Best verse defending Purgatory! Matthew 5:21-26

[EvangelistVictor]

Well there’s two baptisms. One of the water, and one of the Spirit.

For me, Spirit Baptism is crucial in ones relationship with Christ. Its when our faith becomes very real.

 

[MT1926]

I am still waiting for an explanation of the doctrine of purgatory that is proven from scripture rather than assumed.

Here is the Catholic understanding of purgatory from 1 Corinthians 3:15. Sure you might not agree with it but to just flat out tell us we are wrong, is not only uncharitable it is outright arrogant. Seeing that you already agreed you are not infallible. Which means you yourself might be wrong here.

This will take several post…

1 Corinthians 3:15
In chapter three of his First Letter to the Corinthians St. Paul admonishes the Corinthians
because members of that church have separated into factions. As a result he states that he
could not address them as “spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ” (1 Cor
3:1). Because of their “jealousy and rivalry” some have claimed, “I belong to Paul,” and others
have stated, “I belong to Apollos” (1 Cor 3:4). This leads Paul to give an instruction on the role
of God’s ministers beginning with verse 5.

In relationship to Apollos he declares, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth”
(1 Cor 3:6). This is an affirmation of the primacy of grace to which both Paul and Apollos are
dependent. Because they are God’s servants they are equal even if their roles are different.
However, they will be rewarded according to the quality of their works. “Wages,” which is
translated as “reward” in KJV, indicates merit, and “labor” equates to works. Indeed the flavor
of the Greek reflects intense labor that is accompanied amid difficulties. This is an apt
description of the effort needed to be a faithful minister and living a faithful Christian life.

Beginning in verse 10 Paul focuses on the respective roles of ministry beginning with his
apostolate, which had as its purpose to lay the foundation of faith in the Corinthian church. “I
laid a foundation and another is building upon it” (1 Cor 3:10). This is consistent with the
dynastic nature of the Church. Paul and the other apostles were chosen to be ministers in
Christ’s kingdom. Their offices will be passed on to their successors, that is, those who build on
the foundation laid by the apostles. Thus, after Jesus ascended into heaven Peter declared that
it was necessary to elect a successor to Judas (Acts 1:15-22) citing Psalm 109:8: “May another
take his office” (Acts 1:20). The KJV captures the same idea in its translation: “and his bishoprick
let another take.”

In writing to Timothy St. Paul affirms the dynastic succession in Christ’s kingdom, the Church.
“So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you [2nd generation]
heard from me [1st generation] through many witnesses entrust to faithful people [3rd
generation] who will have the ability to teach others [4th generation] as well” (2 Tim 2:1-2).

continued…

 

[MT1926]

”Like a wise master builder” (1 Cor 3:10) Saint Paul lays the solid foundation, which is Christ.
Those who come after him to build on that foundation will be judged according to the quality of
their workmanship: “gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw” (1 Cor 3:12). The quality
of their effort will be judged on “the Day,” which is a clear reference to the great day of God,
when he comes in judgment (Obad 15; Amos 5:18-20; Joel 1:15; Zeph 1:14-18; Joel 2:30-32; Isa
24:21; Jer 9:25-26; Amos 4:2; Mt 7:22; 12:41-42; Lk 10:14; 21:34-35; Lk 10:14).

In the “fire” of God’s judgment each person’s actions in building the Church, which is described
as the temple of God of which we are a part (1 Cor 3:16), are evaluated (1 Cor 3:13). Two
important ideas are expressed here. The first draws its meaning from temple imagery and the second concerns God’s judgment of our actions, which is Paul’s main point. I will briefly
comment on both concepts.

Temple imagery begins in the creation accounts, which describe God building two temples: the
macro temple of the world and the miniature temple of man’s body. In both cases it is God’s
abiding presence and creative action that constitutes their sacredness. The holiness of God’s
presence in his temple is also seen in connection with the construction of the tabernacle and
later the Jerusalem temple. For example, the last chapter of Exodus narrates the spectacular
confirmation of God’s presence that accompanied the dedication of the tabernacle. “Then the
cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses
was not able to enter the tent of meeting, because the cloud abode upon it, and the glory of
the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Ex 40:34-35). A similar demonstration of God’s presence
occurred at the time Solomon’s temple was dedicated. “And when the priests came out of the
holy place, a cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister
because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord” (1 Kgs 8:10-11; 2
Chron 5:11-14; 7:1-3).

This temple imagery is a type or foreshadowing of the true Temple, which is Jesus Christ. “The
Jews then said to him, ‘What sign have you to show us for doing this?’ Jesus answered them,
‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews then said, ‘It has taken fortysix
years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?’ But he spoke of the temple
of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he
had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken” (Jn 2:18-
22). Jesus is the “true Tabernacle” of Heb 8:2. He is the divine Pattern, of which the Tabernacle,
Temple on earth, and our bodies were a “copy and shadow” (Heb 8:5; 9:11-12; 23-24; 10:1; Ex
25:9, 40; 26:30; Num 8:4; Acts 7:44). When we are incorporated into Jesus we become a part of
that Temple of which he is the head (Jn 15:1-5; Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 6:15; 12:12-27; Eph 2:16; Col
3:15). That body is the Church.

Continued…

 

[Sean77]

I did not flat out tell you that you were wrong. I read through the text with you, in your sight, explaining the passages immediately before, the passage being referred to, and the passage after demonstrating through exegesis of the text that this reading is completely foreign to the author’s intended message. That isn’t being uncharitable or arrogant. Paul was communicated a message in common language that his audience would clearly understand. To try to read into it a concept that Paul did not intend, and to allow that to go unchallenged would be insulting to Paul, and uncharitable.

 

[MT1926]

Purification imagery is expanded in verse 15. Earlier Paul introduced the idea of reward:
“wages” in verse 7 and “wage” in verse 14. Paul is clearly referring to Christians that will not be
condemned, but who will receive a heavenly reward. However, “if someone’s work [ergon in
Greek] is burned up,” that is, found to be defective, he “will suffer loss” (1 Cor 3:15). The Greek
word that is translated as “suffer loss,” zemiothesetai, comes from the word zemioo. In the
Septuagint this Greek word is always used in the sense of punishment. The Septuagint’s use of
Greek words is an important tool in understanding the use of Greek words in the New
Testament because about 85% of the time the New Testament cites the Old Testament it
quotes the Septuagint not the Hebrew Old Testament. Thus when a person’s works are
defective he will suffer punishment, a period of purification: “that one will suffer loss; the
person will be saved, but only [houtos] as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15).

To explain this state of temporary punishment after death, which some will undergo, the early
Church in the West used the Latin word purgatorium from which we derive the English word, a
purgatory. Purgatorium, the state, and purgativus, the action, refer to the same reality, namely, purification. Latin, of course, was the language spoken in the west. Two additional observations
need to be made regarding this text.

Paul’s use of houtos, “but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15) finds an echo in Peter’s first letter in
which he also addresses the issue of purification: “so that the genuineness of your faith, more
precious than gold that is perishable even though [houtos] is tested by fire, may prove to be for
praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 1:7).

Lastly, “works,” [ergon in Greek], are significant because of their relationship to salvation.
Clearly, when they come from human nature or in connection with the laws of the Old
Testament they are powerless to contribute to our salvation. “For by grace you have been
saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – not because of works
[ergon in Greek], lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:8-9; see also Rom 2:20, 27-28). However,
Paul does not reject the necessity of “works” as is clear in the next verse. “For we are his
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for [the Greek word gar introduces a purpose clause: “for
the purpose of”] good works [ergon in Greek], which God prepared beforehand, that we should
walk in them” (Eph 2:10; see also Tit 3:5-8, 14; 1 Pet 1:1-20; Jas 2:24; Phil 2:12-13; 1 Cor 15:10).

Sure you might not agree with this, we all read scripture based on the Traditions of our faith. But you can’t say Catholics are just proof texting this verse this is a well thought out interpretation of the verse in question.

God Bless

 

[po18guy]

The worst person on earth to fool is yourself.

Did you go ask the Orthodox yet?

Didn’t think so.

 

[MT1926]

I did not flat out tell you that you were wrong.

No you didn’t flat out tell me I was wrong but you did say…

I would highly recommend you in your studies to carefully follow the flow of the discussion when evaluating a proof text, examining the passages before and after.

Which comes off as arrogant in my book. What you don’t think I followed the flow of discussion you don’t think Catholics read scripture in the context of the entire Bible, both New and Old?

I read through the text with you, in your sight, explaining the passages immediately before, the passage being referred to, and the passage after demonstrating through exegesis of the text that this reading is completely foreign to the author’s intended message.

Yes you did and I told you I don’t agree. I did the same with you on the verses you quoted, claiming it is past tense and showed you the very next verse denoted an ongoing action and you ignored my response. Then a few posts later hammered right back down on someone else about the past tense.

So what’s your point?

Paul was communicated a message in common language that his audience would clearly understand.

Obviously he wasn’t since we both came to different understandings of what he said.

Which brings us right back to the point how do you know you have the correct “CLEAR” understanding and I do not?

To try to read into it a concept that Paul did not intend, and to allow that to go unchallenged would be insulting to Paul, and uncharitable.

And to just ignore 2000 years of Catholic teaching including what I posted above by just saying you got the wrong context is uncharitable to all Catholics.

Plus how is Catholics believing we need to be fully purified, by the love of Christ’s atonement, and purged of all attachment to sin, so we are spotless to enter heaven, an insult to St. Paul?

I’m not trying to be unkind here but it’s statements like this that make you come off as arrogant.

God Bless

 

[Sean77]

Which comes off as arrogant in my book. What you don’t think I followed the flow of discussion you don’t think Catholics read scripture in the context of the entire Bible, both New and Old?

I would say that in this specific example, that is clearly the case. I would not say that is always the case. We all have doctrinal blindspots, which is why it is beneficial to engage in study of the scriptures.

Yes you did and I told you I don’t agree. I did the same with you on the verses you quoted, claiming it is past tense and showed you the very next verse denoted an ongoing action and you ignored my response. Then a few posts later hammered right back down on someone else about the past tense.

So what’s your point?

If I missed your response, I apologize. Being the odd man out, I typically receive shotgun blasts of responses. Sometimes those are substantial. I appreciate your civility and willingness to engage is beneficial discussion. Oftentimes they are infantile. See po18guy’s off-topic commentary that avoids the subject above as an example. That being said, I do often miss what is being said, especially if I have been out doing other things for a while.

Obviously he wasn’t since we both came to different understandings of what he said.

Which brings us right back to the point how do you know you have the correct “CLEAR” understanding and I do not?

That would be objectively demonstrable because you are using a means of interpreting the scripture which denies the context of Paul’s statements. First, according to your explanation, both the faithful laborer and the laborer whose work was found to be of poor quality, both suffer what you seem to consider the fire of purgation. Purgation assumes that the quality of their work is known and found to be of poor quality, resulting in suffering penalty for their sin. In this text Paul shows that both undergo testing, one receives a reward, and one does not. The only reward in view of purgatory is heaven. So if your explanation is that this refers to purgatory, yet one worker loses the reward of heaven, this is contradictory to the doctrine. Correct? I may be mistaken, but according to Catholic doctrine, souls who are in purgatory have already been judged to have died in God’s grace and friendship and will enter heaven. This doesn’t square with what Paul is actually saying.

 

[Sean77]

And to just ignore 2000 years of Catholic teaching including what I posted above by just saying you got the wrong context is uncharitable to all Catholics.

First, I would challenge that assumption. Numerous fathers can be cited that spoke against the concept of purgatory to include Gregory the Great. And indeed, the issue is not whether it has been taught, but whether what is taught is faithful to the apostolic faith. We have a record of that faith, and it is devoid of this dogma.

I’m not trying to be unkind here but it’s statements like this that make you come off as arrogant.

I am sure that is what the world insists that about the catholic (small c) views of marriage. But we firmly and arrogantly stand on God’s teaching on that, do we not? It’s not arrogance to submit to God’s word.

 

[MT1926]

We all have doctrinal blindspots

How can you be certain you aren’t the one with the blind spot? Believing you can live your life with an inclination to sin and still enter heaven without having that same inclination to sin purged from you, seems illogical doesn’t it?

If I missed your response, I apologize.

Posts 14 and 15, you responded to one part of those posts but totally skipped the part where I explained why I didn’t agree with your interpretation.

you are using a means of interpreting the scripture which denies the context

How can you have infallible certainty that your context is the correct context and it’s not your blind spot that’s keeping you from seeing the correct context?

both suffer what you seem to consider the fire of purgation.

OK fair enough, maybe I didn’t type something clearly. Could you please point out what part of my explanation makes it sound like both laborers need to suffer in purgatory? Because this is not Catholic teaching, we believe it is possible to be purged of all attachments to sin in this life.

Purgation assumes that the quality of their work is known and found to be of poor quality, resulting in suffering penalty for their sin.

This would be a lot easier if you could “QUOTE” my exact phrase that you are making your objection to. Because I really have no idea what I said that is leading you to this conclusion. Not blaming you maybe my words weren’t exactly clear, but it’s impossible for me to try to clear up what I said if I don’t know which exact statements of mine you are objecting to.

The only reward in view of purgatory is heaven.

This is not Catholic teaching. Only the saved, still in need of final purification, go to purgatory (not that it is an actual place). This is post judgement, not before the judgement. A damned person can not go to purgatory for a second chance. Therefore, you have already been given the reward of heaven you just have to take a shower (to get the wood, hay and stubble off of you) and be clothed properly before you attend the banquet feast of our Lord.

Could you explain why you believe the only reward is getting to heaven? Do you believer we will all be equal in heaven?

yet one worker loses the reward of heaven, this is contradictory to the doctrine. Correct?

That’s not my explanation. I posted you a detailed 3 post long explanation of 1 Corinthians 3. Could you please point out what part of those posts leads you to believe this is how I am explaining it?

souls who are in purgatory have already been judged to have died in God’s grace and friendship and will enter heaven.

Yes

This doesn’t square with what Paul is actually saying.

What part of your last statement doesn’t seem to square for you?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

First, I would challenge that assumption. Numerous fathers can be cited that spoke against the concept of purgatory to include Gregory the Great.

Do you believe the Church fathers are authoritative in their understanding of scripture?

If your answer is yes then how do you know when they taught in line with Christ’s Church and how do you know when they taught in error? Because I am sure there is quite a bit they wrote that you aren’t in agreement with.

If your answer is no then you are presenting a worthless argument here. If you aren’t willing to accept the fathers as an authoritative voice then why do you try to use them as an authority to try and prove your point?

Also, Catholics do not claim that the Church fathers were infallible in their teachings. Therefore, it is only logical for one to find some fathers teaching things that are not consistent with the other fathers.

Which kind of shows you that from the beginning it was possible to read scripture in the wrong context. Pretty sure Jesus would have known this and left us a guide, who would be with us always to the end of the age, to help us read in the correct context.

cont…

 

[MT1926]

And indeed, the issue is not whether it has been taught, but whether what is taught is faithful to the apostolic faith.

Agreed. Please provide the external evidence that proves you are reading this verse in the correct context. To say see based on this verse meaning this here, that verse can only mean that their is weak interpretation. How do you know you started in the correct place?

Let’s be honest here. Anyone can make the Bible say whatever they want it to. All you have to do is pick one verse of scripture and read everything in light of that one verse. Kind of what Luther did and basically, what you say you are doing here.

When we are discussing the means by which we are justified we go to Romans, and often Ephesians, because they directly address by what means that we are made righteous in Christ. I have no issues “stepping outside” those books. However, when I do so, I look at them through the lens of the clear passages of scripture which directly speak to that issue.

Basically it sure seems you are saying when you want to talk about justification first you go to St. Paul. Then you go back and read everything Jesus said through that lens of Scripture.

Why? Where did the Bible tell you to start with St. Paul? Where does the Bible teach that it is wrong to start with Jesus’ words?

Sure I understand you said…

The fact of the matter is that there are certain passages that you go to because they speak directly to the heart of a specific matter.

Agreed there are certain passage that give us a deeper meaning. But once again why?

Where does scripture teach this is the way we read scripture?

Why would I reinterpret what Jesus says based on my understand of St. Paul? Why can’t I let Jesus’ words speak for himself?

The Bible tells us St. Paul’s words are difficult to understand, it doesn’t say Jesus’ words are difficult to understand. Why would you start with the verses that you are told you might get wrong then go back and interpret the verses that are easier to understand?

You are setting up the scenario that pits St. Paul against Jesus and only one can be correct. Well why can’t it be both/and?

You are saying this is how I understand what St. Paul is saying here therefore Jesus can’t be saying that there, let me see if I can figure out a way to make Jesus words fit. This is when most I talk with tend to say well, because St. Paul says this, Jesus has to only be speaking symbolically, or Jesus wasn’t really teaching anything eternally here, he was just talking about this world.

Let’s be honest here if you had St. Paul and Jesus standing in front of you who would you be listening to first?

cont…

 

[MT1926]

We have a record of that faith, and it is devoid of this dogma.

The definition of dogma is a set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

You sure this is what you meant with this statement? Because if we are unable to find truth in the Bible what’s the sense of reading it?

I am sure that is what the world insists that about the catholic (small c) views of marriage. But we firmly and arrogantly stand on God’s teaching on that, do we not? It’s not arrogance to submit to God’s word.

I have no idea what this has to do with our conversation? Or what your point is here?

You specify small c so I understand you don’t mean the Catholic Church. I’m guessing you mean all other Christian churches.

Now I know for a fact that the Catholic Church’s view on marriage is one man and one woman but I don’t believe EVERY small c catholic church believes in or teaches this, also based on the context they choose to go first.

So it sounds like you are saying small c catholics firmly and arrogantly stand on the non-unified misinterpretationS of God’s teaching?

You might want to go back and edit that one?

God Bless

 

[Sean77]

Do you believe the Church fathers are authoritative in their understanding of scripture?

That depends. I believe the church fathers are authoritative in their understanding of scripture when their interpretation of scripture is clearly in line with the message communicated in scripture.

 

[Sean77]

How can you be certain you aren’t the one with the blind spot? Believing you can live your life with an inclination to sin and still enter heaven without having that same inclination to sin purged from you, seems illogical doesn’t it?

Yes, it is quite illogical. Let me introduce you to Jesus…

 

[Sean77]

The definition of dogma is a set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

You sure this is what you meant with this statement? Because if we are unable to find truth in the Bible what’s the sense of reading it?

You obviously missed the demonstrative pronoun “this” which specifies a particular dogma, not dogma in general.

 

[AugustTherese]

I believe the church fathers are authoritative in their understanding of scripture when their interpretation of scripture is clearly in line with the message communicated in scripture.

And, who determines that? You? Martin Luther?

 

[MT1926]

That depends. I believe the church fathers are authoritative in their understanding of scripture when their interpretation of scripture is clearly in line with the message communicated in scripture.

So you agree with the Church fathers when they agree with you?

 

[MT1926]

Yes, it is quite illogical. Let me introduce you to Jesus…

Don’t know what you are getting at here, maybe you could explain? Because it sure sounds like you are saying that Jesus is illogical?

 

[AugustTherese]

I am still waiting for an explanation of the doctrine of purgatory that is proven from scripture rather than assumed. Again, were you going to exegete the passage under discussion, or not?

“Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts. Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.”
Isaiah 6:5-7 KJV

Notice: iniquity taken away, i.e. forgiven, then sin is purged.