Protestants spend more time in Purgatory than Catholics

[sola_scriptura]

LOL The souls in Purgatory are not condemned. They have already been forgiven of their sins. They are just being purified of their temporal punishments from those sins.

Well if you really are sincerely interested in finding out more then I wouldn’t mind showing you some scriptural passages. I just hope you’re not just “trolling” here like some of the other non-Catholic Christians on here. But I think I believe you.

This is from Scripture Catholic website. A couple of the passages are from the Deuterocanonical books, which are inspired books.

I find the argument that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison the most compelling (Baruch & Macc. are not part of Protestant canon). With regard to the thief on the cross next to our Lord, Jesus said “you will join me” … so unless we are to think Jesus went to purgatory (which of course isn’t possible) the thief went to heaven. However, I think the better view is to simply concede, yes he went to heaven, but that is because his faith endured the end (albeit it was a short lived faith); and of course He was saved by Jesus Himself. I believe Jesus did this for a reason – to show once again, in a final act, that He came for sinners.

Overall I would agree with you – this is a weak case against something like a purgatory. Obviously spirits are held somewhere until final judgment.

Sheol (or Abraham’s bosom) is viewed as a paradise (at least from the Judaic perspective). This hardly seems to match the purification room that purgatory is said to be. However, I’m not sure I would discount entirely the idea of something like purgatory, but I would probably disagree with the RCC characterization of it.

For example, according to the RCC view, as far as I can tell it is a place where those who die in friendship with God are purified. If we read Rev. 20 there is a first resurrection and a second one. At the first those who were saved are resurrected. These souls were in the “first heaven” prior to this resurrection (for a discussion on the “first heaven” see Rev. 21). They must have been in heaven since Christ took the thief to heaven with Him (we must assume therefore that all who die in Christ go to heaven).

Every soul of every person who ever lived will face judgment. After that judgment death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire (what we can think of as hell). The place these souls were kept in prior to this future event is Hades, the sea, and death itself. These are ambiguous concepts, however, I think we can at least think that the idea of a place for those who are in some sort of fellowship with God but have not been perfected seems to be conjecture?

Rev. 20 seems to indicate that people do not die and go straight to hell. It indicates they are held for a time prior to judgment. The preponderance of scripture shows that those who die in faith (the elect) are taken straight to heaven (we do not pass go ). I think the divide between heaven and hell Jesus reveals could be a reference to the period after judgment is completed.

So I’m not sure about this doctrine – accept to say I’m not as dogmatically against it as many Protestants (I just think it probably is a bit of overreach). I generally cringe when I hear certain protestant groups abuse Revelation to scare their congregation. I mean this sort of tactic has been used in some of the most frightful ways throughout history (frankly by both the RCC and protestant sects alike). Today it is still used by certain “back woods” types to scare their congregations; it’s quite appalling to me actually.

Anyways, back to purgatory. Certainly the strongest evidence for the validity of praying for the dead comes from the book of Baruch and Maccabees. However, in the case of the Maccabees the date of authorship is put at prior to the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 BC. So there is perhaps something to be said about the fact that these books did not appear in the Mosaic Tanakh; but rather only in the Septuagint used by Hellenic Jews.

Perhaps Jesus, in His discourse pertaining to the rich man and Lazarus, is showing His disagreement with some of the views held by Hellenic Jews?

Here’s some commentary I found by rabbinical sources:

• Of specifically non-Sadducean doctrines, II Maccabees has a very clear expression of belief in the resurrection. Death is a “short pain that bringeth everlasting life” (II Macc. vii. 36; comp. other passages in the same chapter and xiv. 46). Judas is represented (II Macc. xii. 43 et seq.) as making offerings for the dead because “he took thought of the resurrection.” The reference to such offerings is, however, without parallel in Jewish literature, and nothing is otherwise known of such offerings being made at the Temple in Jerusalem (see Israel Lévi, “La Commemoration des Ames dans le Judaïsime,” in “R. E. J.” xxix. 48).*

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=18&letter=M#46

III Maccabees records the persecution of the Jews in Alexandria (222 – 204 BC). This seems to indicate that the book was authored by Hellenic Jews, which creates the possibility of Greek practices having been adopted by those Jews.

At any rate, I have my doubts concerning purgatory but I won’t make any absolute statements pertaining to the doctrine, since I have every confidence I won’t be going there.

 

[qui_est_ce]

. However, I think the better view is to simply concede, yes he went to heaven, but that is because his faith endured the end (albeit it was a short lived faith); and of course He was saved by Jesus Himself. I believe Jesus did this for a reason – to show once again, in a final act, that He came for sinners.

Only repentant sinners, and the thief did repent.

.
Sheol (or Abraham’s bosom) is viewed as a paradise (at least from the Judaic perspective). This hardly seems to match the purification room that purgatory is said to be. However, I’m not sure I would discount entirely the idea of something like purgatory, but I would probably disagree with the RCC characterization of it.

There are degrees of purification. Permanent separation from God is the ultimate punishment. (Hell)These souls may not be suffering, but they are still separated from God until the Resurrection, but they know they will be redeemed. I believe if I die with sins on my soul, my Purgatory would be standing in front of God in all His Love, and realizing what all petty puny things I did. I will at once be humbled and honored in God’s sight.

.
For example, according to the RCC view, as far as I can tell it is a place where those who die in friendship with God are purified. If we read Rev. 20 there is a first resurrection and a second one. At the first those who were saved are resurrected. These souls were in the “first heaven” prior to this resurrection (for a discussion on the “first heaven” see Rev. 21). They must have been in heaven since Christ took the thief to heaven with Him (we must assume therefore that all who die in Christ go to heaven).

many with a stop in Purgatory on the way!

.
Rev. 20 seems to indicate that people do not die and go straight to hell. It indicates they are held for a time prior to judgment. The preponderance of scripture shows that those who die in faith (the elect) are taken straight to heaven (we do not pass go ). I think the divide between heaven and hell Jesus reveals could be a reference to the period after judgment is completed.

We are now in the “1000 year reign.” 1,000 means a long time. At the Second coming, we will get our dead bodies back, only perfected, like Jesus when He rose from the dead. Right now the Devil is chained. Being chainged does not prevent him from wreaking havoc. With all the immorality, gay marriage, abortion, today, it’s possible that Satan is now unchained. I remember reading somewhere that the end of the world will come when Christianity is known in all the world. With the internet, this will probably happen soon. Not sure how to take your “elect.” Catholics believe that Christ came to die for all sinners. He wants every human person He created to be saved. Unfortunately, some will choose to reject Him. (free will)

. I generally cringe when I hear certain protestant groups abuse Revelation to scare their congregation. I mean this sort of tactic has been used in some of the most frightful ways throughout history (frankly by both the RCC and protestant sects alike).

In our Act of Contrition, we repent because we are afraid of God’s just punishments, but most of all because they “offend” God. I know God can’t be offended, but there’s that human mind limitation again! We should be sorry because we should want to please God, not just because we are afraid of Hell. (Of which I am deathly afraid, by the way)! Can you begin to imagine how horrible it is down there? Full of hate?

.
However, in the case of the Maccabees the date of authorship is put at prior to the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 BC. So there is perhaps something to be said about the fact that these books did not appear in the Mosaic Tanakh; but rather only in the Septuagint used by Hellenic Jews.

Perhaps Jesus, in His discourse pertaining to the rich man and Lazarus, is showing His disagreement with some of the views held by Hellenic Jews?

What disagreement would that be?

.
Here’s some commentary I found by rabbinical sources:
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=18&letter=M#46

III Maccabees records the persecution of the Jews in Alexandria (222 – 204 BC). This seems to indicate that the book was authored by Hellenic Jews, which creates the possibility of Greek practices having been adopted by those Jews.

This is not historically correct.

The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for those Jews living in the Diaspora.

***A. The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.
.

C. The Jews made use of it long before the Christian Era, and in the time of Christ it was recognised as a legitimate text, and was employed in Palestine even by the rabbis. The Apostles and Evangelists utilised it also and borrowed Old Testament citations from it, especially in regard to the prophecies. The Fathers and the other ecclesiastical writers of the early Church drew upon it, either directly, as in the case of the Greek Fathers, or indirectly, like the Latin Fathers and writers and others who employed Latin, Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic and Gothic versions. It was held tin high esteem by all, some even believed it inspired. Consequently, a knowledge of the Septuagint helps to a perfect understanding of these literatures.

D. At the present time, the Septuagint is the official text in the Greek Church, and the ancient Latin Versions used in the western church were made from it; the earliest translation adopted in the Latin Church, the Vetus Itala, was directly from the Septuagint: the meanings adopted in it, the Greek names and words employed (such as: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers [Arithmoi], Deuteronomy), and finally, the pronunciation given to the Hebrew text, passed very frequently into the Itala, and from it, at times, into the Vulgate, which not rarely gives signs of the influence of the Vetus Itala; this is especially so in the Psalms, the Vulgate translation being merely the Vetus Itala corrected by St. Jerome according to the hexaplar text of the Septuagint.***

newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

.
At any rate, I have my doubts concerning purgatory but I won’t make any absolute statements pertaining to the doctrine, since I have every confidence I won’t be going there.

I found many of your points very interesting. They gave me much food for thought. I think I spent over an hour putting this post together.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Only repentant sinners, and the thief did repent.

I never said otherwise?

There are degrees of purification. Permanent separation from God is the ultimate punishment. (Hell)These souls may not be suffering, but they are still separated from God until the Resurrection, but they know they will be redeemed. I believe if I die with sins on my soul, my Purgatory would be standing in front of God in all His Love, and realizing what all petty puny things I did. I will at once be humbled and honored in God’s sight. many with a stop in Purgatory on the way!

No comment on this since I’m am not sufficiently well versed on your doctrine of Purgatory.

We are now in the “1000 year reign.” 1,000 means a long time. At the Second coming, we will get our dead bodies back, only perfected, like Jesus when He rose from the dead. Right now the Devil is chained. Being chainged does not prevent him from wreaking havoc. With all the immorality, gay marriage, abortion, today, it’s possible that Satan is now unchained. I remember reading somewhere that the end of the world will come when Christianity is known in all the world. With the internet, this will probably happen soon. Not sure how to take your “elect.” Catholics believe that Christ came to die for all sinners. He wants every human person He created to be saved. Unfortunately, some will choose to reject Him. (free will)

I do not take your view of the 1,000 year reign. This is a very absolute preterist view, which is rejected almost uniformly by Protestants.

It seems very elementary to think that if Satan is “chained” he is not a threat. In other words he is not able to tempt us in such a state.

Your rendering of history as if it’s at its worse state now in terms of sin is quite revisionist. Certainly society is better now than we were at any other point in history (probably even as compared to the Pax Romana period).

In our Act of Contrition, we repent because we are afraid of God’s just punishments, but most of all because they “offend” God. I know God can’t be offended, but there’s that human mind limitation again! We should be sorry because we should want to please God, not just because we are afraid of Hell. (Of which I am deathly afraid, by the way)! Can you begin to imagine how horrible it is down there? Full of hate?

I agree we should confess our sins to God through Christ our one mediator.

What disagreement would that be?

I’m saying that it’s possible Jesus may have been trying to dispel the idea that prayers for the dead can be effectual. This idea probably had Hellenic roots since it was not a practice of Second Temple Judaism (in fact the practice was confined to the Hellenic or Alexandrian Jews in diaspora).

This is not historically correct.

The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for those Jews living in the Diaspora.

Actually the Septuagint is the oldest Old Testament text we have. However, my earlier point was that there were older texts. In fact the Septuagint is a translation from Hebrew into Greek (so obviously the Hebrew text existed prior).

The fact that the books of Maccabee and Baruch were never in use by Jews in Jerusalem (the temple priests did have Biblical text – it just didn’t survive) is an important fact. More importantly the practices (namely praying for the dead) were never part of Jewish custom in the Holy Land. This was a custom particular to the Hellenic Jews in diaspora.

Whether we can say these Greek Jews had access to ancient texts which were not known to the Jerusalem Jews is really the question. The argument would be over who had better continuity with ancient custom and scripture, the Jews in diaspora or the ones who remained in Jerusalem?

Obviously there’s a good logical case to think it was those who remained in Jerusalem; but that in itself is not decisive.

The obvious implication is the deuterocanonical books are not authentic and were written during the diaspora period (with no connection to earlier writings by the prophets).

The fact is the Septuagint was written over the course of three centuries by Hellenic Jews. The Dead Sea Scrolls are actually just as old as far as a complete Old Testament goes (the oldest sections of the Septuagint are only available in fragments and the deuterocanonical books were written later than the books now included in the Tanakh, which itself raises a red flag).

Unfortunately God didn’t leave us with much evidence of whose right here. There’s valid arguments either way. While I think my arguments are stronger, there’s really no credible way for either of us to prove our positions conclusively.

 

[AlegreFe]

Just a little word of advice and please don’t take this the wrong way. But I wish everyone would do a “preview” of their post first before actually posting. This way you won’t get posts like the one you just got. I will fix it so that it is posted the way it should have been.
Sorry but I’m anal-retentive that way.

Luke 23:43

– many Protestants argue that, because Jesus sent the good thief right to heaven, there can be no purgatory. There are several rebuttals. First, when Jesus uses the word "paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew “sheol,” meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord’s resurrection. Second, since there was no punctuation in the original manuscript, Jesus’ statement “I say to you today you will be with me in paradise” does not mean there was a comma after the first word “you.” This means Jesus could have said, “I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise” (meaning, Jesus could have emphasized with exclamation his statement was “today” or “now,” and that some time in the future the good thief would go to heaven). Third, even if the thief went straight to heaven, this does not prove there is no purgatory (those who are fully sanctified in this life – perhaps by a bloody and repentant death – could be ready for admission in to heaven). All martyrs who die for the Faith go straight to Heaven.

Okay, first off that is not my quote. I mean it was in my post but it does not belong to me. It belongs to John Salza. I put a link in the original post. Just for the record, not that it matters; but I’m well aware that all martyrs go straight to heaven. That is what John said also in the bold part.

I basically just copied & pasted that section of Salza’s webpage on Purgatory. My own thoughts about the thief on the cross are only somewhat the same as his. I just didn’t want to get into it at that time. I tend to spend more time online than I should so I wanted to get off at the time when I posted that. Okay, sorry to get off on one of my tangents again but I really need to get off, it’s late, or should I say, early morning. http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/yawnwave.gif Goodnight.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I find the argument that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison the most compelling (Baruch & Macc. are not part of Protestant canon).

A better interpretation of preaching to the spirits in prison is to take the entire biblical concept of imprisoned spirits into account. Firstly the Greek word used here for spirits no where else in the Septuagint or the New Testament refers to human spirits. Compare it to both 2 Peter 2:4: “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment” and Jude 6: “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day.” Both of these give a better idea as to exactly what Jesus preached to which spirits. He went to Hades and preached victory to the fallen angels kept in prison. It was a mission of judgment, not to “rescue” Old Testament saints.

 

[MIZER]

Hi all,

I’m just jumping in here. This thread is up to 16 pages and I haven’t read it all through yet so if you will, please bear with me.

At this point I have a question for jssls but only because he phrased himself a certain way. I would be interested in any non-catholic’s response. And if some nc has responded, particulary to Goodfella’s post #65, repleat with nc interpretations of the verses Goodfella pointed to and with verses of their own which may refute the existence of purgatory please give me the post # as I would love to read it. I have been trying for years to get a reasonable response to this question from a nc, to no avail.

What jssls said was that we (catholics) are learning what we believe about purgatory and not from “the word of God.” Thus what we are learning is not true, so he, and other nc’s would say. I forgot to copy his quote, in my zeal and excitement that there might actually be some nc’s (baptist’s particularly) on this thread who might be willing to offer a reasoned answer to a question and if I go back that far now I’ll loose what I have so far on this post.

So here’s my question.

When a nc says this: that we (catholics) are learning something from our church and not from the “word of God” what do you mean exactly?

Do you think “word of God” refers only to the written text of the Bible? I

f so, how does the bible alone go about “teaching” human beings? How is that possible anasmuch as it is an inanimate object, incapable of correction, incapable of enforcement?

I’m not being sarcastic. Truely. I have have been accused many times, by my own siblings, particularly my Baptist sister of not learning what I think I know from “the word of God.” I have never been able to get her to answer these questions. Will you? PLEASE

 

[MIZER]

oops, sorry,

this

What jssls said was that we (catholics) are learning what we believe about purgatory and not from “the word of God.”

should have said, …that we are learning what we believe about purgatory from our church and not from “the word of God.”

I’m over the top, thinking I might actually get my questions answered by some non-catholics, sorry.

 

[MIZER]

myreederlives posted (at the end of page 6 #90:

No, they won’t go to hell for not hearing the gospel. If they live a perfect life they too can go to heaven but if they lie, steal and sin against God then they too will be held accountable for their sins.

Do you think that anyone that sins can enter heaven? If a sinner can enter heaven, then Christ’s work on the cross wasn’t needed.

Think of your own Christian walk and how you deal with sin and repentance, sacraments etc… you do that to purify yourselves so you can enter heaven.

No sinner can enter, if they haven’t heard the gospel then yes… it’s sad but the bible teaches that no sinner will enter.

How does mrl’s understanding that one must be perfect, square with OSAS? He’s/She’s saying that one must be perfect in order to go to heaven. Does that mean that non-catholic’s who live by the doctrines of “faith alone” and OSAS, walk around our planet with halos on their heads? Are they all perfect then, until they die? Do they no longer commit sin? If they do commit sin what then? Were they never “saved” for real in the first place? Do they then start over and see if it takes the second time?

This mirrors another thread I started on the Baptist practice of re-Baptism for those who got saved as youngsters and then fell into a chronic state of sin as young adults and so chose to be re-baptised and essentially “start over”. The only nc on that thread wasn’t really answering any questions and he managed to get himself banned so I am still craving some answers because I am still, greatly:

I am very confused by the statement that I’ve bolded from the quote above. My question is, how do you, as non-catholics, deal with sin? From my own witness, it seems that you simply declare your own behavior or lifestyle to be righteous in the eyes of God and so you don’t have to worry about it. If one is able to interpret the “word of God” for themselves then it can pretty much mean whatever they want. Or you rely on the OSAS doctrine and again, you’re good no matter what. Luther himself stated from the pulpit that he could commit adultry 10 times a day and still go straight to heaven, so which is it, myreederlives? Do you have to be perfect or not?

 

[distracted]

I said hypothetically Catholics have the fullness of Truth, therefore Catholics are held to a higher standard. Many unfortunately give terrible witness and don’t live up to the standards.

actually, the longer i live, the more i see that we should not judge anyone by what we see… Of course, if a person is promoting abortion or doing something outrageous like that… that is one thing… We can say that, objectively speaking, that is wrong… Certian things are obvioulsy wrong & unchristian… But… for example… say you see someone who never seems to do any charity work… Well, you don’t know waht that person does 24/7… I am preaching to myself here also because i am human and tend to “judge” also… We never know waht crosses a person has to carry… what grief they may be suffering… and i have also learned that certain greif-causing events are virutally impossible to get over… (inadequate words…)…

What boggles my mind is when people act in an unChristian way while still inside the Church!! It is very difficult to be “non-judgmental” about that… & i have seen this kidn of thing often… And even that would be understandable if the person would then admit his/her mistake & apologize… but i rarely see that… In fact, i don’t recall the last time i heard anyone apologize… to me or to whomever for saying something uncharitable…

Our society is very rude these days… and getting worse… Jesus said Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me… But i guess some people don’t look much like the least of his brethren… so those people don’t have to be treated as though they are…

anyway… i am rabbit-trailing, i guess… God bless…

 

[sola_scriptura]

A better interpretation of preaching to the spirits in prison is to take the entire biblical concept of imprisoned spirits into account. Firstly the Greek word used here for spirits no where else in the Septuagint or the New Testament refers to human spirits. Compare it to both 2 Peter 2:4: “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment” and Jude 6: “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day.” Both of these give a better idea as to exactly what Jesus preached to which spirits. He went to Hades and preached victory to the fallen angels kept in prison. It was a mission of judgment, not to “rescue” Old Testament saints.

I’m not sure I would agree with that. It state spirits in prison from before the flood. That seems to elude to those people who were taken in the flood – and those prior who did not walk with God.

Frankly even though I said that passage is a better argument for purgatory it is not a convincing argument. A decisive argument against purgatory is that Jesus paid for the sins of the elect through His sacrifice on the cross. To say we will need to pay more to purify our souls is an idea with no basis & is counterintuitive to the Gospel message. It asserts that the sacrifice of Jesus was not entirely efficacious for our sins.

Effectively it still retains that pharisaic idea that we really can’t be completely forgiven – only half way or perhaps two thirds. The rest of our impurity needs to be burned out of us by raging fire for a few thousand or million years.

Jesus died for for our sins but it seems to amazing for many to completely believe.

 

[MIZER]

Distracted posted to a fellow catholic poster, no less (on page 9, I’m still reading):

sorry but you are wrong…

And here we have a practical definition of the term APOLOGETICS

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’m not sure I would agree with that. It state spirits in prison from before the flood. That seems to elude to those people who were taken in the flood – and those prior who did not walk with God.

It could be both. As Peter refers to both fallen angels and those who were taken in the flood in his second epistle. In either case… it doesn’t refer to purgatory since those taken in the flood were separated from God and surely would not have gone to purgatory (by Catholic theological standards). In either case Jesus is descending to Hades to preach judgment on the unrighteous, not forgiveness.

Frankly even though I said that passage is a better argument for purgatory it is not a convincing argument. A decisive argument against purgatory is that Jesus paid for the sins of the elect through His sacrifice on the cross. To say we will need to pay more to purify our souls is an idea with no basis & is counterintuitive to the Gospel message. It asserts that the sacrifice of Jesus was not entirely efficacious for our sins.

Amen.

Effectively it still retains that pharisaic idea that we really can’t be completely forgiven – only half way or perhaps two thirds. The rest of our impurity needs to be burned out of us by raging fire for a few thousand or million years.

Jesus died for for our sins but it seems to amazing for many to completely believe.

Because some believe the gospel is only partly good news.

 

[MIZER]

AgegreFe,

Perhaps it would help you in your particular anality (and the rest of us too) if you could tell us how you did what you did to the post that retented you. I for one don’t know how to put a quote within a quote. Please educate me (us?)

 

[sola_scriptura]

A better interpretation of preaching to the spirits in prison is to take the entire biblical concept of imprisoned spirits into account. Firstly the Greek word used here for spirits no where else in the Septuagint or the New Testament refers to human spirits. Compare it to both 2 Peter 2:4: “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment” and Jude 6: “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day.” Both of these give a better idea as to exactly what Jesus preached to which spirits. He went to Hades and preached victory to the fallen angels kept in prison. It was a mission of judgment, not to “rescue” Old Testament saints.

I’m not sure I would agree with that. It state spirits in prison from before the flood. That seems to elude to those people who were taken in the flood (and those who lived prior to the flood who did not walk with God). The idea has always been that those individuals were not afforded the law, or the patriarchs so it would have been unjust

Frankly even though I said that passage is a better argument for purgatory it is not a convincing argument. A decisive argument against purgatory is that Jesus paid for the sins of the elect through His sacrifice on the cross. To say we will need to pay more to purify our souls is an idea with no basis & is counterintuitive to the Gospel message. It asserts that the sacrifice of Jesus was not entirely efficacious for our sins.

Effectively it still retains that pharisaic idea that we really can’t be completely forgiven – only half way or perhaps two thirds. The rest of our impurity needs to be burned out of us by raging fire for a few thousand or million years.

Jesus died for for our sins but it seems to amazing for many to completely believe.

Apologies, I was actually editing the post – but since it’s been responded to I’ll put it back up. I want to comment further on the spirit from before the prison, but I’ll do it in a separate post.

 

[sola_scriptura]

The word used for Spirit in 1 Pet. 3:19 “Pneuma” could refer to a “human soul that has left the body” (see Strong’s No. 4151). This is one of several meanings for the word in its original Koine Greek.

Much of the commentary I’ve read refers to Jesus preaching “through the ministry of Noah.” An alternative theory is that the spirits referred to were fallen angels.

However, I think either theory strains the text and entangles in theological gymnastics to avoid a Universalistic rendering of this passage. The premise here is faulty. It assumes if Jesus actually went to the prison where the spirits of the antediluvian’s were being held; then Universalism gains major support.

I believe that Christ went in person and preached to the spirits in the realm of the dead.

In fact to think Jesus did not descend to Sheol (or Hades) would do injury to the typology between Jonah and the three day period between the death and resurrection of our Lord:

Jonah 2:2: “…Out of the belly of Sheol I cried, And You heard my voice.”

Regarding purgatory there are the apparently distinct ideas of Gehennah and Sheol (in Greek – Hades). There is also an added concept we see in Revelation 21 of the “first heaven” and “new heaven.” The new heaven is a reference to end times prophecy and the culmination of God’s plan, so within this context only the concept of the “first heaven” is relevant. The concept of Gehennah is commonly thought to be the “lake of fire” as described at the end of Revelation 20, so it also has little relevance to the idea of purgatory.

The obvious implication according to Scripture is that these are two different places. The first, Hades, a prison of sorts. Some have even divided this concept further by adding the concept of Abraham’s bosom & imagining that perhaps Hades has different realms. One for the wicked who are tormented for the ages until final judgment, the other a holding area for the righteous (Abraham’s bosom).

The idea that no one preceded Christ into heaven is well settled. The thief on the cross next to Jesus joined Him in paradise. Was this paradise heaven? I believe it is simply preposterous to think it was not (although some hold this view). Therefore we have these two places, the heaven as it now exists and Hades. However, is it possible to believe that saved Christians will go to Hades for further purification until final judgment? Are we to meet a fate worse that of the thief on the cross? This idea also seems preposterous.

Those who die in Christ will join Him and the thief in heaven. However, what of Abraham’s bosom and Hades?

We have to assume that those saved by grace in the First Covenant period, such as the prophets and the 7,000 who didn’t bow to baal, were not held in a place of torment like Hades. Since they could not have preceded Jesus into heaven then it makes perfect sense that they were held in Abraham’s bosom. The question is does this place still exist?

In other words are there two realms where non-Christians are held to await final judgment? This drives us to understand the prophecy revealed to John on Patmos. I’ve heard some Catholics on this board convey an extreme preterist view of Revelation, which doesn’t fit the text. A poster went as far as to say Satan is now bound in chains but can still tempt us while imprisoned. This is abrogated by the text, which states that he was imprisoned to “keep him from deceiving the nations anymore” (verse 3). Obviously many nations and individuals throughout the world are still being deceived, so any contrary view is quickly dispensed with.

It is clear that John’s prophecy received by the angel of God is a “pre-millennial” vision. That is the thousand-year period will be ushered in by the second coming of Christ; and did not begin with His prior death and resurrection. If we would like to think that the period may not be 1,000 years as defined in human terms that’s fine. Peter does tell us our own perception of time does not match that of God – however, the time span in human terms isn’t relevant to this issue.

The problem here is that Revelation 20 and Luke 23 have a degree of tension. At Luke 23:43 Jesus states to the thief on the neighboring cross “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." There are two very important ideas here. Jesus tells the thief he will join Him in paradise “today” – not some time in the future. Secondly “join me” – that is the thief is going to the same place that Jesus is going.

This doesn’t seem to leave any room for a “soul-sleep” as many believe will be our intermediate fate prior to judgment. Nor does it indicate any possibility of a purgatory for Christians not yet perfected. By faith this man was saved. This thief is not saved in an incomplete sense, but rather completely.

To understand the totality of our salvation and the complete efficaciousness of Jesus’ sacrifice consider the following commentary:

• The lesson has to do with why the trivializing is tragic. Jesus is the substitute for the sinner. Barabbas’s release and Jesus’ death make up a portrait of the exchange God engages in to save sinners from the penalty of their ways (Rom 5:5-9). This sacrifice at the altar of injustice is the ultimate expression of God’s love. Amazingly, in the midst of a monstrous injustice God can design a means of victory. Jesus’ death means the possibility of life for another. No matter how severe the sin, release is made possible through Jesus’ death.*

biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=3&source=1&seq=i.49.22.2

However, while those who die in Christ are taken immediately into our Lord’s bosom – to the place where He dwells, what about Revelation 20? Here’s an organization of the key points of that chapter:

1. The angel holding the keys to the abyss captures and imprisons Satan for a thousand years (verses 1 – 3).
2. The first resurrection. Those resurrected first are described as the martyrs and those who did not worship the beast (see verse 4, Rev. 6). At Rev. 14:3 this group of “blessed souls” are also said to include those who “die in” Christ. (See also Rev. 3:21, 2:7, 7:9-10).
3. Satan is freed and makes war against us. He is defeated and thrown into the lake of fire (verses 7 – 10).
4. The second resurrection. Prior generations of people who did not die in Christ are awakened and judged. Finally those whose names are not found in the book of life join Satan in his doom; along with death and Hades (verses 11 – 15).

My focus, for the purposes of discussing what happens to saved Christians at death, is item two (the first resurrection). The question is not whether we are resurrected or not, because clearly we are, it where we will dwell between our natural death and our inevitable resurrection.

For some reason in the minds of many the idea that we will be resurrected creates the necessity that we will be in a state of “soul sleep” prior to the first resurrection. Consider the following passage:

• Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea (Rev. 21:1).*

So there is a first heaven, the heaven that exists now, which will pass away. This is the same heaven where Jesus is and where the thief went to and where all saved Christians go to immediately upon our death. That we will be resurrected and be co-rulers with Christ at the beginning of the millennial age isn’t inconsistent with the idea that we go to heaven. We go to heaven and return. Subsequently a new heaven and new earth are formed.

First it should be noted that the idea of “soul sleep” is a minority view in the Christian community. The verses used to support this idea are unconvincing. Here is a Wikipedia article on “soul sleep” that does a good job with this concept and lists the passages used to support this idea:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopannychism

I won’t list the passages here nor get into this concept any further (it would simply make this post too long). I simply note my objection and view that the passages used to support the concept are misconstrued (and cannot abrogate the very clear revelation we receive at Luke 23:43).

Christians die and go to heaven, there is no further purification process. There is no justification for the idea of purgatory as applying to Christians – and such an idea is abrogated by Luke 23:43 and indeed dilutes the efficaciousness of Jesus’ sacrifice. That non-Christians go to Hades or exist in an alternate state is another story entirely. Whatever their (the reprobates) intermediate status between their natural death and inevitable resurrection is, shouldn’t be the focus of believing Christians – making sure we do not join them needs to be our focus.

 

[qui_est_ce]

To say we will need to pay more to purify our souls is an idea with no basis & is counterintuitive to the Gospel message. It asserts that the sacrifice of Jesus was not entirely efficacious for our sins.

Jesus died for for our sins but it seems to amazing for many to completely believe.

Christ died for our sins, His Sacrifice was perfect, but not complete.

*Col 1:24-25
24
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and ***in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking 14 in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church, ***25
of which I am a minister in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God, *

The problem here is that Revelation 20 and Luke 23 have a degree of tension. At Luke 23:43 Jesus states to the thief on the neighboring cross “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." There are two very important ideas here. Jesus tells the thief he will join Him in paradise “today” – not some time in the future. Secondly “join me” – that is the thief is going to the same place that Jesus is going.

The thief confess his sin to Jesus, and thus was pure.

1. Satan is freed and makes war against us. He is defeated and thrown into the lake of fire (verses 7 – 10).

This will be at the end of the world.

Christians die and go to heaven, there is no further purification process. There is no justification for the idea of purgatory as applying to Christians – and such an idea is abrogated by Luke 23:43 and indeed dilutes the efficaciousness of Jesus’ sacrifice. That non-Christians go to Hades or exist in an alternate state is another story entirely. Whatever their (the reprobates) intermediate status between their natural death and inevitable resurrection is, shouldn’t be the focus of believing Christians – making sure we do not join them needs to be our focus.

After that lengthy post, you say we shouldn’t focus on this?

I disagree that Purgatory dilutes the efficaciousness of Jesus Sacrifice on the cross. We are not PAYING for our sins when we do penance. We are showing God that we are sorry, and proving it to him with our actions. Yes, God knows we are sorry, just as He knows our needs, yet we pray anyway. Prayer and penance change ourselves.

*Matthew 12:32
And whoever speaks a word against the **Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.***The implication is there is forgiveness in the next world.

Do you think unrepentant people are saved, even if they’ve been baptized? One who commits murder and does not confess will not go to Heaven. This would include murder of a soul, abortion, etc.

Matthew 5:25-26
*
25
Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. **Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.
26
Amen, I say to you, **you will not be released until you have paid the last penny. *****

If you don’t settle with your brother (confess), you will be in prison until you have paid him back. IOW, if you don’t settle, you will get the same punishment (penance) The man goes to court to sue his brother, but his brother wins, and the man gets the punishment the brother would have gotten. After prison, he is released.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I just heard a wonderful sermon and it brought to mind the most commonly used verse used to support the idea of purgatory:

If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire (1 Cor. 3:15).

The sermon discussed Abraham, Sodom, and Lot – and immediate I drew a connection with this verse from 1 Corinthians.

Abraham negotiated with God & struck a deal. God told Abraham that if there were merely ten righteous people in Sodom He would spare the whole city. Some ancient historians put the population of Sodom at around 500,000.

However, Lot, though personally a Godly man, lived at harmony with sinful Sodom. He never preached the truth to the men and women of Sodom, indeed even his own children were lost. Even his wife was turned into a pillar of salt; but he barely escaped the flames.

If Lot had merely ensured his own family had a firm understanding of the truth, and convinced just four other people of the truth, Sodom would have been spared. Just by convincing four he could have saved a half million; rather than barely escaping the flames and losing his family.

 

[distracted]

what about the story of the rich man and Lazarus? Will praying for the condemned do them any good …

Purgatory is interesting to me, I honestly have never really studied the doctrine in any great detail. Perhaps someone can inform me a bit and tell me where in scripture the support for this doctrine comes from? I know some protestants believe its plausible so I wouldn’t mind learning about it.

i just found a lot of scirptures that show… No OSAS… and Purgatroy… but can’t find the notebook i wrote them in… :hypno: They are in the scripture readings for the daily Mass… somewhere between Aug 17-31… St. Matthew… Thessalonians (?)… I can get them tomorrow (if i can find that notebook )

St. Matthew 18:23, St. Matthew 12:32 (forgiveness in the age to come)… 1 Cor 3:13…

 

[distracted]

Baruch 3:4 - Baruch asks the Lord to hear the prayers of the dead of Israel. Prayers for the dead are unnecessary in heaven and unnecessary in hell. These dead are in purgatory.

Zech. 9:11 - God, through the blood of His covenant, will set those free from the waterless pit, a spiritual abode of suffering which the Church calls purgatory.

e.

thanks for that… i didn’t know that one from Baruch…

 

[distracted]

I find the argument that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison the most compelling (Baruch & Macc. are not part of Protestant canon).

why trust Protestantism… For one, it came much later than Catholicism… that fact alone should say something…

l With regard to the thief on the cross next to our Lord, Jesus said “you will join me” … so unless we are to think Jesus went to purgatory (which of course isn’t possible) the thief went to heaven.

Jesus did not go straight to Heaven when he died… He went to Sheol… and even then, he came back to Earth for awhile before ascnding to Heaven…

However, I think the better view is to simply concede, yes he went to heaven, but that is because his faith endured the end (albeit it was a short lived faith); and of course He was saved by Jesus Himself. I believe Jesus did this for a reason – to show once again, in a final act, that He came for sinners.

You can believe what you want… your choice… But truth does not change… I’m just glad i belong to the true Church, which also does not change (dogma)…

Overall I would agree with you – this is a weak case against something like a purgatory. Obviously spirits are held somewhere until final judgment.

Sheol (or Abraham’s bosom) is viewed as a paradise (at least from the Judaic perspective). This hardly seems to match the purification room that purgatory is said to be. However, I’m not sure I would discount entirely the idea of something like purgatory, but I would probably disagree with the RCC characterization of it.

Well, you are more open-minded that some posters who argue with Catholics here… but still… i think you are arguing with the RCC “characterization” because you have been programmed to do so… I mean, Protestants are, as a general rule, pretty… anti-Catholic… (the ones i have known anyway)… & one cant blame them too much… If i had been raised to think some of the thihngs they think, i am sure i would be also…

S
Anyways, back to purgatory. Certainly the strongest evidence for the validity of praying for the dead comes from the book of Baruch and Maccabees. However, in the case of the Maccabees the date of authorship is put at prior to the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 BC. So there is perhaps something to be said about the fact that these books did not appear in the Mosaic Tanakh; but rather only in the Septuagint used by Hellenic Jews.

No one can prove who wrote what, really… but logic dictates that some are not bad enough to fry in Hell forever and yet thye are not pure enough for Heaven…

Before i knew the Catholic teaching on Purg very well (though cradle Catholic, wasn’t taught)… and Mother Teresa died within a wk of Princess Diana… I thoght about that… how Princ Di didn’t seem like an awful person… she did good things but i bleieve she was fornication (etc??)… So even before i was totaly catechized… the Protestant position (either Hell or heaven) didn’t make sense to me… something seemed very … lacking…