Scriptural references to Purgatory - Old and New Testament

[prodromos]

Wasn't it Luther who described a snow covered dung heap?

 

[Targaryen]

Wasn't it Luther who described a snow covered dung heap?

Hmm. It doesn't seem so but fits in a sense with his soteriology:

Luther's "Snow-Covered Dunghill" (Myth?)

This is more of a statement fitting with Justification rather then a defense of Purgatory or a intermediate state from my analysis.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I have heard when I was a Protestant of the Evangelical type that Christ blood covers all sin but in essence if something is covered underneath it is still there, never understood that m
yself

What they are referring to is the debt of sin is covered meaning paid for. Not hidden. An example is if we go to eat at a restaurant and the bill is $35 I might give the cashier $40 and say here this should cover it. The bill was paid in full not covered up or hidden.

 

[Ronald]

You are misinterpreting every scripture, except Maccabees which is not canonical.
Jesus died for our sins. -- ALL OF THEM, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE SINS. It may be difficult for you to understand that, but only God can remove our sins. Once you die, your state us fixed. You are either saved or not. "The wages of sin is death." That is not just physical death, it is spiritual death. No prayers after a person dies can do anything for that person. You can't burn off sins through suffering. God purges our sins while we are alive through sanctification. Being cleansed spiritually doesn't mean sin doesn't still dwell on the members of our flesh, but die to ourselves, our old self, our old ways and it takes time to realize all our sinful ways. So we pray, confess our sins and hopefully don't return to those ways. Nut fear not, your spirit will go to the Lord when you die, if you've been born from above ( John 3 :3)
Spiritual death is separation from God permanently and of course, those unbelievers who die go directly to Hades and await their final Judgment which will end with being cast into the Lake of Fire and destroyed. It is God's prerogative if destruction for that person comes immediately as in instances like Sodom and Gomorrah or Korahs family or the entire world of Noah's time.
You must have faith that Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient. Our works are tested with fire means simply if they are material, they will burn up, if they are spiritual, they will endure. Our spiritual compartment is cleansed, this is where God dwells. As He dwelled in the Holy of Holies in the OT Temple, now He is in us. However, the rest of our body, the flesh is where sin dwells. When we die, we are separated from our flesh and our pure spirit goes to be with Jesus, directly. The part of us that is a sinner does not, nor does it go anywhere else.
The unbeliever, born with a dead spirit, was not born again, his sins were not cleansed, therefore the opportunity for him to reconcile with God ends with his death as in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Death is final one way or the other, its up to God who chose us first, called us and then for us to repent while we are alive, then Jesus does the rest.

 

[Targaryen]

I remind Ronald of Traditional Theology's guidelines:

Do not state or imply that another poster who has identified himself or herself as traditional Christian, is not in reality truly a traditional Christian because of belief, practice, or their affiliation with any particular denomination. Discuss and debate specific topics from your own traditional theological viewpoint, allowing others to do likewise without fear of judgment and condemnation. Do not get sidetracked into debating whether or not another poster's beliefs are right or wrong according to your traditional theological background or viewpoint. When making a statement about traditional theological beliefs please consider prefacing your statement with "some traditional Christians believe" or "my tradition believes".

 

[Tutorman]

What they are referring to is the debt of sin is covered meaning paid for. Not hidden. An example is if we go to eat at a restaurant and the bill is $35 I might give the cashier $40 and say here this should cover it. The bill was paid in full not covered up or hidden.

Nope they meant covered as in hidden I checked

 

[Tutorman]

Maccabees which is not canonical.

Actually it is canonical it was man that took it out

 

[BNR32FAN]

Nope they meant covered as in hidden I checked

Oh you did huh? Where did you check? Let me guess, the internet? When someone uses the term "our sins are covered by Jesus" do you think they were interpreting the bible as Jesus being the one who hides our sins? No the bible says our sins are removed and Jesus paid the price for us. Can you please show me where you "checked"? I'd love to see your source.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Actually it is canonical it was man that took it out

Maccabees is in the Septuagint. Jews don't even recognize it as being canonical today. That's why it is not in the Hebrew bible. You say that man took it out but it was man that put it in the Septuagint to begin with. Maccabees is a deuterocanonical book. It is not a protocanonical book. That means it was only put into the Septuagint as a testimony of history and not to be considered an authority to support ecclesiastical dogma such as purgatory or any other doctrines of the church. I'm glad it was removed from the bible because it causes too many to stumble from lack of understanding its intended purpose.

 

[Targaryen]

Are you referring to all 4 Maccabees books, or just 3 and 4? 1 and 2 do show up in what is commonly referred to as the Apocrypha

 

[BNR32FAN]

Are you referring to all 4 Maccabees books, or just 3 and 4? 1 and 2 do show up in what is commonly referred to as the Apocrypha

Yes but the apocrypha were not inspired writings. Some apocryphal books even go so far as to claim that Jesus killed people when He was a child.

 

[Targaryen]

Why is it I have to remind people that this is a Traditional Theology forum? The RCC/EO/OO Churches consider the Apocrypha to be canon with some differences in what is included, Anglicans and Lutherans included the Apocrypha in their bibles. Please, refrain from making blanket statements when it doesn't apply to most of the individuals that debate in this forum.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Maccabees is in the Septuagint. Jews don't even recognize it as being canonical today. That's why it is not in the Hebrew bible. You say that man took it out but it was man that put it in the Septuagint to begin with. Maccabees is a deuterocanonical book. It is not a protocanonical book. That means it was only put into the Septuagint as a testimony of history and not to be considered an authority to support ecclesiastical dogma such as purgatory or any other doctrines of the church. I'm glad it was removed from the bible because it causes too many to stumble from lack of understanding its intended purpose.

Actually, we (and all of Christianity) for centuries base our Scriptures on the Septuagint because it WAS the recognized canon while Christ walked the earth. It is the Scriptures that were quoted by Him and the Apostles in the NT. We have to be careful basing our acceptance on Judaism centuries after already rejecting Christ as Messiah. One of their concerns was actually to not give any support to Christian understanding. So I'm afraid appealing to later century Jews to establish what should be canon, above the texts used and accepted by the Apostles and the rest of the early Christians, is not a safe practice.

(Not that we see purgatory there, but the Septuagint was the basis for the OT canon of Scripture in the early Church.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

Why is it I have to remind people that this is a Traditional Theology forum? The RCC/EO/OO Churches consider the Apocrypha to be canon with some differences in what is included, Anglicans and Lutherans included the Apocrypha in their bibles. Please, refrain from making blanket statements when it doesn't apply to most of the individuals that debate in this forum.

Agreed, with the note that this forum is actually not for debate. Discussion, but not debate. Just wanted to take this opportunity to clarify that as well.

 

[~Anastasia~]

(And not ignoring posts replying to me in the past couple of days, just waiting until I have enough time to devote to reply. )

 

[Targaryen]

(And not ignoring posts replying to me in the past couple of days, just waiting until I have enough time to devote to reply. )

Looking forward to it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Septuagint was not in the original Hebrew canon. It didn't appear until after they were conquered by Greece. There also several other versions of the OT that also didn't survive. My point is the Jews don't recognize the apocryphal books as canon today and neither do Lutherans or Angelicans. Yes it was in their bible at one time but it was not recognized as canon. They were considered deuterocanonical until they were finally removed. I'm just stating facts about the history of the bible. I'm sorry if the RCC,EO,&OO don't agree with it but they aren't the only recognized authorities on biblical canon. So I believe I am in compliance with the forum rules on this one.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Agreed, with the note that this forum is actually not for debate. Discussion, but not debate. Just wanted to take this opportunity to clarify that as well.

By agreeing are you saying that because RCC,EO&OO recognize the apocrypha as canon but Protestants and Jews don't that I'm not in compliance with the rules of the forum?

 

[Targaryen]

Mainline Protestants may by in large not accept the Apocrypha as canon, however, they also don't attmpt to say to others that the beliefs of others within this forum are somehow in error. Your use of the term non-inspired writings in regards to these texts can be construed to make a blanket statement.

 

[~Anastasia~]

By agreeing are you saying that because RCC,EO&OO recognize the apocrypha as canon but Protestants and Jews don't that I'm not in compliance with the rules of the forum?

No, not at all. If you are part of a Traditional Church that rejects those books, that is fine. My point is that others who are part of Traditional Churches do. You're not against forum rules by believing what you do, but it's off topic to Traditional Theology to expect the forum to agree with that.

I'm not trying to clamp down against anyone posting. Just trying to put everyone in mind of the rules before we head off in another direction.

I think arguing against the canon shared by many Traditional Christians would fall under attempting to prove their Tradition as wrong, which is better suited to General Theology.

Traditional Theology has a particular ethos and rules of discourse a bit different from other forums. We just try to keep it that way. The Statement of Purpose (required reading for anyone posting here) should explain, but if you have questions, feel free to ask.

My apologies if I came across any other way. I'm posting on the run with only a moment here and there today, so I might have not said exactly what I meant.