How is 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 evidence for Purgatory?

[Padrej]

I’m pretty sure this is what you would call “reading into Scripture”

If you take it in light of all and the entirety of scripture it would NOT be reading into it particularly in light of the Exodus passage of the Golden calf cited. David admitted to having “Great sin” after his affair with Bathsheba so what did he do? Murder, covet, adultery, plot to commit murder, try to cover up his crime, etc. Thus he had “Great sin” also. Do I need to go on???

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

No that is not what he is saying at all, and you strike me as intelligent so I don’t think that’s really what YOU think he said either

Catholics do not see salvation as immediate, we see it as a process. When Adam sinned he did not give us the guilt for sin but he did give us the inclination to sin known as concupiscence as I am sure you are aware.

Your understanding of salvation stems from imputed righteousness, and thus all effects are immediate. When we are filled with grace at baptism, this grace replaces what we lost, i’e., the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t take away our propensity to sin that we ontologically obtained from Adam as our covenant head. It is not a sin in and of itself, but it is obviously a wound on the soul.

We are not saying with purgatory that Jesus’ grace is insufficient, however, we are saying that God’s plan for fully apllying the grace that Christ obtained for us is a process of purification. God teaches His children to be perfect as He is perfect, and if they don’t learn the lesson on earth (which we most likely won’t) He finished the process as we draw near to Him on our way to meet the groom.

If sin is a nail, and we are the board, baptism/confession removes the nail, purgatory removes the hole. There are far more reasons to believe in this refining, burning quality of God’s cleansing than there is to believe otherwise. I believe my post on 1 Corinthians 3:15 still stands quite well, especially when presented with the other evidence.

Take into account the Jewish belief in prayers for the dead, the extensive Jewish wedding imagery and the fact that a bride was given a cleansing bath prior to meeting the groom, Paul referring to being baptized on behalf of the dead (baptism may not refer to water baptism here, but the point is why do anything for the dead? You can’t help those in hell and those in hevaen have no need), language of God as a refiner’s fire and burning love, 1 Corinthians 3:15 which I broke down earlier, several references to a third state, Jesus referring to forgiveness in the “age to come” after death (depending on how you take his statement), and FINALLY, the early church fathers who believed in it. Taking ALL this evidence into a WHOLE, it speaks just fine of purgatory, and the Catholic belief of our relationship and salvation as a process of purification, not as imputed. I would venture that you are not giving full force to the fact that we must be perfect to enter heaven, you need to really let the implications set in.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Another point I would make is that the Bible frequently makes delineations between how God sees sin, and how he judges us for ours.

To GOD, all sin is sin, yes. The law was meant to convict us of our sin, if you take Paul seriously, and so he who stumbled on one point was guilty of all of it, yes. But through the eyes of grace by the merits of Christ, God sees us as His children, and will not judge us according to the law.

 

[Padrej]

No that is not what he is saying at all, and you strike me as intelligent so I don’t think that’s really what YOU think he said either

Catholics do not see salvation as immediate, we see it as a process. When Adam sinned he did not give us the guilt for sin but he did give us the inclination to sin known as concupiscence as I am sure you are aware.

Your understanding of salvation stems from imputed righteousness, and thus all effects are immediate. When we are filled with grace at baptism, this grace replaces what we lost, i’e., the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t take away our propensity to sin that we ontologically obtained from Adam as our covenant head. It is not a sin in and of itself, but it is obviously a wound on the soul.

We are not saying with purgatory that Jesus’ grace is insufficient, however, we are saying that God’s plan for fully apllying the grace that Christ obtained for us is a process of purification. God teaches His children to be perfect as He is perfect, and if they don’t learn the lesson on earth (which we most likely won’t) He finished the process as we draw near to Him on our way to meet the groom.

If sin is a nail, and we are the board, baptism/confession removes the nail, purgatory removes the hole. There are for more reasons to believe in this refining, burning quality of God’s cleansing than there is to believe otherwise. I believe my post on 1 Corinthians 3:15 still stands quite well, especially when presented with the other evidence.

I know that this IS NOT what he said but to a Protestant this is how ridiculous he sounds. I fully understand you post in 1 Cor. 3: 15, and as I pointed out also in another post as well this is where a Protestant is going to differ GREATLY in interpretation. We are going to take the passage in its entirety as well as in light of the other Pauline epistles as well as the rest of the cannon of scripture. For example 1 Cor. 6: 11 speaks of the believer being washed and sanctified and justified (hence no need for Purgatory). 2 Cor. 5: 21, makes it evident that our sins were already taken care of by Christ’s suffering. 1 Peter 2:22-24, and 3:18 states we are clothed in His righteousness standing perfect before God already. No need for further suffering, so why the need for Purgatory? I sense you too are a person of education can you answer that? If according to those other passages cited, that **we are already clean, perfect and clothed in righteousness **Purgatory seems useless.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Because, Padrej, Paul speaks of sanctification and justification together in the same sentence. This fits in fine with the Catholic belief in regenerational baptism. Half of the book of Hebrews, however, speaks of the possibility of falling away from the faith, and Paul quite frequently speaks of perseverance.

You can sin after baptism, and then no sacrifice (Eucharist, for us) remains. The level of sin that would cut us off from the merits of this sacrifice must be mortal, as John refers to in his epistles. Confession is equivalent to the prodigal son returning, and thus we are once again reestablished in the familial bond. This does not deny purgatory, however, and I think that I did pretty well showing the context of the passage in Corinthians itself. The other passages you speak of can be dealt with in their context as well. God Bless

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I would also venture again, to point out that Paul seems to speak quite boastfully of his assurance, and other times sounds like a guilt-ridden, crucifix-clutching Catholic. The point is to find the balance, and understand that we can have a reasonable assurance, but we are not there yet. Life throws us curve-balls. We still have concupiscence. I think all Protestants would agree that they are not perfect like Jesus. They know this in their core. But you HAVE to be perfect, not merely “clothed in Christ’s righteousness” in the imputed sense. You can’t be the cup that is clean on the outside and filthy on the inside like the Pharisees. Most Protestants when pressed along this line will admit some sort of purification takes place, yet they will stop short of purgatory.

If you believe that Christ actually makes us clean, you can’t even believe in imputed righteousness, and thus would be forced to deny the Protestants that take issue with baptismal regeneration. And if you are forced to deny imputed versus infused righteousness, what other cards in your house will fall? Where does it end before you become Catholic ?

 

[Padrej]

Because, Padrej, Paul speaks of sanctification and justification together in the same sentence. This fits in fine with the Catholic belief in regenerational baptism. Half of the book of Hebrews, however, speaks of the possibility of falling away from the faith, and Paul quite frequently speaks of perseverance.
WOW you are a good apologist
You can sin after baptism, and then no sacrifice (Eucharist, for us) remains. The level of sin that would cut us off from the merits of this sacrifice must be mortal, as John refers to in his epistles. Confession is equivalent to the prodigal son returning, and thus we are once again reestablished in the familial bond. This does not deny purgatory, however, and I think that I did pretty well showing the context of the passage in Corinthians itself. The other passages you speak of can be dealt with in their context as well. God Bless

**To many, Though not all, Protestants the Eucharist is viewed as a way to bring ones way back after sinning once you sin after salvation. To some it is only a memorial and a “thing done” out of obligation. Thank you for pointing this out. **:thankyou:

 

[Padrej]

I would also venture again, to point out that Paul seems to speak quite boastfully of his assurance, and other times sounds like a guilt-ridden, crucifix-clutching Catholic. The point is to find the balance, and understand that we can have a reasonable assurance, but we are not there yet. Life throws us curve-balls. We still have concupiscence. I think all Protestants would agree that they are not perfect like Jesus. They know this in their core. But you HAVE to be perfect, not merely “clothed in Christ’s righteousness” in the imputed sense. You can’t be the cup that is clean on the outside and filthy on the inside like the Pharisees. Most Protestants when pressed along this line will admit some sort of purification takes place, yet they will stop short of purgatory.
You are very correct that life throws us curve balls! I would also assume that Catholics agree that they are not perfect either. We do admit that some sort of purification takes place, it is through the Blood of Christ that is shed for us that we believe that Once For All sacrifice covers and pays the price so no further purification needs be done.
curiously as I mentioned in an earlier post some early Methodist did believe in a “holding place” but came short of calling it Purgatory.

If you believe that Christ actually makes us clean, you can’t even believe in imputed righteousness, WHY NOT??? Water can be both frozen and vapor but yet it is still water.
and thus would be forced to deny the Protestants that take issue with baptismal regeneration. **Many DO NOT take issue with this at all.Can you tell me where you are getting this information with all due respect??? **
And if you are forced to deny imputed versus infused righteousness, what other cards in your house will fall? Where does it end before you become Catholic ?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Perhaps I was a bit unclear about the regeneration comment. My point was that many deny it. Others such as Lutherans, do not deny regeneration, but do still hold to imputed righteousness. My point is, you can’t believe in imputed righteousness.

Follow this out to it’s logical conclusion. When it is really all said and done, you are *declared *righteous in Protestant belief. The problem is, far too many Biblical passages speak of righteousness/grace as infused.

The point I made about jesus and the cup is still very valid. While on earth, we are viewed through the eyes of grace, and so your argument might be able to stand. But the simple fact is, you still have the inclination to sin. You still have impure thoughts, etc. You still are not perfect. And once you die, that’s when the imputed righteousness argument falls apart. Now it’s a whole new ball game, and the bride must be pure, not merely wearing a white dress. You could have venial sins before and God viewed you through the eyes of grace, but to enter heaven, you must be PERFECT. You need to have learned your lesson, to think and be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect. People don’t tend to learn this lesson on earth. They need a good scrub.

When all is said and done, if you are not actually infused and MADE perfect (as opposed to imputed) then what it boils down to is God is declaring you perfect when you are not. Seeing Christ’s blood covering your sins notwithstanding. God said you must BE perfect to enter heaven. Imputed righteousness is making God say something that is not true. He is not going to declare you perfect on the merits of his son, but you are not really perfect. He might have viewed you as a son on earth, but now you are going to be in God’s presence. The imperfections will naturally burn away as you enter His burning, refining, loving presence. As the bride, we will receive the cleansing bath before meeting the groom, a custom Jesus would have been very familiar with while he was bringing to mind Jewish marital imagery.

Now conversely, if you believe Jesus actually did make you perfect, not merely that God is letting a clean-on-the-outside-dirty-on-the-inside cup into His presence, then you are holding to the Catholic belief. Sin can’t stand in His presence. It will be refined away by His burning love, it’s not even a matter of choice. The seraphim were called the burning ones because of their proximity to Him. Do you truly believe that our sin will not be refined as well?

The issue I have, is that Protestants sometimes tend to make everything we do a “declaration.” Jesus tends to use the physical, and literal language, however. God doesn’t merely “declare” us clean and then let us in, because He can’t. Our imperfections would burn away as we drew nearer to Him, and then BAM. Heaven. And we are perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect, not merely declared so.

 

[Padrej]

Perhaps I was a bit unclear about the regeneration comment. My point was that many deny it. Others such as Lutherans, do not deny regeneration, but do still hold to imputed righteousness. My point is, you can’t believe in imputed righteousness.

Follow this out to it’s logical conclusion. When it is really all said and done, you are *declared *righteous in Protestant belief. The problem is, far too many Biblical passages speak of righteousness/grace as infused.

The point I made about jesus and the cup is still very valid. While on earth, we are viewed through the eyes of grace, and so your argument might be able to stand. But the simple fact is, you still have the inclination to sin. You still have impure thoughts, etc. You still are not perfect. And once you die, that’s when the imputed righteousness argument falls apart. Now it’s a whole new ball game, and the bride must be pure, not merely wearing a white dress. You could have venial sins before and God viewed you through the eyes of grace, but to enter heaven, you must be PERFECT. You need to have learned your lesson, to think and be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect. People don’t tend to learn this lesson on earth. They need a good scrub.

When all is said and done, if you are not actually infused and MADE perfect (as opposed to imputed) then what it boils down to is God is declaring you perfect when you are not. Seeing Christ’s blood covering your sins notwithstanding. God said you must BE perfect to enter heaven. Imputed righteousness is making God say something that is not true. He is not going to declare you perfect on the merits of his son, but you are not really perfect. He might have viewed you as a son on earth, but now you are going to be in God’s presence. The imperfections will naturally burn away as you enter His burning, refining, loving presence. As the bride, we will receive the cleansing bath before meeting the groom, a custom Jesus would have been very familiar with while he was bringing to mind Jewish marital imagery.

Now conversely, if you believe Jesus actually did make you perfect, not merely that God is letting a clean-on-the-outside-dirty-on-the-inside cup into His presence, then you are holding to the Catholic belief. Sin can’t stand in His presence. It will be refined away by His burning love, it’s not even a matter of choice. The seraphim were called the burning ones because of their proximity to Him. Do you truly believe that our sin will not be refined as well?

The issue I have, is that Protestants sometimes tend to make everything we do a “declaration.” Jesus tends to use the physical, and literal language, however. God doesn’t merely “declare” us clean and then let us in, because He can’t. Our imperfections would burn away as we drew nearer to Him, and then BAM. Heaven. And we are perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect, not merely declared so.

Let me get this straight. I understand that sin cannot stand in God’s presence. We both agree on this point.
What we disagree on is that God can Call something clean. John 15:3 “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.” God then cannot in the mind of a Catholic Speak a person clean? Why Can’t God do anything he darn well pleases because he is God? is that not putting God into a limited Box? So you are saying that when Jesus washed the feet of the disciples and Peter questioned him about it and Jesus’ response about his feet were the only part dirty that Jesus could not wash whomever he wanted to either?

Once again in the Bride imagery there was no mention of the “bride going into a holding pattern to be pure” while the groom was waiting. The Groom came and took her (the church) away.

I understand what you are trying to say in your analogies, you have to understand that I have also taken (to be fair to you) a Catholic Apologetics course so I an going to be able to edge you in where I can. What I am looking for if for you to explain yourself using scripture and reason (which for the most part you are doing). I am trying here to probe you to **find the Biblical imagery FOR Purgatory **not just say, “It can be justified by this verse of scripture” because I am going to keep countering you. This is what I do with my seminary students as well, this way you can better defend your faith and I am sharpening my skills as well. as the Bible says “as Iron sharpens iron.”

 

[Des]

So then you are saying the Blood of Christ does NOT have the power to cleanse ALL sins. That Christ was NOT the perfect Sacrifice for the whole world not was he the perfect sacrifice? Is that what I hear you saying? So then Purgatory cleanses away the sins NOT covered by the Blood of Christ? Is this what the Catholic church really is saying?

Who says that the Salvic Blood of the Cross isn’t continuing to work through Purgatory as well?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Oh I perfectly respect where you are coming from, I do the same, and I enjoy a good discussion with intelligent posters.

What you appear to be doing though, is somewhat going against the idea of imputed righteousness, since you believe that we are actually made clean, unless I am misreading you. The whole point to a Catholic mind, is that we ARE actually made clean.

However, what is replaced is what we lost in the fall, namely, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. While baptism reinfuses us with this grace, it does not take away the ontological reality of what was “added,” namely concupiscence.

God does not view us as perfect because of Christ’s imputation; He infuses us with His grace and enables us to become actually perfect. If this were not so, Jesus would be giving us an empty command when telling us to “be perfect.” This statement was in the context of righteous works (grace-induced, of course). In essence, the man learns by doing.

Whether God can declare us clean and make it so is not really the point, although I understand your argument. The point is, WOULD God declare someone clean if they are not? God says we must BE clean. If you die, and you are not as perfect as Jesus, you must be made as perfect as Jesus. Concupiscence cannot enter heaven. More than being a partaker in the divine sonship with your imperfect human nature, now you are to experience the beatific vision.

Really, here is the crux of the issue. We are truly made holy By Christ, but we are not made perfect (at that instance, in a declarative sense). That would imply to the Catholic mind that Jesus not only calls you to him and dies on the cross, he carries *your *cross for you, and of course Jesus did not tell us that. He told us to carry our cross. Carrying our cross is what conforms us to him. He told us how to be perfect while showing us how. Think of it as a father-son lesson, rather than a declaration. He infuses us with the divine grace necessary to continue on as a child of God and become perfect. If the process isn’t done here, then it will be.

The reason the idea of the Jewish cleansing is important is that no, it is not in the Bible but neither are many other aspects of the wedding. However, if you study how a Jewish wedding took place in the 1st century, it will illuminate MANY passages referring to Christ, not just this one. The cleansing bath is just icing on the cake. This concept is quite similar to how studying the Jewish Passover can be quite instrumental in refuting a protestant’s symbolic concept of the Eucharist. The bride isn’t in a “holding pen,” she is washed lovingly just prior to the procession, then her procession meets with the grooms, and she is led back to the house of the father of the bridegroom, where there is usually a room prepared for the two. Also analagous to the fact that you pass through the area of purification in the old Jewish Temple ON THE WAY to the presence of God.

Hope that helps a bit.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Another reason I dislike debating the idea of purgatory first, is that it is simply a part of the larger differences between Catholics and Protestants on the nature of justification/sanctification, and the discussion will invariably begin reaching to these areas. I am trying to stay within the confines of purgatory without dragging poor Abraham into this haha.

 

[Des]

So then you are saying the Blood of Christ does NOT have the power to cleanse ALL sins. That Christ was NOT the perfect Sacrifice for the whole world not was he the perfect sacrifice? Is that what I hear you saying? So then Purgatory cleanses away the sins NOT covered by the Blood of Christ? Is this what the Catholic church really is saying?

Who says that the Blood of the Cross isn’t ongoing for the already saved after death to Purge them once and for all.

Let me get this straight. I understand that sin cannot stand in God’s presence. We both agree on this point.
What we disagree on is that God can Call something clean. John 15:3 “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.” God then cannot in the mind of a Catholic Speak a person clean?

Christ is talking about the present condition of their souls so long as they abide in Him of course and not even remotely suggesting what you say He is.

Go a few verses down from there and notice Christ says it’s all about keeping His Commandments. Are you telling us you always have and always will from this day forth, keep the commandments of God?

10 If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father’s commandments, and do abide in his love.

 

[lookaround]

Another reason I dislike debating the idea of purgatory first, is that it is simply a part of the larger differences between Catholics and Protestants on the nature of justification/sanctification, and the discussion will invariably begin reaching to these areas. I am trying to stay within the confines of purgatory without dragging poor Abraham into this haha.

usually if you explain purgatory as final sanctification your average “Protestant” will be more open to the idea

 

[Javl]

To your “Protestants do not take into consideration the workings of God” I would ask ARE YOU? Your own Catechism delineates Purgatory by definition as purification as being different from the final punishment of the dammed. (Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 12, SubSection 3 Paragraph 1031) Why couldn’t God by the same token have just put the rich man in Purgatory instead of damming him to Hell? It would seem that that was a final punishment of the dammed. The rich man obviously had faith because he asked “father Abraham” to allow Lazarus “to go back and warn his brothers” and the response was “they have Moses and the prophets.” Obviously he had them also in his faith walk but it did not work because he was put into hell. But why not Purgatory? If the Jews of the day believed it as everyone believed, why didn’t Jesus say “Purgatory” or “the holding place” or “the place of departed spirits” but clearly put him in Hell. Jesus only mentioned two places, Heaven and Hell in all of his teachings. Are you saying that Jesus’ words changed after His death to include Purgatory? (Please I am not trying to be argumentative but merely trying to see your logic clearly.)

You mention that You, “believe what my church has taught for the past 1927 years without change or modification” The doctrine of Purgatory was not decided on until the Council of Florence 1431-45 and finally ratified at the Council of Trent in 1545-1563. (this is referenced in the same section of the catechism listed above) Until that time there had been revisions. Don’t get me started on the number of Popes whose teaching were branded as heretical after their death by church councils (and YES I can list the ones for you to look up) if you want to go the infallibility route. So if the doctrine of Purgatory was not adopted until the Council of Florence it has only been around 548 years not 1927 years. It is interesting that the “Second Vatican Council” Or 21st Church council (1962-1965) was the most controversial for the ambiguous language of the documents opened a Pandora’s Box to allow Church leaders and others to interpret dogma and doctrine in a Protestant light with an emphasis on humanism, ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality in an effort to conform to the modern world rather than the world adhering to what the Church had always taught. Do you now go against your own church councils when they clearly have changed direction from council to council?

First off, the rich man condemned himself to hell, if he had faith he would not have ended up there. As for his asking Lazarus for help, he realized too late what he had done with his life and wanted to warn his brothers not to do the same as he had done. And as for Jesus, read Peter 3:19-20 and Peter 4:6. If these souls were in hell, there was no need
of the Gospel. Since Heaven was not open to them they had to be some place. This is what the Jews, even those of today, believed. It is a holding place, which we call Purgatory.

As for the doctrine of Purgatory, the Councils defined the existence of Purgatory ( which was evidently adopted from Judaism ). They did not just make it up out of thin air. And as
for Vatican II the controversy was more over its definition than its existence. The basic
doctrine of Purgatory is still taught.

Also, just because Jesus did not talk about it does not mean that it was not so.

Like you, I am not trying to be argumentative. I do not argue. I listen to your side and I
ask that you listen to my side. Thank you and God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Padrej]

Oh I perfectly respect where you are coming from, I do the same, and I enjoy a good discussion with intelligent posters.

What you appear to be doing though, is somewhat going against the idea of imputed righteousness, since you believe that we are actually made clean, unless I am misreading you. The whole point to a Catholic mind, is that we ARE actually made clean.

However, what is replaced is what we lost in the fall, namely, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. While baptism reinfuses us with this grace, it does not take away the ontological reality of what was “added,” namely concupiscence.

God does not view us as perfect because of Christ’s imputation; He infuses us with His grace and enables us to become actually perfect. If this were not so, Jesus would be giving us an empty command when telling us to “be perfect.” This statement was in the context of righteous works (grace-induced, of course). In essence, the man learns by doing.
Most Protestants would agree 100% with the above

Whether God can declare us clean and make it so is not really the point, although I understand your argument. The point is, WOULD God declare someone clean if they are not? God says we must BE clean. If you die, and you are not as perfect as Jesus, you must be made as perfect as Jesus. Concupiscence cannot enter heaven. More than being a partaker in the divine sonship with your imperfect human nature, now you are to experience the beatific vision.
**This is where we start to part ways. A protestant would say, "You are already made clean and stand righteous and therefore ARE perfect although you are in a fallen state- thus Grace goes before you, this is why many of Protestants still baptize infants. Others who do not believe in this and only believe in a “believers Baptism” would differ with us both here. **

Really, here is the crux of the issue. We are truly made holy By Christ, but we are not made perfect (at that instance, in a declarative sense). That would imply to the Catholic mind that Jesus not only calls you to him and dies on the cross, he carries *your *cross for you, and of course Jesus did not tell us that. He told us to carry our cross. Carrying our cross is what conforms us to him. He told us how to be perfect while showing us how. Think of it as a father-son lesson, rather than a declaration. He infuses us with the divine grace necessary to continue on as a child of God and become perfect. If the process isn’t done here, then it will be.
I think here we start to come back together in thought as we can agree here.

The reason the idea of the Jewish cleansing is important is that no, it is not in the Bible but neither are many other aspects of the wedding. However, if you study how a Jewish wedding took place in the 1st century, it will illuminate MANY passages referring to Christ, not just this one. The cleansing bath is just icing on the cake. This concept is quite similar to how studying the Jewish Passover can be quite instrumental in refuting a protestant’s symbolic concept of the Eucharist. The bride isn’t in a “holding pen,” she is washed lovingly just prior to the procession, then her procession meets with the grooms, and she is led back to the house of the father of the bridegroom, where there is usually a room prepared for the two. Also analagous to the fact that you pass through the area of purification in the old Jewish Temple ON THE WAY to the presence of God.

Hope that helps a bit.

Now we are getting someplace! These illustrations are far better than the ones you are giving from 1 Cor.
We Expect those, we do NOT expect what you just gave and those are far harder to defend. WELL DONE!!!
The Jewish Temple was types and shadows of things to come, no Protestant can deny that, now you hammer them with the above “purification thing” and you have them cornered. If you were in my seminary class you would have an A for the day.

 

[Padrej]

First off, the rich man condemned himself to hell, if he had faith he would not have ended up there. As for his asking Lazarus for help, he realized too late what he had done with his life and wanted to warn his brothers not to do the same as he had done. And as for Jesus, read Peter 3:19-20 and Peter 4:6. If these souls were in hell, there was no need
of the Gospel. Since Heaven was not open to them they had to be some place. This is what the Jews, even those of today, believed. It is a holding place, which we call Purgatory.
**These verses there are several ways that they are interpreted:
The original Greek has Christ preaching to the departed “spirits” (literal translation), Now the word translated “spirits” can be translated as demons, humans spirits, or angels. The Apostles Creed and Nicene Creeds both state a belief in Christ’s decent to Hell, so then the question now comes up, are these human spirits or demons that he was declaring his final victory on the cross to. It could also refer to the “days of Noah” when fallen angels were typified as “spirits” who married women Gen 6:1-4 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6) and then the final one is the holding place limbo or purgatory that Jesus went to preach to those who had departed. The problem with that theory is that Jesus referred to God as the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of the Living not dead. If they are departed they are DEAD. If they are living they are in Gods presence, he said this when arguing with the Saducees. **

As for the doctrine of Purgatory, the Councils defined the existence of Purgatory ( which was evidently adopted from Judaism ). They did not just make it up out of thin air. And as
for Vatican II the controversy was more over its definition than its existence. The basic
doctrine of Purgatory is still taught.

Fair enough, sadly I notice Purgatory is not taught as fervently as it once was.

Also, just because Jesus did not talk about it does not mean that it was not so.
Once again this same argument is used to support the homosexual agenda as they say Jesus didn’t speak about that either. Between us I wouldn’t use that line for that same reason.

Like you, I am not trying to be argumentative. I do not argue. I listen to your side and I
ask that you listen to my side. Thank you and God Bless.
Ditto

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Padrej]

Another reason I dislike debating the idea of purgatory first, is that it is simply a part of the larger differences between Catholics and Protestants on the nature of justification/sanctification, and the discussion will invariably begin reaching to these areas. I am trying to stay within the confines of purgatory without dragging poor Abraham into this haha.

See post 56, I think you will see how close we really are!!!

 

[Padrej]

usually if you explain purgatory as final sanctification your average “Protestant” will be more open to the idea

Maybe to an average Protestant who is not a student of their Bible (Which actually is many). Sadly the reason why many Jehovah’s Witnesses get as far with either Catholic or Protestant is they rely on the fact that neither part are students of their Bible so they pry at key verses and hammer those home to knock down the other person’s faith to win a convert.
I have several lapsed Catholics in my congregation and they wished that their old parish offered and encouraged Bible study when they were growing up so that they could better understand their faith. Now for them it is too late. The Local RC Church does not offer Bible study. It offers RCIA but that is IT. If a Catholic wants Bible study they have to go to a Protestant church. Way to loose members if you ask me because holes can be knocked in doctrine very easily.