If you don't believe in Purgatory....

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why do Christians who refute Purgatory avoid these:

1 John 5:16-17 – degrees of sins distinguished
2 Samuel 12:13-14 – David, though forgiven, still punished for sin
Matthew 5:26 – you will not be released until paid last penny
1 Peter 3:18-20; 4:6 – Jesus preached to the spirits in prison
2 Timothy 1:16-18 – Paul prays for dead friends Onesiphorus
 
A side thought for a moment?

Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

**Is jealousy a trait of perfection? **

Satisfaction is the result after the problem causing jealousy is corrected…
There’s many things in the OT that we know aren’t a full appreciation of who God is.

For you to argue that he demands ‘satisfaction’ implies that he’s not satisfied, which means he’s wanting something, and therefore not perfect!:rolleyes:
 
Let me clarify and repeat that if a person’s repentance was total and complete and they were in a condition such that they would not sin anymore and died, they would not go to Purgatory, because their soul would be in a heavenly condition and no longer earthly.

Unfortunately, most people (even those bound for heaven who follow Christ) are always vulnerable to sinning. And since nothing unclean can enter heaven, it is actually illogical to think we will not be first transformed after death to a state of perfection.

As to “I have to burn you for a while” comment, you’ll have to take that up with Paul.

The Church doesn’t have a specific doctrine on a literal fire, or if it is perhaps a metaphor for something like smelting, i.e. the process by which gold is purified, and the imperfections are separated. It is best understood as purification from being sin prone to being non-sin-prone.
Well as you deny an actual ‘flames’ then you’ve already reduced your own evidence about Paul mentioning flames! Great if you want to under-cut your own argument.

However you argument is also faulty because it accepts that a person can, after death, be ‘affected’ in this case by purgatory, but seems to deny that they can in anyway seek forgiveness, and thus not need to be in purgatory. Why is that? Why would I suddenly change from a being that can seek salvation to one that can’t, that must go into some automatic process beyond my control, to be punished until I’m ‘clean’?
 
So when Peter told the people to be baptized for the remission of sins, that didn’t involve water? When Ananias told Paul, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins,” that didn’t involve water? This makes no sense.
Peter was referring to being baptized with the Holy Spirit which requires repentance.
No, it doesn’t. Romans 4 says that Abraham’s faith was imputed to him for righteousness. It does not say that Jesus’ righteousness is imputed to us, which is what Luther said.
Because Abraham BELIEVED God, Abraham’s belief was counted unto him for righteousness.

Rom 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
The Waldensians did not teach imputed righteousness.
It depends on which side of the fence you are on. Many protestants admire the faith of the Waldensians. The Waldensians were so strong in faith. They faced death at the hands of the Roman Empire and did not concede. There are many horrifying stories they lived through but their faith remained. When they found out that the RCC had a reformation movement, they sent people to find out if it was true. The Waldensians and the reformers “joined” up. There were even accounts of many Waldensians that committed to memory many books of the New Testaments.

Of course, you’ll have the RCC side calling them heretics.
I was not talking about John’s baptism, although I wouldn’t give an unequivocal “no” to your question–he baptized people unto repentance for remission of sins, so clearly baptism played some role in the forgiveness of their sins. But we aren’t talking about burial with Christ, etc., when we talk about John’s baptism.
Here’s my point, John’s Baptism never washed away sins. So what happened then to the people who were baptized by John? Did they have to be re-baptized to have their sins removed? No, they were told they had to believe in Jesus Christ.
Deal with Acts 2:38; deal with Acts 22:16; deal with Romans 6. I’m not basing my argument on John the Baptist.
Acts 2:38 says REPENT. Jesus came to call sinners to repentance. He promised us the Holy Spirit. Pre-qualifications to being baptized with the Holy Spirit is repentance. So repent. The Word doesn’t say be water baptized and do other sacraments.

Act 2:38
Then Peter said unto them,** REPENT**, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The point is that your false dichotomy between faith and baptism is contrary to Scripture.

Edwin
No false dichotomy.
 
A Question Believers. or maybe a few…

God gave Moses the Law?
That’s why it’s called the “Law of Moses”. The Jews lived and died by the Law of Moses.
I had always believed that GOD gave the Law to his Chosen People.
He did… through Moses.
Why does GOD not just give the law directly to his Chosen People?
In the OT, that was the job of the prophets.
Why did GOD go thru an intermediary?
My guess is they were “types and shadows.” The prophets were the intermediaries of the OT. Jesus is the intermediary of the NT.
For that matter, why do you need a Pastor or Preacher at your local church?
Pastor and preachers aren’t intermediaries. They preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Is not GOD powerful enough to sheperd the flock directly from Heaven without any intermediaries?
Jesus already does. And we don’t have any intermediaries but Jesus.
 
Why do Christians who refute Purgatory avoid these:

1 John 5:16-17 – degrees of sins distinguished
2 Samuel 12:13-14 – David, though forgiven, still punished for sin
Matthew 5:26 – you will not be released until paid last penny
1 Peter 3:18-20; 4:6 – Jesus preached to the spirits in prison
2 Timothy 1:16-18 – Paul prays for dead friends Onesiphorus
Why do Christians who believe in purgatory twist these verses into a pretzel?
 
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his WORKS . Matt 16:27
OK… Let’s define works IN CONTEXT. Could it mean to deny your sinful nature with repentance and following Christ? Crucifying yourself as Jesus was crucified?

Mat 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mat 16:25
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Mat 16:26
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Mat 16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Gal 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
 
I agree with you, but I think believers’ point was that works not motivated by love do nothing to vivify faith (or, in Protestant terms, works not motivated by love are no evidence of living faith and may be produced by a false, dead counterfeit of faith).

Edwin
Yes.
 
Yes faith without works is dead no matter what form the works take. Works of Merit can be Works of Love and vice versa.
No, there’s the Law of Faith which you break with meritorious works. Grace becomes debt. You fall from Grace. THEREFORE, For by Grace are ye saved through faith no longer applies.
 
Peter was referring to being baptized with the Holy Spirit which requires repentance.
So are you saying that v. 41 is referring to three thousand people being baptized with the Holy Spirit, rather than (as almost everyone interprets it) being baptized with water? You have no grounds for this interpretation except your desperate desire to back up your un-Scriptural view that faith and baptism are somehow in competition.
Here’s my point, John’s Baptism never washed away sins.
So John was doing something futile and deceptive when he baptized people for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 3:3)? This is another example of how the New Testament does not divide outward sign and inward reality the way you do. Baptism and repentance went together–they are not set over against each other. I am not saying that baptism is efficacious apart from repentance and faith.
So what happened then to the people who were baptized by John? Did they have to be re-baptized to have their sins removed? No, they were told they had to believe in Jesus Christ.
True. John’s baptism was seen as imperfect, but it needed to be completed by the laying on of hands and the gift of the Holy Spirit, not by a separate water baptism. However, Christian baptism is different, because it is based on the death and resurrection of Jesus, and through it we are, objectively speaking, buried and raised with Christ (of course we can resist the grace offered us in the sacrament).
Acts 2:38 says REPENT. Jesus came to call sinners to repentance. He promised us the Holy Spirit. Pre-qualifications to being baptized with the Holy Spirit is repentance. So repent. The Word doesn’t say be water baptized and do other sacraments.
Yes, it says be baptized in this very verse. And there is no reason whatever to think that this is not talking about water baptism. You simply can’t admit that it is because your theology would crumble if you accepted the plain meaning of God’s Word.
Act 2:38
Then Peter said unto them,** REPENT**, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost

No false dichotomy.
It’s obviously a false dichotomy. Just look at what you do with Acts 2:38 above. Scripture says “repent and be baptized.” You set up repentance over against baptism, and actually capitalize repentance as if to say that that is the only word that matters. In other words, God gives you two things that naturally go together, and you presumptuously separate them and set one against the other.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
On imputed righteousness and the Waldenses:
Because Abraham BELIEVED God, Abraham’s belief was counted unto him for righteousness.
Agreed. But that is not “imputed righteousness” in the sense of Christ’s righteousness being imputed to Abraham. These are two different concepts. Of course you can develop the one from the other, but Luther was the first person I know of who did so.
It depends on which side of the fence you are on.
No, it doesn’t. No serious historians think the Waldenses believed in imputed righteousness.
Many protestants admire the faith of the Waldensians.
Yes, I admire them very much.
The Waldensians were so strong in faith. They faced death at the hands of the Roman Empire and did not concede.
Do you mean the “Holy Roman Empire” (which was one of the persecutors of the Waldenses) or are you repeating the discredited myth that the origins of the Waldenses go back to the early Church?
There are many horrifying stories they lived through but their faith remained. When they found out that the RCC had a reformation movement, they sent people to find out if it was true. The Waldensians and the reformers “joined” up.
Yes, but it was a bumpy process because their beliefs and practices were by no means identical. I am reviewing a book by the Italian Protestant scholar Gabriel Audisio talking about the Waldensian pastors (it’s called Preachers by Night–he also wrote a more general history of the Waldensians), and he discusses this encounter in some detail. In one meeting (1532), the Reformers appear to have accused the Waldensians of being “more concerned and troubled by your ceremonies and external works than those in the Roman Church” (Audisio, Preachers, 213, citing Pierre Griot’s account as printed in Audisio’s earlier work Le barbe et l’inquisiteur, 108-9; admittedly Audisio says that this account may be a bit muddled, but the shock of the Waldensian narrator at hearing the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith seems pretty clear). The Waldensian pastor Georges Morel visited Basle and Strasbourg in 1530 and asked them about the doctrine of justification and the role of good works, citing many Scriptural passages that seemed to teach that works were necessary for salvation (Audisio, Preachers, 210). The historical evidence is squarely against you here–it has nothing to do with which “side” you come at the matter from.
There were even accounts of many Waldensians that committed to memory many books of the New Testaments.
Very true. But, again following Audisio, it’s interesting to note which books they memorized–they seem to have focused on the Gospels and the pastoral epistles, the books richest in practical, moral instruction (Audisio, Preachers, 102-3).
 
No, there’s the Law of Faith which you break with meritorious works. Grace becomes debt. You fall from Grace. THEREFORE, For by Grace are ye saved through faith no longer applies.
A false dichotomy.
 
OK… Let’s define works IN CONTEXT. Could it mean to deny your sinful nature with repentance and following Christ? Crucifying yourself as Jesus was crucified?

Mat 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mat 16:25
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Mat 16:26
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Mat 16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Gal 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Please explain to me in what CONTEXT did Jesus get down on his knees and wash the Apostles feet.
 
Purgatory is a necessary invention once you adopt a belief that God needs to be satisfied

In the catechism…
1494 The confessor proposes the performance of certain acts of
“satisfaction” or “penance” to be performed by the penitent in order to
repair the harm caused by sin and to re-establish habits befitting a
disciple of Christ.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1494.htm
Because Christ Himself was a sacrifice to satisfy God…
616 It is love “to the end” that confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as
redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved
us all when he offered his life. Now “the love of Christ controls us,
because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have
died.” No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the
sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in
Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces
all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind,
makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/616.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top