit , purified for heaven at death without this torment.

And apparently "the living" Catholics will pay and do almost anything in reason to get their loved ones to skip the much needed yet apparently horrific circumstance of being fitted for heaven.

I will try to show that we as Catholics have a basis for this belief in Scripture. But to formulate that belief it requires a little ground work. In other words a foundation needs to be laid first before one can understand the purpose of this doctrine. The foundation is the following doctrines:

1) Temporal punishment due to sin.
2) Difference between mortal and venial sin.
3) The state of purity the soul must be in to enter God's presence.

1) Temporal punishment due to sin: When Christ died upon the cross for us, He took away from us the eternal punishment due to our sin, but He did not take away the temporal punishment due to our sin. This is best illustrated in 2nd Samuel:

2 Sam 12: [13] And David said to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David: The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shalt not die. [14] Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die.

Nathan does not say to David "after you die an enemy will chase you until you are a better man and worthy of heaven".

The whole "become a better man after you die so you can go to heaven" argument is missing from 2Sam 12.

We also find evidence of this in Hebrews 12: [5] And you have forgotten the consolation, which speaks to you, as unto children, saying: My son, neglect not the discipline of the Lord; neither be thou wearied whilst thou art rebuked by him. [6] For whom the Lord loves, he chastises; and he scourges every son whom he receives. [7] Persevere under discipline. God deals with you as with his sons; for what son is there, whom the father doth not correct? [8] But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons. [9] Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh, for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey the Father of spirits, and live? [10] And they indeed for a few days, according to their own pleasure, instructed us: but he, for our profit, that we might receive his sanctification. [11] Now all chastisement for the present indeed seems not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield, to them that are exercised by it, the most peaceable fruit of justice.

Obviously God is a just God, so He is not going to chastise or scourge those that don't deserve it.

None of it mentions that "God will do this to you when you are dead".

None of it says "try to buy yourself out of that discipline --- there are ways out my friend".

None of it say "we have a spiritual bank of suffering and merrit we can apply to your account so that you can opt out of God's plan to discipline".

I think even CAtholics will agree that this simply is not in Hebrews 12.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Another passage to look at is: Mat 5: [25] Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. [26] Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing. In this passage we see that there is a requirement for sin that is not eternal.

We also see it here: Matt 18: [31] Now his fellow servants seeing what was done, were very much grieved, and they came and told their lord all that was done. [32] Then his lord called him; and said to him: Thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all the debt, because thou besoughtest me: [33] Shouldst not thou then have had compassion also on thy fellow servant, even as I had compassion on thee? [34] And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers until he paid all the debt. [35] So also shall my heavenly Father do to you, if you forgive not every one his brother from your hearts.

You just shot your own argument. In Matt 18 the lost sinner is compared to the servant who owes more than anyone could pay in 2 lifetimes in those days. The great debt of sin owed by the sinner.

In Matt 18 the King simply "forgives" no works to perform, no fire to burn you, no purgatory -- full debt forgiven.


Then in the teaching of Christ in Matt 18 that saved/justified/fully forgiven servant refuses to adopt fully the grateful forgiven life and freely forgive others (no fire no burning others) just as he was freely forgiven. When he fails to do that - the original sin debt (the original debt of the LOST) is returned IN Full!

That means the full debt of sin - not just "venial" because this is the debt fully forgiven with NO FIRE at all at the start of the story - the VERY debt the RCC is willing to admit that Christ's death covers.

Thus we are talking about the REAL sin debt - the lake of fire, the 2nd death. Fire and Brimstone, tormented day and night in fire and brimstone - the real lake of fire of Rev 20 and Rev 14:10-11.

A debt fully forgiven from the start in Matt 18 -- (Just as we see in Ezek 18).

And the Full sin-debt of the lost person - returned "in full" at the end of Matt 18. if this is what you claim is being paid in purgatory - then it is indeed the same debt as Rev 20 - the Lake of fire and you have a self-conflicted argument from Matt 18.


You cannot have it both ways.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Erose]

And how do you reconcile this with 1 John 1:7, which says "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin."

Do you not believe the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin? If so, then what's left to be cleansed? If not, why not?

I one of the biggest difficulties here is the differing understandings of atonement. From a Catholic point of view, and I do believe some of the older Protestant churches (and if I am wrong here I am sure Albion will correct me. ) The sacrament of baptism ties us to Jesus' sacrifice, which we read in Rom 6: [3] Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death? [4] For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. So it is through baptism that we are atoned with Christ.

At the point of our baptism we are whiter than snow, and pure. No sin upon us, no temporal punishment due to sin, nothing pretty and clean. And if we died in this state, we would go straight to heaven.

The problem is we don't do we? We commit sins after our baptism. We are no longer whiter than snow, but rather we start getting dirty though our sins. Like with a white pair of pants, and you playing in dirt, you are going to get them soiled.

John in his first letter says: 1: [6] If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. [7] But if we walk in the light, as he also is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin. [8] If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity. [10] If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

John speaks here that we will sin. And that when we confess our sins, God will forgive us; which I think that we both can agree upon. But the problem comes as I shown in the post you quoted, is that there is a cleansing required which is referred to in this above passage. It says in vs 9 that He will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all iniquity. It should be noted that the word cleanse is used and not forget or ignore.

Where does the Bible ever say there is temporal punishment for sin? In all of the passages where we see that Jesus is the propitiation for our sin, why doesn't the Bible, out of all of those verses, ever make the distinction between those eternal punishment and temporal punishment?

In Num 14:19-24; 2 Sam 12:13-14; Mat 5:25-29; 18:31-35; Heb 12:5-11.

And you believe this is evidence of Purgatory? Wow! Talk about exegesis!

How on Earth did you get the idea that this verse is about Purgatory? The death of David's son wasn't a punishment, but a consequence of sin.

Nope temporal punishment due to sin. You are right that loosing his son was a consequence for his sin, which was forgiven. Also in Num 14:19-24, God also forgives the Israelites, at the behest of Moses; and yet denied that generation entry into the promise land.

Also, would you mind explaining how this passage is relevant, since, under the Old Covenant, people were not born again, but merely had their sins "covered" and the Holy Spirit did not regenerate or indwell believers?

I'm not one of those folks you disregard the OT. The OT is important and passages like this is important for it shows us how God's Justice works. That hasn't changed from the Old to the New. Unless you believe that God changed.

Again, where is Purgatory anywhere in this passage?

Again it speaks of God's chastisement due to our sins and our inclinations to sin. When do you think God would chastise a person? Hum? Is it when they are doing everything perfectly? I wouldn't think so. As I father, I would never chastise my children for doing something right. The only time I would chastise them is when they were doing things wrong.

These passages don't have to do directly with Purgatory, and I explained that in my original post. But they have to do with temporal punishment due to our sins.

Please cite the whole passage. When taken in context, the passage has nothing to do with Purgatory, but is about anger.

Look at the justice that Jesus explains here. That this person being cast into prison and is not released until his debt is paid. We here again are speaking of restitution, which temporal punishment due to sin is part of.

You realize this is a parable, right? And not about purgatory?

It is a parable, but as above look at Jesus' view of justice, and the requirement for restitution.

We agree that nothing defiled or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie shall enter into Heaven. The problem is that the Bible tells us that we have Christ's righteousness imputed to us.

The Bible doesn't tell us that we get into heaven, because we are hiding behind Jesus' gown. Christ's righteousness makes us righteous, not just legally, but also ontologically. I do not believe Luther's understanding of justification as us being a pile of dung and Jesus being a coating of fresh snow hiding the dung which is us. And I don't believe the Bible teaches that either.

Agreed. We are made holy by Christ, not by expiating our sin in Purgatory.

It should be noted that the act of restitution isn't exclusively after death. We are called to make restitution for our sins here on earth. If we steal something, we must ask for forgiveness from God, but we must also return what we stole, and accept whatever punishment we are due for the act of stealing. Do you think that it would be true repentance if we asked God's forgiveness, and then kept what we stole? Me I don't think so.

And our hearts have been cleansed by Christ.

True.

Hebrews 10:14 tells us we have been perfected.

True.

Actually, this passage has nothing to do with Purgatory, but is speaking of the Bema Seat Judgment.

Don't know what you are referring to. Can you explain what Bema Seat Judgment is?

Where do you get the idea that this "fire" is in any way related to something that could be called "satispassio", as Rome does? [/QUOTE]
By the way it is worded.

Purgatory (according to Rome) is for those who are headed to heaven: they died in a state of grace. The fire of purgatory (whether taken literally over time, as Rome obviously indicated for centuries on end, or now metaphorically, as the kinder, gentler Rome seems to indicate) is meant to cleanse away the temporal punishments of sins (again, according to Rome).

I think there is some misunderstandings on your idea here. The key is that concerning the fire, we don't truly know. Fire is indicated in the above passage and many of the Fathers, such as Tertullian, Augustine and Cyprian, regarded the usage of fire in the passage to indicate that the cleansing was by fire. Fire though is physical, a spirit is not. So it cannot be a physical fire, but possibly something similar. Pope Benedict in his encyclical spoke of purgatory as when we begin to approach God's presence the light from Him begins to burn away all the chaff. But again this also is speculation on his part, and it does have merit in my opinion. The point being is that we truly don't know how one is cleansed in purgatory, but it seems to be some type of spiritual fire most probably, but we don't know.

There is nothing in this passage about temporal punishments. Besides, there is only one result of the testing in purgatory: everyone ends up in heaven. But there are two results of the testing spoken of here: there are those whose works remain, and they receive a reward. And there are those who works are burned up, but they are saved anyway.

No. But if you read it carefully you see that what he is referring to what occurs on the day of the Lord, which for most of us is when we die. We go through a cleansing fire, and that which is made from precious materials will be fine, and that which is made out of junk will be burned away, but we shall still be saved. I'll take that promise any day.

Praying for the dead is Unbiblical, also. So, I'm not sure you want to demonstrate something is Biblical by "tying it to the hip" of something that is Unbiblical.

Its in my Bible.

Of course you do.

Well of course for it is in my Bible.

Translation: "I know 2nd Maccabees isn't in the Bible, but for the sake of looking like I know what I'm talking about, please pretend that it is".

No translation is that I understand that your faith tradition removed this book from the Christian Bible, so I am trying to be nice.

Here's another good example of you taking something out of context. Did you really not notice that you began the passage at the word "otherwise"??? Didn't it occur to you at all that it might be necessary to see what Paul is contrasting in order to understand the passage?

Then provide your own exegesis. What is the baptism of the dead?

Where does this passage say anything at all to support prayers for the dead?

It supports the notion that we can do things to help the dead.

And you believe this speaks of praying for the dead because...?

Vs 18: Paul is offering up a prayer to him who can be assumed to be dead from the usage of past tense in referring to him.

So, if you have no information concerning it, why do you assume you're sure what it means?

For we can deduce from what Paul wrote that it was a practice to help the dead in some way.

You realize Paul is talking about pagans, right?

Wrong. You may need to reread that passage. He is referring to some Christian practice at that time.

First of all, in what hermeneutics class did you learn that speaking of an event or action in the past tense is an indication that the subject is dead???

Do you speak of any person alive that you know of in past tense?

If I have a friend who I am speaking of, do I refer to him in the past or present tense. If for example my friend love to bowl, and I told you the following sentence: My friend Bob loved to fish. How would you interpret that? From that sentence would you think that Bob still fished? I wouldn't.

When I tell you that Bob was such a good friend of mine, how would you interpret that statement? Either we are no longer friends or that he was no longer with us. Past tense in this passage makes it a pretty safe bet that the man is dead when Paul wrote this passage.

Here is his passage about his friend: 2Tm 1:[16] The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain: [17] But when he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me, and found me. [18] The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou very well knowest.

Compare this to other passages of people he calls out:

Rom 16:[1] And I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is in the ministry of the church, that is in Cenchrae: [2] That you receive her in the Lord as becometh saints; and that you assist her in whatsoever business she shall have need of you. For she also hath assisted many, and myself also. [3] Salute Prisca and Aquila, my helpers in Christ Jesus, [4] (Who have for my life laid down their own necks: to whom not I only give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles,) [5] And the church which is in their house. Salute Epenetus, my beloved: who is the firstfruits of Asia in Christ.

[6] Salute Mary, who hath laboured much among you. [7] Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. [8] Salute Ampliatus, most beloved to me in the Lord. [9] Salute Urbanus, our helper in Christ Jesus, and Stachys, my beloved. [10] Salute Apelles, approved in Christ.

See the present tense being used?

Also at the end of 2 Tim we have this passage: [19] Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus. [20] Erastus remained at Corinth. And Trophimus I left sick at Miletus. See here how he says to salute Prisca and Aquila, but not Onesiphorus, but his household? It is pretty obvious to me that Onesiphorus had already left this world that this writing.

Chris Rosebrough has a name for this kind of eisegesis: textual harassment.

No, not really. If you did, then you wouldn't have cited every passage out of context and you wouldn't have had to cite extra-Biblical sources.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Not only do I not agree, but if I made those arguments, I'd be embarrassed.

South Bound, please don't be insulting. I have treated you with respect, all I ask is for you to do the same.

 

[Erose]

Since the scripture argument that you make follows - I just want to comment here on the non-scripture element above.

1. IF indeed there is some mythical "need" by the saints after death but before heaven to be "cleansed" or to be purified or acquire "holiness" that is not at all "punishment for sin" -- then what is the "benefit" of going to heaven WITHOUT it? why work so hard to end the work of purification before it is done? Is there a supposed desire by the dead to enter heaven in an unpurified state? Is their great fear that they might enter heaven "purified"??

Does it even make sense to urge that God not purify them as needed??

I believe that the best answer is that God's justice still must be met. We have to remember that God is merciful God no doubt; but He is also a Just one as well. That is the reason why it required Jesus to atone for our sins. Jesus' death and resurrection was the only way for God to be merciful AND just.

We are spending a lot of time here discussing this subject, but to be honest the disagreement will remain at the end of the day, because we don't have the same views of how justification, sanctification, sin, etc works and how all of this effects us. Purgatory does not make sense to a person who believes that justification is only a legal change of status, and does not accept also that justification is an ontological changes as well.

2. 2Macc 12 is explicit in stating that there is NO BENEFIT to the dead in the actions taking place in their prayers and that ONLY in the resurrection would there be any benefit at all.

I don't see how you can get this understanding. They had a reason for offering sacrifices for the dead, and they believed that these sacrifices offered would be beneficial for those who had died.

3. The sin of being devotees to pagan idols is even by RCC standards a "mortal sin" and so these guys died in a state of unconfessed, unforgiven "mortal sin" even by Catholic standards Purgatory does not apply in such cases.

Ok - so that is the non-Bible part of the discussion.

I have already corrected this false understanding of the passage. The medallions where spoils. There is no evidence from the passage that these men worshipped anyone but God. Reading about Judas one learns that this was a man that did not tolerate idolatry. If he felt that these men were worshipping idols, he wouldn't have done what he done.

Next the Bible topic.

But before that - I just want to applaud you on taking a more factual approach to the subject.

in Christ,

Bob

Thank you.

 

[BobRyan]

2) Difference between mortal and venial sin. This is outlined explicitly in only one place in Scripture and that is 1John 5: [16] He that knows his brother to sin a sin which is not to death (venial sin), let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sins not to death. There is a sin unto death (mortal sin): for that I say not that any man ask. [17] All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

This passage provides us with an understanding that there are two categories of sin: venial (sins, which is not to death) and mortal (sin unto death). It should also be pointed out here that this passage encourages us to pray for our brethren that are under the weight of venial sin and that our prayers are beneficial to those under the weight of venial sin.

The text does not say that the sin is not covered by the death of Christ and the text does not say that forgiveness happens by the person being burned in fire. Forgiveness in 1John 5 appears to be a "free gift".

3) The condition of the soul to see God. Certain passages in Scripture tell us what condition our soul needs to be in to see God.

Rev 21: [27] There shall not enter into it anything defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb.

Heb 12: [14] Follow peace with all men, and holiness: without which no man shall see God.

Matt 5: [8] Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.

The text of Heb does not say "pursue peace and holiness after you are dead".

The text of Heb 9 gives you no hope at all once you are dead - of changing your case 'it is appointed unto man ONCE to die and THEN comes judgment" -- not "And then you have a chance to pursue the holiness without which no man will see God".

A huge problem for the purgatory story.

from the writings of Paul we know that our works shall be judged on the Day of the Lord as by fire:

1 Cor 3: [11] For other foundation (PETRA) no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. [12] Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: [13] Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in 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 burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

In 1Cor 3:1-15 the "Work" is that of a master builder or a farmer - one plants, another waters, they build doctrine on the foundational doctrine about Christ - it is all about the various evangelists that Paul names (Paul, Peter, Apollos) and he is making the case that when comparing their doctrine - one may argue in favor of Paul being better than Peter or the other way around. Paul says God will test their doctrine and purge away any teaching that is not sound.

But the RCC sticks in "not his works -but the man himself is burned" and the RCC inserts "and not in this life - but after death".

In other words it is not side notes but the heart - the salient point of the Catholic argument that they 'insert".

8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss;


Nothing about "after you die you will be burned with fire - not your works burned away" and the only work listed is the work of the teaching of the evangelist.

Purgatory and praying for the dead are tied to the hip and as such both support each other. So is praying for the dead Biblical? I say the answer is yes. The first passage comes from 2nd Maccabees, which I know is no longer in Protestant Bibles.

1. It never was in the Bible even Jerome isolated it in the Vulgate.

2. 2 Macc 12 shows them to have died in mortal sin as jewish worshippers of pagan gods. The death sentence even in Israel.

But for the sake of the argument is important to point out that the Catholic church retained this book within its canon and views it as Canonical.

2 Mac: [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.

The text does NOT claim that the dead where in the fires of purgatory - but rather were "asleep".

The text DOES claim that the dead were slain by the hand of God as judgment for being pagan idolaters as Jews.

The text DOES say that no benefit was expected apart from the resurrection of the dead.

The Purgatory myth does not survive 2Macc 12.

We also find in the writings of Paul a few interesting passages:

1 Cor 15: [29] Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them? [30] Why also are we in danger every hour? [31] I die daily, I protest by your glory, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I have heard Mormons try to spin 1cor 15 - but I have never heard a Catholic argument for Purgatory from 1Cor 15. What is it??

In the first passage quoted Paul is speaking of some form of practice that we have no information concerning, which refers to the ability of the living to do something that benefits those that have passed on. He also is using the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead to provide justification for this practice.

Even you are saying you don' t know what is going on there.

The best I have heard is that Paul is sticking with this same argument and saying that Baptism itself is pointless if there is no resurrection of the dead for we are buried with Christ in Baptism and raised to newness of life with him as we come up out of the waters of baptism (See Romans 6 as well).

In anycase - nobody burning in fire after they are dead in 1Cor 15.

1 Tim 1: [16] The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain: [17] But when he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me, and found me. [18] The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou very well knowest.


In the 2nd passage, Paul is referring to Onesiphorus in the past tense and not present

Because he is describing what Onesiphorus did in the past and now with that letter he is being sent back to his former master - both of whom are now Christians.

From the usage of past tense one could assume that Onesiphorus has already fallen asleep at the writing of this letter.

Then Onesiphorus could hardly have delivered the letter. And the ministry of Onesiphorus on behalf of Paul could not be told to Philemon if Onesiphorus was dead.

10 So I make a request to you on behalf of Onesimus, who is my own son in Christ; for while in prison I have become his spiritual father. 11At one time he was of no use to you, but now he is useful both to you and to me. 12I am sending him back to you now, and with him goes my heart. 13 I would like to keep him here with me, while I am in prison for the gospel's sake, so that he could help me in your place. 14 However, I do not want to force you to help me; rather, I would like for you to do it of your own free will. So I will not do anything unless you agree.
15 It may be that Onesimus was away from you for a short time so that you might have him back for all time. 16 And now he is not just a slave, but much more than a slave: he is a dear brother in Christ. How much he means to me! And how much more he will mean to you, both as a slave and as a brother in the Lord!


There is no way to get Onesimus dead in this chapter.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Erose]

BEFORE we get to the bible texts - it is helpful to remember the salient point of the Catholic stories about purgatory.

1. They claim that there is a need aFTER death but BEFORE heaven for saints to be purified by fire.

I think the language here needs to be clarified. We are called to make restitution for our sins. This should occur here on Earth. When I commit a sin, I repent, confess that sin, I still must make restitution for that sin. If I steal something, I must return what I stole, and perhaps give even more for whatever hardship I might have caused. That is how it works. Just confessing your sin, doesn't get you off the hook. More is required to make restitution. Even here on earth in our judicial systems, we see this as just. If a man steals your car, and he gets caught, and he apologizes to you for stealing your car, but doesn't or can't return it; would you view that justice was served? Especially if you had to spend out of your own pocket money for a rental or something like that. Justice requires restitution and divine justice is no different.

2. They claim that this is specifically related to sins done in this life.

True.

3. they describe it as 'torment' and 'torture' as burning the PERSON in flames - after death and before heaven - and not covered by the death of Christ.

We refer to it as punishment or a cleansing. It isn't the same type of suffering one endures in hell which will be much greater.

4. They claim that the person is not worthy, fit , purified for heaven at death without this torment.

Only those who still are in the state of venial sin, still have temporal punishment due to them. Those who do not go straight to heaven. It is viewed that martyrs who died as witnesses of Christ go straight to heaven. Also we do believe that there are some who do reach a high state of sanctity who go straight to heaven. And you also have those who through personal suffering and pain, are purged here on earth before they die, can go straight to heaven. Those infants and men and women who die after baptism, before they can commit any personal sins go straight to heaven. Thus not all of the saved go through the fires of purgatory.

And apparently "the living" Catholics will pay and do almost anything in reason to get their loved ones to skip the much needed yet apparently horrific circumstance of being fitted for heaven.

You can't pay to assist them, but you can offer up Masses, and acts of almsgiving for them that in some way assists them. We don't know how, but we do know it helps.

Nathan does not say to David "after you die an enemy will chase you until you are a better man and worthy of heaven".

The whole "become a better man after you die so you can go to heaven" argument is missing from 2Sam 12.

No what Nathan says is even though you are forgiven for the sin you have committed, you will still have to endure punishment for that sin. You just won't have to die the death.

None of it mentions that "God will do this to you when you are dead".

None of it says "try to buy yourself out of that discipline --- there are ways out my friend".

None of it say "we have a spiritual bank of suffering and merrit we can apply to your account so that you can opt out of God's plan to discipline".

I think even CAtholics will agree that this simply is not in Hebrews 12.

I didn't say it did.

 

[South Bound]

I one of the biggest difficulties here is the differing understandings of atonement. From a Catholic point of view, and I do believe some of the older Protestant churches (and if I am wrong here I am sure Albion will correct me. ) The sacrament of baptism ties us to Jesus' sacrifice, which we read in Rom 6: [3] Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death? [4] For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. So it is through baptism that we are atoned with Christ.

As opposed to Protestant Christians, which believes the Biblical teaching that we are "atoned" through Christ's work on the cross.

At the point of our baptism we are whiter than snow, and pure. No sin upon us, no temporal punishment due to sin, nothing pretty and clean. And if we died in this state, we would go straight to heaven.

The problem is we don't do we? We commit sins after our baptism. We are no longer whiter than snow, but rather we start getting dirty though our sins. Like with a white pair of pants, and you playing in dirt, you are going to get them soiled.

Then all one has to do is be baptized again.

It should be noted that the word cleanse is used and not forget or ignore.

I see. So, God still holds those sins against us?

In Num 14:19-24; 2 Sam 12:13-14; Mat 5:25-29; 18:31-35; Heb 12:5-11.

OK. Looks like, once again, it's up to me to do your work for you:

19Please pardon the iniquity of this people, according to the greatness of your steadfast love, just as you have forgiven this people, from Egypt until now.”
20Then the Lord said, “I have pardoned, according to your word. 21But truly, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, 22none of the men who have seen my glory and my signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have put me to the test these ten times and have not obeyed my voice, 23shall see the land that I swore to give to their fathers. And none of those who despised me shall see it. 24But my servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit and has followed me fully, I will bring into the land into which he went, and his descendants shall possess it.

OK. Would you like to explain to us how this verse supports the heresy of Purgatory?

13David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.”

And what does this verse have to do with Purgatory?

The death of David's son wasn't a punishment, but a consequence of sin.

Also, would you mind explaining how this passage is relevant, since, under the Old Covenant, people were not born again, but merely had their sins "covered" and the Holy Spirit did not regenerate or indwell believers?

25Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny. 27“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

You quoted this one before and you never explained what this has to do with Purgatory.

5And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?

“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor be weary when reproved by him.
6For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”

7It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it

Two problems with this.

The first is that it's talking about discipline, not punishment.

The second is that it's taking place now, not in the mythical land of Purgatory.

I'm not one of those folks you disregard the OT. The OT is important and passages like this is important for it shows us how God's Justice works. That hasn't changed from the Old to the New. Unless you believe that God changed.

If you don't understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants, then you probably shouldn't be lecturing the rest of us.

These passages don't have to do directly with Purgatory, and I explained that in my original post. But they have to do with temporal punishment due to our sins.

You realize that by claiming God punishes us for sins Christ was already punished for, you're telling us that God practices double jeopardy, which is unjust, right?

It is a parable

Then the rest of your point is moot.

The Bible doesn't tell us that we get into heaven, because we are hiding behind Jesus' gown.

I agree. Nobody claims that's how we are saved or "get into Heaven". But your mocking tone toward the things of God is duly noted.

Don't know what you are referring to. Can you explain what Bema Seat Judgment is?

Seriously?

By the way it is worded.

OK. And in what way is it worded that gives you that impression?

Its in my Bible.

What verse?

Well of course for it is in my Bible.

What verse?

No translation is that I understand that your faith tradition removed this book from the Christian Bible

Your ignorance of Church History is duly noted.

Vs 18: Paul is offering up a prayer to him who can be assumed to be dead from the usage of past tense in referring to him.

For we can deduce from what Paul wrote that it was a practice to help the dead in some way.

And based on what do you infer this?

Wrong. You may need to reread that passage. He is referring to some Christian practice at that time.

...this, of course, coming from the same guy who didn't even know what the Bema Seat Judgment is and thinks there is no difference between the Old and New Covenants.

Do you speak of any person alive that you know of in past tense?

Of course.

If I have a friend who I am speaking of, do I refer to him in the past or present tense. If for example my friend love to bowl, and I told you the following sentence: My friend Bob loved to fish. How would you interpret that? From that sentence would you think that Bob still fished? I wouldn't.

Bob went fishing last Saturday. Do you say "Bob went fishing"? Or do you say "Bob is fishing"?

When I tell you that Bob was such a good friend of mine, how would you interpret that statement? Either we are no longer friends or that he was no longer with us. Past tense in this passage makes it a pretty safe bet that the man is dead when Paul wrote this passage.

Actually, depending on the context, you could be telling me about a particular time when Bob demonstrated his friendship.

Here is his passage about his friend: 2Tm 1:[16] The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain: [17] But when he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me, and found me. [18] The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou very well knowest.

Compare this to other passages of people he calls out:

Rom 16:[1] And I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is in the ministry of the church, that is in Cenchrae: [2] That you receive her in the Lord as becometh saints; and that you assist her in whatsoever business she shall have need of you. For she also hath assisted many, and myself also. [3] Salute Prisca and Aquila, my helpers in Christ Jesus, [4] (Who have for my life laid down their own necks: to whom not I only give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles,) [5] And the church which is in their house. Salute Epenetus, my beloved: who is the firstfruits of Asia in Christ.

[6] Salute Mary, who hath laboured much among you. [7] Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. [8] Salute Ampliatus, most beloved to me in the Lord. [9] Salute Urbanus, our helper in Christ Jesus, and Stachys, my beloved. [10] Salute Apelles, approved in Christ.

See the present tense being used?

Do you understand the difference between present tense and future progressive tense?

Also at the end of 2 Tim we have this passage: [19] Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus. [20] Erastus remained at Corinth. And Trophimus I left sick at Miletus. See here how he says to salute Prisca and Aquila, but not Onesiphorus, but his household? It is pretty obvious to me that Onesiphorus had already left this world that this writing.

So, anybody who is not addressed by name is dead?

South Bound, please don't be insulting. I have treated you with respect.

Actually, you haven't. You've been rude, condescending, and downright childish, which is why I've ignored you through most of this thread.

 

[Albion]

We refer to it as punishment or a cleansing. It isn't the same type of suffering one endures in hell which will be much greater.

Since you invited me to correct you (Or was that that you only predicted I would? )...the Church has long described the suffering of the poor souls inn Purgatory as being exactly the same as that suffered by the souls in Hell--except that it is only temporary ("temporal punishment").

Only those who still are in the state of venial sin, still have temporal punishment due to them. Those who do not go straight to heaven.

That's wrong, and I believe that a number of Catholics here have stated the correct information quite recently. Purgatory ALSO punishes those who have committed Mortal Sins and had them forgiven before death. That means that NONE of us is likely to go "straight to Heaven" after death. The thinking is that we deserve some of that restitution you were talking about elsewhere, because we committed these sins in the first place. You had them forgiven, so there is no "eternal" punishment, but there will be "temporal" punishment in Purgatory for them.

It is viewed that martyrs who died as witnesses of Christ go straight to heaven. Also we do believe that there are some who do reach a high state of sanctity who go straight to heaven. And you also have those who through personal suffering and pain, are purged here on earth before they die, can go straight to heaven. Those infants and men and women who die after baptism, before they can commit any personal sins go straight to heaven. Thus not all of the saved go through the fires of purgatory.

Not all, but almost all. And the Church is clear about that, too. Of course, most Catholics simply don't listen since 1) it's hard to understand Purgatory, and 2) no one wants to believe that if they live right they can aspire to...Purgatory!

 

[sonshine234]

The Bible is the only authority on God.

Precisely where does it say this?

 

[Erose]

Since you invited me to correct you (Or was that that you only predicted I would? )...the Church has long described the suffering of the poor souls inn Purgatory as being exactly the same as that suffered by the souls in Hell--except that it is only temporary ("temporal punishment").

You going to have to provide a legitimate source on this one. Besides the idea of fire, I believe you are incorrect. First you won't have the pain of despair, since those in purgatory have the knowledge of the salvation. There are some saints who have referred to the fires of purgatory as being more intense than the fires here on earth, but that is theological speculation and not doctrine.

So please provide a source.

That's wrong, and I believe that a number of Catholics here have stated the correct information quite recently. Purgatory ALSO punishes those who have committed Mortal Sins and had them forgiven before death. That means that NONE of us is likely to go "straight to Heaven" after death. The thinking is that we deserve some of that restitution you were talking about elsewhere, because we committed these sins in the first place. You had them forgiven, so there is no "eternal" punishment, but there will be "temporal" punishment in Purgatory for them.

I shouldn't used the word 'them' I agree, which made it implie that I was only referring to Venial. That was not my intent to do so. Many of my other posts have the correct understanding. Thanks for catching that.

Not all, but almost all. And the Church is clear about that, too. Of course, most Catholics simply don't listen since 1) it's hard to understand Purgatory, and 2) no one wants to believe that if they live right they can aspire to...Purgatory!

The church doesn't judge who goes to purgatory, or for that matter hell. That being said my post said nothing about the number but expressed those who could go straight to heaven.

 

[Erose]

As opposed to Protestant Christians, which believes the Biblical teaching that we are "atoned" through Christ's work on the cross.

So I take it you didn't read the post did you?

Then all one has to do is be baptized again.

Baptism is a one time thing, cannot be repeated.

I see. So, God still holds those sins against us?

You don't believe God can remove your sins? All He can do is ignore them?

OK. Looks like, once again, it's up to me to do your work for you:

19Please pardon the iniquity of this people, according to the greatness of your steadfast love, just as you have forgiven this people, from Egypt until now.”
20Then the Lord said, “I have pardoned, according to your word. 21But truly, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, 22none of the men who have seen my glory and my signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have put me to the test these ten times and have not obeyed my voice, 23shall see the land that I swore to give to their fathers. And none of those who despised me shall see it. 24But my servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit and has followed me fully, I will bring into the land into which he went, and his descendants shall possess it.

OK. Would you like to explain to us how this verse supports the heresy of Purgatory?



And what does this verse have to do with Purgatory?

The death of David's son wasn't a punishment, but a consequence of sin.

Also, would you mind explaining how this passage is relevant, since, under the Old Covenant, people were not born again, but merely had their sins "covered" and the Holy Spirit did not regenerate or indwell believers?

like I have said previously more than once, these passages refer to God requiring restitution even for forgiven sins.

You quoted this one before and you never explained what this has to do with Purgatory.

It is also a reference to God's requirement for restitution, which is what temporal punishment due to sin is.

Two problems with this.

The first is that it's talking about discipline, not punishment.

The second is that it's taking place now, not in the mythical land of Purgatory.

It is the type of discipline is it referring to.

Considering the other point we must establish a framework of some foundational doctrines first.

If you don't understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants, then you probably shouldn't be lecturing the rest of us.

I'm not the saying that the OT is irrelevant.

You realize that by claiming God punishes us for sins Christ was already punished for, you're telling us that God practices double jeopardy, which is unjust, right?

Wrong. Jesus died to remove the eternal punishment, God left the temporal punishment for purposes of discipline, as referred to in Hebrews quoted.

Then the rest of your point is moot.

You don't know much about parables do you?

I agree. Nobody claims that's how we are saved or "get into Heaven".

Hopefully you do.

Seriously?

Seriously. So can you explain it?

What verse?

2Mac 12:41-46

What verse?

2Mac 12:41-46

Your ignorance of Church History is duly noted.

You don't know much about the development of the Biblical Canon do you? You may want to research this, it is very interesting to say the least.

 

[South Bound]

So I take it you didn't read the post did you?

Would you like to tell us which part of what you said I got wrong?

Baptism is a one time thing, cannot be repeated.

So then, if baptism takes away sins, what happens if someone sins after baptism? How are their sins taken away? You say they can't be baptized again and you say it's baptism that takes away their sins, so what happens to them if they sin after they're baptized?

You don't believe God can remove your sins?

If you recall, I'm the one who's been saying all along that the blood of Christ cleanses from ALL sins. You're the one who keeps insisting that sins must be expiated in Purgatory.

like I have said previously more than once, these passages refer to God requiring restitution even for forgiven sins.

Oh, yes. You've made that claim alright. But you've never explained why you believe that or, more to the point, what in the text indicates that we should believe your interpretation.

It is the type of discipline is it referring to.

Ah, so then you admit that it is discipline. Good.

I'm not saying that the OT is irrelevant.

I'm not saying you did. I'm saying that you don't understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants.

Wrong. Jesus died to remove the eternal punishment, God left the temporal punishment for purposes of discipline, as referred to in Hebrews quoted.

What verse, specifically, in Hebrews tells us that there is "temporal punishment for sin"?

You don't know much about parables do you?

What, specifically, do you believe I've said about parables that's incorrect?

Hopefully you do.

No, I don't.

Seriously. So can you explain it?

Sure. It's the judgment that follows the Judgment of the Nations (aka the separation of the sheep and the goats), in which Christians receive their reward. Kind of sad that you didn't know that.

2Mac 12:41-46

2Mac 12:41-46

We don't accept those as canonical.

You don't know much about the development of the Biblical Canon do you?

Would you like to tell me what, specifically, I've said about it that you believe to be wrong?

You may want to research this, it is very interesting to say the least.

I agree. It was one of my favorite subjects in seminary.

Just about my whole post.

So, in other words, you can't give any examples.

And here is where the difference between Catholic and Protestant theology begins. Catholic Church teaches through the Sacrament of Penance.

Yep.

Only what hasn't been expiated here on Earth.

Which sins do you believe Jesus didn't expiate and how do you reconcile that with 1 John 1:7?

God forgives, and then still dispenses a punishment (restitution or temporal punishment due to sin).

So, who takes the punishment? Jesus or man?

I didn't refer to the Old Covenant.

You gave an example of salvation that took place under the Old Covenant.

The OT is still relevant in that it shows us how God works. This idea that God has changed after the New Covenant, is strange.

Nobody said God changed. I pointed out that there is a difference between the Old and New Covenant. How you got "God changed" out of that, I have no idea.

Just about that whole passage.

I see. So then, you're unable to give examples.

Your assumption that what they teach is without merit.

You're not answering my question. You're just repeating your claim. Once again, what, specifically, did I say that you believe is incorrect?

We call it the general judgement. Never heard that terminology before.

What you call it is irrelevant. You still claimed it's about Purgatory, which it is not.

A shame, we do; and we are speaking of a Catholic doctrine so they have merit to the conversation.

No, they don't. They're instructive in explaining where Catholics get their heresy, but being extra-canonical, they're not authoritative.

The development of the Christian Bible began to be defined in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. The Catholic canon as we have it today was initially defined for the Western Church at the synod of Rome, reaffirmed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage (II), and the canons of Hippo and Carthage were ratified at the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantiople. So all the Apostolic Churches that did not go into Schism at Chalcedon, accept the books found in the Catholic Bible. At Trent the Canon was closed in the West. In the East other books were added depending upon their usage within the liturgy, albeit these books as not viewed with the same canonicity as those ratified at the Constantiople III.

It seems that after the Protestant Revolution, that many of the scholars on the P side decided to go back to the original languages, and as such adopted the Hebrew Masoretic text as the norm, instead of the Christian Bible.

Long story short, the historical fact is that those books that were not found in the Masoretic text were later reduced or rejected by Protestants.

The problem with this assertion is that 1) there is no historical evidence that the Jews had a closed canon during the time of Christ, nor directly after. 2) there is a pretty good argument that the development of the canonical list of the Jews and the Christians occurred about in the same timeframe. 3) that the majority of quotes of the OT found in the NT are from the Septuigint. 4) there are quite a few OT quotes or references from these books found in the NT.

That being said, I am more of the position that Protestants don't have to agree with our canon, for you guys are not bound by our Councils, obviously.

Thank you for the plagiarism but that doesn't have anything to do with the question I asked you.

 

[Erose]

Would you like to tell us which part of what you said I got wrong?

Just about my whole post.

So then, if baptism takes away sins, what happens if someone sins after baptism? How are their sins taken away? You say they can't be baptized again and you say it's baptism that takes away their sins, so what happens to them if they sin after they're baptized?

And here is where the difference between Catholic and Protestant theology begins. Catholic Church teaches through the Sacrament of Penance.

If you recall, I'm the one who's been saying all along that the blood of Christ cleanses from ALL sins. You're the one who keeps insisting that sins must be expiated in Purgatory.

Only what hasn't been expiated here on Earth.

Oh, yes. You've made that claim alright. But you've never explained why you believe that or, more to the point, what in the text indicates that we should believe your interpretation.

God forgives, and then still dispenses a punishment (restitution or temporal punishment due to sin). In the case of David, it was the loss of his first born; in the case of Israel it is that generation being prevented from entering the promise land.

Ah, so then you admit that it is discipline. Good.

The question is how do you define discipline this case?

I'm not saying you did. I'm saying that you don't understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants.

I didn't refer to the Old Covenant. The OT is still relevant in that it shows us how God works. This idea that God has changed after the New Covenant, is strange.

What verse, specifically, in Hebrews tells us that there is "temporal punishment for sin"?

Just about that whole passage.

What, specifically, do you believe I've said about parables that's incorrect?

Your assumption that what they teach is without merit.

Sure. It's the judgment that follows the Judgment of the Nations (aka the separation of the sheep and the goats), in which Christians receive their reward. Kind of sad that you didn't know that.

We call it the general judgement. Never heard that terminology before.

We don't accept those as canonical.

A shame, we do; and we are speaking of a Catholic doctrine so they have merit to the conversation.

Would you like to tell me what, specifically, I've said about it that you believe to be wrong?

The development of the Christian Bible began to be defined in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. The Catholic canon as we have it today was initially defined for the Western Church at the synod of Rome, reaffirmed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage (II), and the canons of Hippo and Carthage were ratified at the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantiople. So all the Apostolic Churches that did not go into Schism at Chalcedon, accept the books found in the Catholic Bible. At Trent the Canon was closed in the West. In the East other books were added depending upon their usage within the liturgy, albeit these books as not viewed with the same canonicity as those ratified at the Constantiople III.

It seems that after the Protestant Revolution, that many of the scholars on the P side decided to go back to the original languages, and as such adopted the Hebrew Masoretic text as the norm, instead of the Christian Bible.

Long story short, the historical fact is that those books that were not found in the Masoretic text were later reduced or rejected by Protestants.

The problem with this assertion is that 1) there is no historical evidence that the Jews had a closed canon during the time of Christ, nor directly after. 2) there is a pretty good argument that the development of the canonical list of the Jews and the Christians occurred about in the same timeframe. 3) that the majority of quotes of the OT found in the NT are from the Septuigint. 4) there are quite a few OT quotes or references from these books found in the NT.

That being said, I am more of the position that Protestants don't have to agree with our canon, for you guys are not bound by our Councils, obviously.

I agree. It was one of my favorite subjects in seminary.

I is extremely fascinating to me. Wished there was more information from that time on this process, but sadly it is what it is. Protestant scholars are spearheading this more than any other group, including Catholics; but there are quite a few that I think are being far and objective, and I have learned a great bit from them.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

Since the scripture argument that you make follows - I just want to comment here on the non-scripture element above.

1. IF indeed there is some mythical "need" by the saints after death but before heaven to be "cleansed" or to be purified or acquire "holiness" that is not at all "punishment for sin" -- then what is the "benefit" of going to heaven WITHOUT it? why work so hard to end the work of purification before it is done? Is there a supposed desire by the dead to enter heaven in an unpurified state? Is their great fear that they might enter heaven "purified"??

Does it even make sense to urge that God not purify them as needed??
​

I believe that the best answer is that God's justice still must be met. We have to remember that God is merciful God no doubt; but He is also a Just one as well. That is the reason why it required Jesus to atone for our sins. Jesus' death and resurrection was the only way for God to be merciful AND just.

True - but that leaves no place at all for Purgatory - rather it makes Purgatory a competitor to the Gospel as your use of Matt 18 shows.

We are spending a lot of time here discussing this subject, but to be honest the disagreement will remain at the end of the day, because we don't have the same views of how justification, sanctification, sin, etc works and how all of this effects us. Purgatory does not make sense to a person who believes that justification is only a legal change of status, and does not accept also that justification is an ontological changes as well.

Justification is a legal change - sanctification is the ontological process whereby the character become transformed over time.

I don't see how you can get this understanding. They had a reason for offering sacrifices for the dead, and they believed that these sacrifices offered would be beneficial for those who had died.

The text itself states clearly that the entire exercise was without any benefit at all apart from the resurrection. That is right from 2Macc 12.

And what is worse - is that the sin of idolatry is a mortal sin not covered even by the stories set aside for Purgatory.

I have already corrected this false understanding of the passage. The medallions where spoils. There is no evidence from the passage that these men worshipped anyone but God.

The text says that seeing the way they were devoted to those idols it was clear that they were killed as a judgment by God in divine judgment - the death sentence for their sin. Mortal sin.

Israel had looted may towns and nobody was killed by God simply for looting a pagan town.

Yet these people knew instantly from the bodies found that they died as a direct judgment of god.

Reading about Judas one learns that this was a man that did not tolerate idolatry.

He did not kill these men - the text claims it was the judgment of God on them.

His concern for them was in regard to the fact that they died with those idols and that he knew this to be the judgment of God. This is not a claim by him that "all is well if you get killed because God condemned you for idol worship" --

And what is worse the text is clear in saying that he anticipated no benefit at all for the dead because they were merely 'fallen asleep' in death. He only anticipated a benefit at the resurrection.

Another clean miss for Purgatory.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

And apparently "the living" Catholics will pay and do almost anything in reason to get their loved ones to skip the much needed yet apparently horrific circumstance of being fitted for heaven.
​

You can't pay to assist them, but you can offer up Masses, and acts of almsgiving for them that in some way assists them. We don't know how, but we do know it helps.
.

That alone is a huge problem that would sink the Purgatory tradition if the Bible had not already done it.

If the story itself is that characters/souls are somehow defective and need an experience in cleansing to be fit for heaven -- then short circuiting that that process to get them into heaven still unfit would not be to their benefit or to God's benefit.

on the other hand if the means for getting them out - has nothing at all to do with their own character being purged or cleansed or experiencing more reformation - if it is all about somebody "else" buying indulgences or going through the stations of the cross - or anything at all that has nothing whatsoever to do with the character of the person actually in the fires of purgatory - then you are back to "the price Christ paid was not enough" rather than "the soul and character was transformed to be fit for heaven'.

Your story ties to 'have it both ways'. Where getting out is still just about "payment" by someone else not about one's own soul being pure/changed/reformed. But being there in the first place is over having one's unfit character disciplined until the character is more pure for heaven.

If someone sees that your son is selfish - they cannot hand you a ten dollar bill and have that character defect vanish.

The story mixes things that do not go together at all - possibly because it was invented in the dark ages where such things might in fact fly with certain groups - but would not get off the ground today.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Precisely where does it say this?

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:14-17). According to Scripture, God divinely inspired what was written in His word (1 Corinthians 2:12-13; 2 Timothy 3:14-17; 2 Peter 1:21). Every word He speaks is pure (Psalm 119:160; Proverbs 30:5-6), perfect (Psalms 18:30, 19:7) and absolute truth (Psalm 119:160). It is written that He will preserve His word for all eternity (Psalms 12:6-7, 33:11, 100:5, 111:7-8, 117:2, 119:89-90, 119:189; 152, 160; Isaiah 40:8, 59:21; 1 Peter 1:23-25) and it will not return to Him in void (Isaiah 55:11). His word, counsel and righteous judgments stand forever (Psalms 33:11; 119:160; Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:25).

 

[barryatlake]

Diligently. Protestants most used misunderstood verse is explained below:

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

Copied from Johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com

 

[South Bound]

Diligently. Protestants most used misunderstood verse is explained below:

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

Copied from Johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I don't go to Catholics for my understanding of scripture.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I don't go to Catholics for my understanding of scripture.

Because it exposes the errors in your positions?