Luke 16:19-31 Why are there only two fixed "States" in eternity mentioned here?

[Bernard_Lyons]

Bernard Lyons;11592591:

To answer you (Sort of) I just want to help you understand more of Purgatory.

As a Christian (correct me if I am wrong) you would answer the following statements in the affirmative…

There is no more pain in heaven.

There is no more tears in heaven.

There is no sin in heaven.

We will be holy in heaven like God created us to be.

So how does this happen?

I believe you would say, by some miracle of God after death when he welcomes us into heaven.

Not so friend.
Myself as well as
Christians of old never waited until after death for purification,had they done so it would have all been too late .
All the types and shadows in the O.T. Pointed to Christ as the spotless Lamb of God offered up for sin and indeed Jesus knew all the cost of purification would fall upon his shoulders and he personally vouchsafed this work beforehand unto all whom he would die for ,thus confidently stating ,that he “would save his people from their sins” . At the cross he said (as you have also been taught) “it is finished”.
To me this is the only possible rest for the believer ,everything (if only but a part) that we add to this,whether here now ,or hope to have done to us (or go through )after death would only take away from what Christ by his “precious blood” promised to faith; rather like adding a few drops of arsenic into a crystal clear glass of pure mountain stream water.

Our own conscience bares witness to the fact that if we are involved(in sins purification) we must suffer ,being (self condemned) guilty sinners we know a price has to be paid ;but if another has taken our place ,we can say with confidence and be sure “Therefore,there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” .

I have written a lot about Purgatory from an Evangelical Perspective at my blog if you want more information.

findingthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/2013/02/cs-lewis-believed-in-purgatory-rightly.html

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jon S;11592659:
Bernard,

You misunderstand the nature of God.

Nothing unclean can be in Gods presence. Nothing with even one speck of sin.

Christ paid the price for us and after death transforms us into righteous beings worthy of Gods presence.

He doesn’t just look the other way. But really and truly changes us.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Bernard Lyons;11596192:

Bernard,

You misunderstand the nature of God.

Nothing unclean can be in Gods presence. Nothing with even one speck of sin.

Christ paid the price for us and after death transforms us into righteous beings worthy of Gods presence.

He doesn’t just look the other way. But really and truly changes us.

Yes he does change us and you are right for (nothing )or no person who is unclean shall enter into heaven .(Rev21:27)
But please consider the lesson Peter an Apostle was given to learn concerning the Gentile believers:
Acts 11:7 “And I heard a voice saying,Arise,Peter slay and eat.
But I said,Not so,Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
But the voice answered me again from heaven,What God hath”( by the son of his right hand on the cross)“cleansed,that call not thou common”(or unclean.)

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jon S;11596231:

Yes he does change us and you are right for (nothing )or no person who is unclean shall enter into heaven .(Rev21:27)
But please consider the lesson Peter an Apostle was given to learn concerning the Gentile believers:
Acts 11:7 “And I heard a voice saying,Arise,Peter slay and eat.
But I said,Not so,Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
But the voice answered me again from heaven,What God hath”( by the son of his right hand on the cross)“cleansed,that call not thou common”(or unclean.)

I absolutely agree, and the Sons cleansing of us is what makes us clean. That cleansing is Purgatory as I quoted Pope Benedict XVI and CS Lewis saying earlier.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

I agree that this text alone doesn’t necessarily imply purgatory (though I disagree that to say so is sheer supposition.) But the point I was making, Bernard, is that if Jesus was really denying purgatory’s existence (as the OP said their friend was claiming) he wouldn’t have said there is a sin which cannot be forgiven * either* in this life or in the life to come. Why would he add that last clause? The Jewish people he was preaching to already had the concept that there was forgiveness and purification of sins after death. If this was something that was false, he shouldn’t have used that phrase and given the impression that it was right.

Do you at least see where I am coming from now?

Yes Robyn I do see where you are coming from,but I do think you are mistaken on a number of points.
In context Jesus was not preaching to believers who knew his meaning at all,but Jesus clarifies the meaning of his previous statements to them,by using the next verse (Matt12:33) that is, his hearers ,(to whom he preached) should be consistent in there judgements of him: if the fruits they saw to be from him were (undeniably) good ,why then did they judge him (the tree)to be corrupt?(whose power had a demonic source)

But Jesus (who judges perfectly,)seeing their fruit( blaspheming against The Holy Ghost)
declares both the tree(first) to be corrupt and the fruit produced by this same tree as proof positive to the currupt nature of the tree .(In this instance their fruit also was a witness and evidence of their(the trees)own certain perdition .

Far from being in a position to understand (or misunderstand) his meaning,these hearers in totality are judged then and there,(verse34)

“O generation of vipers,how can you being evil,speak good things?”

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Yes Robyn I do see where you are coming from

Far from being in a position to understand (or misunderstand) his meaning,these hearers in totality are judged then and there,(verse34)

“O generation of vipers,how can you being evil,speak good things?”

I would like also to add to this judgement of Jesus regarding the hearers of his words.
Despite being shown their true nature (vipers or relations of him who was so portrayed in “the Garden”).
And (unbelievibly) despite being witness to the almighty fruit produced by the most Glorious "tree"of all ,what was the end of their conversation :

“Master ,we would see a sign from thee” (verse 38-39) further proof (if needed) that this “was an evil and adulterous generation”

Incidentally it was given to the Apostles also to discern the true character and nature of the tree ,that is in hearing their preached word and by the nature of their response ,the hearer would evidence his (trees) nature by corrupt fruit .(not believing the gospel)
Not only so,but in so doing the hearers would also manifest by this corrupt fruit (that there and then),their state throughout all eternity.(damned)

Mark 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned”.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I would like also to add to this judgement of Jesus regarding the hearers of his words.
Despite being shown their true nature (vipers or relations of him who was so portrayed in “the Garden”).
And (unbelievibly) despite being witness to the almighty fruit produced by the most Glorious "tree"of all ,what was the end of their conversation :

“Master ,we would see a sign from thee” (verse 38-39) further proof (if needed) that this “was an evil and adulterous generation”

Incidentally it was given to the Apostles also to discern the true character and nature of the tree ,that is in hearing their preached word and by the nature of their response ,the hearer would evidence his (trees) nature by corrupt fruit .(not believing the gospel)
Not only so,but in so doing the hearers would also manifest by this corrupt fruit (that there and then),their state throughout all eternity.(damned)

Mark 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned”.

If I’m reading this right…sounds like great argument for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[Robyn_p]

Yes Robyn I do see where you are coming from,but I do think you are mistaken on a number of points.
In context Jesus was not preaching to believers who knew his meaning at all,but Jesus clarifies the meaning of his previous statements to them,by using the next verse (Matt12:33) that is, his hearers ,(to whom he preached) should be consistent in there judgements of him: if the fruits they saw to be from him were (undeniably) good ,why then did they judge him (the tree)to be corrupt?(whose power had a demonic source)

But Jesus (who judges perfectly,)seeing their fruit( blaspheming against The Holy Ghost)
declares both the tree(first) to be corrupt and the fruit produced by this same tree as proof positive to the currupt nature of the tree .(In this instance their fruit also was a witness and evidence of their(the trees)own certain perdition .

Far from being in a position to understand (or misunderstand) his meaning,these hearers in totality are judged then and there,(verse34)

“O generation of vipers,how can you being evil,speak good things?”

Thanks Bernard for responding. I don’t quite see though how that relates to or proves my argument invalid. (I’m not trying to be rude, just trying to understand so we’re not talking past each other here) I’m struggling to see how him judging them changes anything. He still used that odd phrase of “either in this age, or in the one to come.”

If the idea entrenched in Jewish thought of forgiveness and purification after death was wrong, then he should not have and would not have added that last clause, regardless if he was condemning them or not.

 

[Robyn_p]

I would like also to add to this judgement of Jesus regarding the hearers of his words.
Despite being shown their true nature (vipers or relations of him who was so portrayed in “the Garden”).
And (unbelievibly) despite being witness to the almighty fruit produced by the most Glorious "tree"of all ,what was the end of their conversation :

“Master ,we would see a sign from thee” (verse 38-39) further proof (if needed) that this “was an evil and adulterous generation”

Incidentally it was given to the Apostles also to discern the true character and nature of the tree ,that is in hearing their preached word and by the nature of their response ,the hearer would evidence his (trees) nature by corrupt fruit .(not believing the gospel)
Not only so,but in so doing the hearers would also manifest by this corrupt fruit (that there and then),their state throughout all eternity.(damned)

Mark 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned”.

No disagreement here.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

There are no limits of time and space in eternity. There are no days, hours, seconds, etc, neither is there past or future. There is also nothing of the limits of “present” as we can understand it. On the very day of the thief’s death he entered eternity where the limits of time are not experienced.

While we often speak of the dead “awaiting” Christ’s death and resurrection to be released from Hades, we are speaking in temporal terms because we have no way of expressing them otherwise.

What we mean when we say this is that Christ made the exit of the righteous souls from Hades possible by means of his sacrifice on the Cross, but they no more waited in Hades anymore than anyone in Purgatory literally experiences the time associated with a wait. There is no time, delay, waiting, anything of that nature. There may not even be “states” as we know them now or are discussing them here.

Therefore there is little more the Church has to offer on this subject. We have to rely on what revelation has given us and take the rest on faith. It will make sense from the outside looking in, but for now we are in the inside without knowledge of any outside we are in.

You speak much truth here about the nature of eternity and that it is not a “scientific"view we are given.
And that which we have been given ,we can only understand by revelation but this is not detached from the” Word of Truth" nor the Spirit who was to lead “into all truth”.

Jesus said that " the kingdom of God was within you" to his followers if so eternal matters are settled now by his coming and giving one a new and a “clean heart and right spirit within”
Here and only here (in time) does he set up his eternal reign .
The time will come when “time is no more” but all eternity (past and future) was (as you have no doubt heard) focused at Golgotha “now is the judgement of this world”
At his cross,
for both time now ,and in eternity to come :the resultant fruits in consequence are settled for ever.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

You are speaking of things according to limits of the temporal state, in which we live now. The “paradise” that Jesus promised is something that can only be experienced in eternity. Regardless of any need for Purgatory or not, since there are none of the limits of time in eternity the thief experienced as much immediacy upon entering Paradise as he did not.

There are no limits of time and space in eternity. There are no days, hours, seconds, etc, neither is there past or future. There is also nothing of the limits of “present” as we can understand it. On the very day of the thief’s death he entered eternity where the limits of time are not experienced.

While we often speak of the dead “awaiting” Christ’s death and resurrection to be released from Hades, we are speaking in temporal terms because we have no way of expressing them otherwise.

What we mean when we say this is that Christ made the exit of the righteous souls from Hades possible by means of his sacrifice on the Cross, but they no more waited in Hades anymore than anyone in Purgatory literally experiences the time associated with a wait. There is no time, delay, waiting, anything of that nature. There may not even be “states” as we know them now or are discussing them here.

Therefore there is little more the Church has to offer on this subject. We have to rely on what revelation has given us and take the rest on faith. It will make sense from the outside looking in, but for now we are in the inside without knowledge of any outside we are in.

In connection to some points above however I would like to say that at the mount of transfiguration as you know, with Jesus was seen both Moses and Elijah ,who,obviously just before this were outside the realms of time.But even so,they were seen talking with a not yet crucified saviour.

The mere fact that a believer departs from the scene of time ,does not exclude him from being given Devine revelation and even so Abraham would not have thought his “bosom” was his eternal resting place.

( although not yet the ultimate expression of it ,it cannot be denied that for this evil doer and all like him, their judgement and punishment has already commenced ,and if so it’s continuance and increase in suffering are settled by their state of being. Just as are the righteous save there joy and pleasure will know no bounds)

So in this sense Abraham (and all those waiting with him) waited for Jesus to come to him.
This being so just as in his life he awaited the promise that God would provide a sacrifice(see the events surrounding Isaac being almost offered up in sacrifice by his father Abraham ,only The voice of God prevented it)
and just as Abraham waited by faith for Gods own Issac to be offered up ahead in time,even so in agreement he merely rested at his place in the underworld too.

If as you say that the repentant thief left this parenthesis of time and entered "eternity "where I pray tell me is his resting place while awaiting( as you know )the reuniting of his body (with a transformed glorious changed body ,like unto the Lords )to his soul?

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

If I’m reading this right…sounds like great argument for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

1john 5:16
Is not John showing us ifrom the above verse that there is a "sin unto death ".
For this sin we are not to pray (for it). “pray not for it” ( or them involved in it)?

So for these Sins (and especially blasphemy against the Holy Ghost )
There is no forgiveness(or reconciliation )
These are sins (visible now) reaching into enternity ,even during the persons life on earth is in progress and according to John such sins are without the provision of that "ministry of reconciliation "(regardless tof how one interprets such a ministry ) provided for all other sinners and their sins.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Thanks Bernard for responding. I don’t quite see though how that relates to or proves my argument invalid. (I’m not trying to be rude, just trying to understand so we’re not talking past each other here) I’m struggling to see how him judging them changes anything. He still used that odd phrase of “either in this age, or in the one to come.”

No Robyn I don’t think it is rude at all.

Perhaps,for a time anyway,we could maybe focus on the first part of the verse we are discussing and maybe it would help us both come to a better understanding of each other’s views .

Matt 12:32 " but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,it shall not be forgiven him,neither in this world"

Could you please tell me why on earth was there no forgiveness here? Especially since the saviour was about to offer himself up upon the cross ,as that spotless. “Lamb of God ,which taketh away the
Sin of the world”
Even while Jesus was speaking to them here ,there was a “priesthood;” and the sacrifice of “the sin offering” according to the law of Moses.

As it says, for both the Old and the New Testaments, “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins”
But with it,in type, in the old and in reality in the new :there is!

Why also cannot “Purgatory” ( as you understand it) do its perfecting work and purify in this instance?
Can it be established at this point in time that even of Purgatory :

“it shall not be forgiven him,neither”?

 

[zz912]

1. Paul was taken to Paradise when he went to the third heaven in 2 Corinthians 12, so now that Jesus is in heaven, so is Paradise.
2. A rubbish argument.
3. See 1.
4. Ephesians 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
   9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
   Good works come because you are saved, not you are saved by your good works. The only thing that the thief that trusted in Jesus was admit he was a sinner and believe on Jesus. That is all you need to do to be saved, since he could do nothing up on the cross to cleanse himself of his sin. The other thief rejected Jesus and that is all you need to do to be condemned. Purgatory is never once mentioned in neither the Old or New Testaments. Whenever Jesus talks about salvation there only ever two option, never a third, believe in him or reject him, there are no second chances after you have died. Hebrews 9:27 And it is appointed unto man once to die, but after this the judgement.

1. So under your understanding, Paradise was not in Heaven that day, as Jesus did not ascend to Heaven until 40 days after Easter. Thank you for proving my point.
2. I hope you were aware that the Bible did not float down from the sky in the KJV English, right? If you’d like, you can look online and see the oldest versions of the Gospels, and notice that there is no punctuation. Hopefully you will respond with more than a weak attempt at dismissal (which shows that you have no real response).
3. See #1.
4. Here you are expressing your ignorance of Scripture. Just because you refuse to believe the Good Thief did any works (because it is dangerous to your personal religion) does not mean he did not do any good works. As I noted previously, he did quite a few substantial good works in his time on the cross. Providing comfort to Our Lord at His most agonizing moments is NOT something we should dismiss as meaningless. Reproving a sinner, publicly proclaiming your belief in Christ, are not something we should dismiss as well.

I would also be curious if your statement about “all you need to do to be saved” is true. Can a truly-saved Christian disobey God? (And related to that question, Does a truly-saved Christian have free will?) Can a truly-saved Christian get to heaven if he refuses to feed the hungry or clothe the naked? Can a truly-saved Christian get to heaven if he refuses to obey the commandments of Christ? Can a truly-saved Christian get to heaven if he refuses to forgive his brother? I have a few more, but that should be a good start.

And just because you can’t recognize when Scripture speaks about Purgatory doesn’t mean it isn’t there. You aren’t the end-all, be-all of Scripture understanding. Scripture doesn’t say that classicalhero will be protected from error, and the gates of hell will not prevail of classicalhero.

 

[Robyn_p]

No Robyn I don’t think it is rude at all.

Perhaps,for a time anyway,we could maybe focus on the first part of the verse we are discussing and maybe it would help us both come to a better understanding of each other’s views .

Matt 12:32 " but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,it shall not be forgiven him,neither in this world"

Could you please tell me why on earth was there no forgiveness here? Especially since the saviour was about to offer himself up upon the cross ,as that spotless. “Lamb of God ,which taketh away the
Sin of the world”
Even while Jesus was speaking to them here ,there was a “priesthood;” and the sacrifice of “the sin offering” according to the law of Moses.

Because to blaspheme the Holy Spirit was to resist grace and refuse forgiveness and reconciliation with God. If we close ourselves off from God, then we can’t expect to be forgiven.

As it says, for both the Old and the New Testaments, “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins”
But with it,in type, in the old and in reality in the new :there is!

Why also cannot “Purgatory” ( as you understand it) do its perfecting work and purify in this instance?

See my answer above. Same principle.

Can it be established at this point in time that even of Purgatory :

“it shall not be forgiven him,neither”?

Sure. Because that’s what Jesus said.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

1. I hope you were aware that the Bible did not float down from the sky in the KJV English, right? If you’d like, you can look online and see the oldest versions of the Gospels, and notice that there is no punctuation. Hopefully you will respond with more than a weak attempt at dismissal (which shows that you have no real response).
2. See #1.
3. Here you are expressing your ignorance of Scripture. Just because you refuse to believe the Good Thief did any works (because it is dangerous to your personal religion) does not mean he did not do any good works. As I noted previously, he did quite a few substantial good works in his time on the cross. Providing comfort to Our Lord at His most agonizing moments is NOT something we should dismiss as meaningless. Reproving a sinner, publicly proclaiming your belief in Christ, are not something we should dismiss as well.

There is no doubt much could be debated on this subject but in the original Greek texts of the New Testament the older texts were often rejected as been less reliable and even in Jerome’s time over 300 years later,in his attempt to give the common people access to scripture( now the Greek language was flagging in their knowledge) He had strong opposition from" Augustine of Hippo" on his method of biblical translation.Also Jerome(of Vulgate fame) received criticism for not translating “word for word but rather sense for sense”

4.It cannot be denied as your fine observations shows, that the good fruit or works from the repentant thief were and still are enormous ,but this also could be termed evidence of his conversion and as Paul shows in Romans 4 like Abraham he was justified prior to good works or fruit ,in Abrahams case it was circumcision .The thief calling him “Lord “also showing the prior belief in who Jesus was,marking him like Abraham as also” just” beforehand.

 

[zz912]

4.It cannot be denied as your fine observations shows, that the good fruit or works from the repentant thief were and still are enormous ,but this also could be termed evidence of his conversion and as Paul shows in Romans 4 like Abraham he was justified prior to good works or fruit ,in Abrahams case it was circumcision .The thief calling him “Lord “also showing the prior belief in who Jesus was,marking him like Abraham as also” just” beforehand.

You were asking how the Good Thief was going to be in “paradise” and apparently not going to Purgatory, and I was giving several possible avenues to understand it. So we have a sinner who has publicly proclaimed Jesus as Lord, asked forgiveness, performed amazing good works, and suffered righteously by attaching his suffering to Our Lord’s.

So that certainly could mean that he had worked out his salvation, and had already been purged of his sinfulness on his cross. So you would agree that the Good Thief is not a good argument against Purgatory, correct?

 

[zz912]

There is no doubt much could be debated on this subject but in the original Greek texts of the New Testament the older texts were often rejected as been less reliable and even in Jerome’s time over 300 years later,in his attempt to give the common people access to scripture( now the Greek language was flagging in their knowledge) He had strong opposition from" Augustine of Hippo" on his method of biblical translation.Also Jerome(of Vulgate fame) received criticism for not translating “word for word but rather sense for sense”

So was there, or was there not, punctuation in the original Greek texts?

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

You were asking how the Good Thief was going to be in “paradise” and apparently not going to Purgatory, and I was giving several possible avenues to understand it. So we have a sinner who has publicly proclaimed Jesus as Lord, asked forgiveness, performed amazing good works, and suffered righteously by attaching his suffering to Our Lord’s.

So that certainly could mean that he had worked out his salvation, and had already been purged of his sinfulness on his cross. So you would agree that the Good Thief is not a good argument against Purgatory, correct?

As all truly converted sinners evidence good works or show the fruits of their conversion,In way of argument I am somewhat limited in my choice ,as all show good works.

Perhaps I may go to the unrepentant thief on his cross ? I say perhaps because in Catholic understanding of Purgatory ,this man’s lack of good works,(we would both agree this man evidenced no good fruit) would not necessarily exclude him from purgatory.

So on the one hand I have to avoid the fruitful ,were an undisclosed amount of good works allows one to avoid it altogether;
and on the other hand ,I have to avoid the fruitless,because
an undisclosed level of badness would not necessarily exclude him from purgatory.
Correct?

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

So was there, or was there not, punctuation in the original Greek texts?

Thats nothing!

The Old Testament "Torah "had no vowels in it and so mostly had to be quite literally memorised down through the generations; but could not this great God who inspired holy men of old in writing it, who also preserved the same word through countless other men and then finally committed the same word unaltered,into the hands of faithful men ,to be preserve in written format; preserved even unto our own generation;

I say could not this same wonderful and merciful God ,overcome and sort out some wee bits of punctuation in the New Testament ?
And then commit the whole to faithful men also ( irrespective of the fact that we no doubt differ in our judgement of who these men were).

“Paul,a servant of Jesus Christ,called to be an apostle ,separated unto the gospel of God,
(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)” Romans1:1,2.