Purgatory and 1 Cor. 3

[Reuben_J]

Your own words contradict your statement. The works of the faithful are tested; the faithful themselves are not being purified. There is a huge difference.

The passage tells us why clearly and plainly: for the determination of reward or lack of reward.

1 Cor 3 v.14 and v.15

What would the reward be, if not heaven?

Pass the test –-> reward.

If the work is burned, builder suffers loss. → No heaven.

But builder will be saved, but only as through fire (v.15)

The builder will be saved but only through fire (purgatory).

As to the first two questions, the text loudly and clearly tells us why: to determine reward or lack of reward.

What would that reward after death be? I would say heaven is the reward.

As to your third question, of course it is intertwined with his destiny: what rewards (if any) he or she will have in eternity.

Exactly – heaven. Or purgatory – one is saved but only as through fire.

As I pointed out in my last post–and I think I made a reasonable, clear case of this–the text says absolutely nothing–zero–about work done outside of the context of building on the foundation. It is that specific kind of work that Paul has in view here. If you want to see penance and repentance as part of that work, you will need to show that those things are in fact ways that we build on the church’s foundation.

Perhaps you have to be a Catholic to understand its context. Repentance is the gateway to heaven. Without it, there’ll be no heaven for us. That’s why the first call for Christian in Jesus ministry is a call to repent.

True repentance can only be done built on the foundation of the Lord – believing in him and all it entails. How can we achieve true repentance outside of it?

Repentance is a process. For some people it can be a long one. I mentioned this earlier on. We can call it work. Of course there are other types of Christian work but that’s another topic.

Suffering loss does not involve suffering of pain or purification; it is the loss of a reward. The phrase “as through fire” could refer to purification of the person by fire, but I would doubt that view since Paul includes the word “as” (ὡς), thus indicating that the person is not actually going through fire. If you disagree, please explain why Paul would include that word “as.”

Then this does not make practical sense.

Suffering loss causes pain, one way or the other. I cannot imagine that a person would be normally happy in suffering loss. Paul is even more specific here – this loss result in being ‘unsaved’; that the person could only be saved ‘but only as through fire’. Whether the person would literally undergoing purification through fire is secondary, one can debate that all day long, but what is certain is that the person only can be saved BUT as through fire. I would not be wrong if I understand as through fire means pain; but if not, it would still does not negate purgatory.

The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory essentially means that purgatory is a state. V. 15 then says how one is saved in that state.

Someone who has never heard of Purgatory at all would not see it in this passage; only if you first learned of it, then embraced it, and then decided it must be in this passage, would you see it here. You first made up your mind that this passage teaches it, and now you’re trying to show that it does–but not through exegesis.

I said earlier the idea of purification after death is contained in this passage. It does not necessarily define purgatory here.

You do not see purgatory here because you do not want to listen to the Catholic teaching on it. And I agree, one has to be taught this doctrine to see how purgatory is explained here because without knowing what it is, one would not see purgatory. That I would agree with you.

Folks, this passage does not convey the idea that people are being purified. It just doesn’t. Read the text honestly and objectively. I know it’s hard, but try to do so.

In all honesty I see an otherwise unsaved person can be saved here. Call it what you want but we have a word for it – purgatory.

Reuben

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Really? So then are you saying that ***all ***Catholic teaching on Purgatory is fallible?

Can you point to a specific place where I said that?

The CCC is the official teaching of the CC, is it not? If it is, then we can depend on its definition of Purgatory as representing the Catholic view that all Catholics are to believe.

That’s what I said about being authoritatively.

Do you understand the difference between authoritatively and infallible?

If it isn’t, by all means, please point me to the official source so that I may address a Catholic definition that is not written by some priest or layman–because, whether you folks care to admit it or not, even priests at times give conflicting interpretations of Catholic dogma. For example, I’ve had different priests give me contradictory statements about whether a particular sin is mortal. If that happens with priests, how much more likely is it to happen among laypeople? That’s why I’m so leery of these different ideas and interpretations of Purgatory that people are giving me.

Priests are people. Why would you not be able to find people give you contradictory statements?

Also, what might be a mortal sin for you may not be a mortal sin for me. The conditions for a sin to be mortal must be met by the individual. If you are asking a vague questions where some conditions are not met and one or all of the priests failed to ask you to clarify, then it is their fault for giving you an answer where not all factors are taken into consideration. I also don’t know if they presented any conditions to their answers.

That’s understandable, and if you or anyone else wants to post other insights on Purgatory that are considered to be official Catholic teachings rather than mere suppositions, theories or personal interpretations by priests or laypeople, by all means, share them.

I already gave you references to sources that are considered to be official. I still wonder why you are here at all. You understand none of us (Posters in this forum) is an official Catholic source? Are you willing to read on your own or are you expecting us to read it for you and give the shortcuts or short versions? So that you can come back, as you have already done repeatedly, and say that you want an official Catholic teaching?

You already have the CCC section of Purgatory and how the Church “officially” uses 1 Cor 3 as a reference to purgatory. What else do you want?

 

[Koineman]

1 Cor 3 v.14 and v.15

What would the reward be, if not heaven?

It can’t be heaven. If heaven itself is the reward, then the loss of the reward would have to indicate that heaven is lost. However, that can’t be, since he says that even those whose works are burned up, though they suffer loss, still are saved. So the “loss” cannot be the loss of heaven.

Then this does not make practical sense.

Suffering loss causes pain, one way or the other.

1. Paul does not indicate any pain on the part of the people who are suffering loss, but you are insisting on this idea of people suffering pain because it fits the Catholic idea of Purgatory. Thus, you are imposing your own suppositions on the meaning of the text. 2) It’s not pain directly caused by fire, as would be the necessary conclusion if this is purification of people. For something to be purified, it has to be burned. But the purpose of the burning is testing, not purification, and the flame is applied to the works, not the people. The meaning is clear.

You do not see purgatory here because you do not want to listen to the Catholic teaching on it.

My careful, step-by-step process of examining this passage in detail, to ascertain Paul’s train of thought and what he intended, demonstrates this statement of yours to be false. I have objectively read this text, going only by what Paul wrote, and nothing more. My exegesis demonstrates that clearly to anyone who is willing to look at all those posts objectively and honestly.

This passage does NOT teach Purgatory. It teaches the testing of people’s work on “God’s building” and the loss or gain of reward based on that testing. The idea of people themselves being actually purified by fire is clearly not here. If Paul said they were saved “through fire,” I would agree, but he says “as through fire.”

 

[Koineman]

Priests are people. Why would you not be able to find people give you contradictory statements?

Then you understand my concern about limiting Catholic texts on Purgatory to the official ones. We have no argument.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Then you understand my concern about limiting Catholic texts on Purgatory to the official ones. We have no argument.

Just as I suspected.

 

[jlhargus]

Continuing with the passage:
Paul continues talking about the labor done on the foundation. Whether he means the foundation he laid down or the foundation that is Christ is not clear, but that matters little for our purpose. What’s important is that he is speaking about the labor that is done, just after he got done warning “Let each man take care how he builds upon it.” Here in v. 12, he seems to be explaining why it is so important to take care how one builds on it–because the labor can be of various qualities, from nothing to low to high. This seems pretty clear from his words “gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble.” Some of these items are more impervious to heat and fire than others, and some are not impervious at all and will be consumed completely by fire, such as hay and stubble.

Everyone’s work on the foundation will be exposed for what it really is at this time of judgment. How will it be exposed? Paul says, “it will be revealed with fire.” He further goes on to say that the fire will test the works everyone has done. What is plain and clear from this is that the fire and heat are applied to the works themselves, for the purpose of revealing their true quality and testing them. A work is revealed for what it truly was/is by how well it withstands the testing fire.

It’s important to note here two things: 1) the works that are being tested are the labors that each person has done on the building itself, i.e., the church, and 2) this is a judgment of believers. Point 2 is captured by the CCC at least in the sense that this is distinguished from what happens to unbelievers in hell.

At judgment how can works be tested by fire apart from the soul of the person who did them? In order to expose and judge the labors of a person, whether gold or stubble, you must know the intention, of the heart (spirit or soul), for doing the labor. It’s the intention in the soul that is tested by fire to reveal if the labor is gold or stubble. If the work is stubble that inclination of the heart to works of stubble is burned or purged from the soul. Therefore manifesting the work to be wood, hay or stubble. The soul suffers loss but will be saved as by fire. Saved as by fire would be painfull.

[Mk7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that **whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,]

[1Sam16:77 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but **the Lord looketh on the heart.]

 

[jlhargus]

This passage does NOT teach Purgatory. It teaches the testing of people’s work on “God’s building” and the loss or gain of reward based on that testing. The idea of people themselves being actually purified by fire is clearly not here. If Paul said they were saved “through fire,” I would agree, but he says “as through fire.”

Going through something “as through fire” would be very painful. It doesn’t have to mean literal fire.

[1Pt1:6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: 7 That **the trial of your faith], being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory]

Faith isn’t tried apart form the person nor by literal fire. Yet Peter is comparing great temptation as being tried with fire. Indicating it would be very painful. I can testify from experience great temptation can be very agonizing, until it is purged from the heart, how ever long or short it may take.

LOL It is not there; you just want to see it there. To see Purgatory in this passage is not to do exegesis but gross eisegesis. **Someone who has never heard of Purgatory at all would not see it in this passage; only if you first learned of it, **

Exactly Koineman we call that Divine Tradition. The same Tradition by which the canon of the bible was discerned or the Trinity etc… It can be clearly seen in 1Cor3 souls who have works of stubble will pass into heaven as through fire, even without Tradition.

 

[Koineman]

At judgment how can works be tested by fire apart from the soul of the person who did them?

I have no idea. The text doesn’t tell us. Do we need to know? No. Paul’s point is that our labor on the foundation will be one day tested, and because of that sobering truth, we need to be careful how we build on the foundation.

In order to expose and judge the labors of a person, whether gold or stubble, you must know the intention, of the heart (spirit or soul), for doing the labor. ** It’s the intention in the soul that is tested by fire to reveal if the labor is gold or stubble.**

Well, no, that’s not what the text says. The text says the fire reveals the true nature of the work, not the person’s individual intention. Maybe what you’re suggesting is true, but if it is, you’re not getting it from this passage. Nothing is said about how the fire affects the individual, other than that the result of the fire-testing is either reward or loss. You can read into “loss” all kinds of pain, misery, and what not, but the fact is that St. Paul does not give us such details.

If there is another text that refers to this particular judgment of which Paul speaks here, and also describes the individual being purified, by all means, let’s have it. The other biblical reference the CCC provides is 1 Peter 1:7, but that is clearly talking about trails undergone in this life that test the believer’s faith.

And also, the text specifically speaks of only those works that are built on “God’s temple.” It does not speak of labors not done on God’s building. If we try to make it say that, we are going outside the scope of Paul’s explanation.

 

[Koineman]

Going through something “as through fire” would be very painful. It doesn’t have to mean literal fire.

Hmmm…not a bad point. I don’t know, though. Being “saved as through fire” still does not indicate any purification. It could mean that, but it’s not definite. There just isn’t enough detail. Still, to be honest, I have to admit that the way you explained it does make a good case for individual suffering. It seems too much, though, to base this doctrine on just a few words, so I am not sure about it.

Exactly Koineman we call that Divine Tradition. The same Tradition by which the canon of the bible was discerned or the Trinity etc… It can be clearly seen in 1Cor3 souls who have works of stubble will pass into heaven as through fire, even without Tradition.

You may be right. Based on your post, I can see the possibility of “saved as through fire” meaning individual agony of some kind. Maybe.

 

[Reuben_J]

Koineman:

LOL It is not there; you just want to see it there. To see Purgatory in this passage is not to do exegesis but gross eisegesis. **Someone who has never heard of Purgatory at all would not see it in this passage; only if you first learned of it, **

Exactly Koineman we call that Divine Tradition. The same Tradition by which the canon of the bible was discerned or the Trinity etc… It can be clearly seen in 1Cor3 souls who have works of stubble will pass into heaven as through fire, even without Tradition.

Thank you, jlhargus, for mentioning this (Tradition).

In that post, Koineman was laughing at me. I could understand why. The fact that he has given an exegesis on the entire 1 Cor 3 in this thread was not lost on me. In my desire to let his mockery passed, I did not acknowledge to compliment him on the excellent explanation. After all we are Catholics, and a little Bible lesson would always does us good.

I did not want to because to do so would invariably for me to say it is just his exegesis and that’s it, no matter how eloquent it may be. For many Protestants, explaining the Bible would be to pick it up and start to understand/explain it without prior knowledge of the Tradition on why the particular books in it were chosen to be canonized. To us, the purpose of the Bible is to support the already held belief of the Tradition and that must be one of the reasons beside their authenticity, why they are chosen.

Koineman’s treatment of the Bible, like most Protestants, would be to use it to prove doctrine rather than supporting it. He could not understand why I should put in purgatory’s concept into it where all the passage was saying was about work. So I think that’s the problem in this discussion.

But in verse 15, one cannot deny the fact that the person was involved and has to go ‘through fire’. Understandably he has to deny this or putting doubt on ‘as through fire’ means.

God bless.

Reuben.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Really? So then are you saying that ***all ***Catholic teaching on Purgatory is fallible?

This should answer your question on what the CCC is:

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM
ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PREPARED FOLLOWING THE
SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represents a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, and to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 22:32), as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith.

Therefore, I ask the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Jn 8:32). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the Catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which must take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to Catholic doctrine.

An apostolic constitution is the highest level of decree issued by a Pope, in this case Pope St. John Paul II.

 

[Koineman]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.

That’s all I needed to know. (I pretty much knew it anyway, but it’s always good to see it in writing.)

 

[Koineman]

Thank you, jlhargus, for mentioning this (Tradition).

In that post, Koineman was laughing at me.

No, I was not. I was laughing at what you wrote. I do apologize, though, for offending you and giving the wrong impression.

I did not want to because to do so would invariably for me to say it is just his exegesis and that’s it, no matter how eloquent it may be. For many Protestants, explaining the Bible would be to pick it up and start to understand/explain it without prior knowledge of the Tradition on why the particular books in it were chosen to be canonized.

That’s pretty much true because you don’t need to know why a particular book was canonized in order to open it up and exegete it. Exegesis does not depend on prior knowledge of why the book was canonized.

To us, the purpose of the Bible is to support the already held belief of the Tradition and that must be one of the reasons beside their authenticity, why they are chosen.

And the reverse is true: The Tradition should support the already enscripturated truths in the Bible.

Koineman’s treatment of the Bible, like most Protestants, would be to use it to prove doctrine rather than supporting it.

First, in a sense, you’re right. That’s the purpose of exegesis: to prove something from the text rather than merely support something one has already made up one’s mind to believe. Generally speaking, it’s the opposite of eisegesis. It’s all too easy to allow our personal biases and background knowledge to shape our understanding of a given text, whether sacred or secular. In fact, it’s so easy that many people are not even aware that they’re doing it. Doing exegesis thus helps you to interpret the text correctly. Doing eisegesis, on the other hand, opens the door wide for misunderstanding and false interpretations.

Second, as a former evangelical, I can tell you from experience that even a lot of Protestants use the Bible to “support” their preconceived notions of particular doctrines. I’ve seen countless cases of people reading into a text ideas that are not there (as has been done in this thread) as well as people violently twisting texts to say something so far from their obvious meaning you don’t know whether to laugh or cry. For example, I have seen some downright incredible, ridiculous attempts by 5-point Calvinists to explain away the obvious truth in one of St. Peter’s letters about false teachers denying the Lord who bought them, because they are deeply committed to their false doctrine of Limited Atonement.

But in verse 15, one cannot deny the fact that the person was involved and has to go ‘through fire’. Understandably he has to deny this or putting doubt on ‘as through fire’ means.

First, my doubt as to your interpretation was legitimate. I take the inspired text seriously, so I am not going to ignore a word in a phrase, no matter how small or insignificant it may seem. Thus, “as through fire” is not the same as “through fire.” That’s a valid point to make. The only thing I was denying was your ignoring the word “as” and your imposing the meaning of actually going through fire. The correct thing to do with the text, as another poster did, would have been to say “as through fire” means “as if you were going through fire, i.e., very painful,” which makes sense.

 

[SteveVH]

That’s a fair question. It’s not that I don’t want individuals’ views. If people’s views don’t go beyond the scope of the CCC’s definition, that’s fine.

What I am trying to avoid are views that add details that go above and beyond the CCC’s definition of Purgatory. When that starts happening, how do we know that such additional details are really approved of by the RCC? So when the CCC refers to purification of people, I’m going with that and not going beyond it. I’m doing the same with the 1 Cor. 3 text.

Would you agree with the Catholic Church’s definition of the Trinity? Would you please give me a verse or verses in the Bible that fully explains the Church’s understanding? Why the Church’s definition of purgatory must be laid out explicitly in Scripture is beyond me. One cannot simply dismiss Sacred Tradition when speaking of Catholic doctrines.

 

[Koineman]

Why the Church’s definition of purgatory must be laid out explicitly in Scripture is beyond me. One cannot simply dismiss Sacred Tradition when speaking of Catholic doctrines.

I don’t think you are aware of the purpose of this thread or why I started it. My only purpose in this thread was to examine 1 Cor. 3 to see whether the idea of Purgatory is really conveyed there. The reason for that was that RCwitness had referenced it as proof for Purgatory in another thread. That’s why this particular passage is so focused on here.

After examining it in context and discussing it with others, I am still dubious that Purgatory is there in that passage, though I will grant that it could be implied there, particularly in the phrase “as through fire.”

As to the Trinity,

 

[SteveVH]

That’s an interesting question, but my only purpose in this thread was to examine 1 Cor. 3 to see whether the idea of Purgatory is really conveyed there.

I understand but the same logic applies here. The Trinity is no more spelled out in Scripture than is purgatory, yet Protestants accept the doctrine of the Trinity and reject the doctrine of purgatory, insisting that it must be explained fully in Scripture.

The reason for that was that RCwitness had referenced it as proof for Purgatory in another thread.

It speaks of a purifying fire. It may not be proof, if isolated from the rest of Scripture and Sacred Tradition, but it certainly supports the Catholic doctrine and in no way conflicts with it.

 

[Koineman]

I understand but the same logic applies here. The Trinity is no more spelled out in Scripture than is purgatory, yet Protestants accept the doctrine of the Trinity and reject the doctrine of purgatory, insisting that it must be explained fully in Scripture.

The same logic does not apply here. You’re actually bringing up a question that is foreign to this thread.

However, now that we’ve finished going through the 1 Cor. 3 passage, if you’d really like to post quotes from councils or other biblical texts on the subject, feel free to do so.

It speaks of a purifying fire.

No, it does not. Read the passage carefully, setting aside your ideas of purification that you’ve derived from Catholic teaching, because I suspect you’re not doing so. No idea of purification by fire is mentioned in the text. The fire is explicitly said to test and reveal, not to purify.

The only thing in this passage that comes somewhat close to the Catholic teaching on Purgatory is the mention of being saved “as through fire,” which could indicate pain and suffering on the part of the individual, but Paul does not go into that detail.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

However, now that we’ve finished going through the 1 Cor. 3 passage, if you’d really like to post quotes from councils or other biblical texts on the subject, feel free to do so.

The references in the Purgatory section in the CCC presents them:

606 Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304;

[From the letter “Sub Catholicae” to the Bishop of Tusculum, of the Legation of the Apostolic See among the Greeks, March 6, 1254]

456 23. Finally, since Truth in the Gospel asserts that “if anyone shall utter blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, neither in this life nor in the future will it be forgiven him” [cf. Matt. 12:32], by this it is granted that certain sins of the present be understood which, however, are forgiven in the future life, and since the Apostle says that “fire will test the work of each one, of what kind it is,” and " if any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" 1 Cor 3:13,15], and since these same Greeks truly and undoubtedly are said to believe and to affirm that the souls of those who after a penance has been received yet not performed, or who, without mortal sin yet die with venial and slight sin, can be cleansed after death and can be helped by the suffrages of the Church, we, since they say a place of purgation of this kind has not been indicated to them with a certain and proper name by their teachers, we indeed, calling it purgatory according to the traditions and authority of the Holy Fathers, wish that in the future it be called by that name in their area. For in that transitory fire certainly sins, though not criminal or capital, which before have not been remitted through penance but were small and minor sins, are cleansed, and these weigh heavily even after death, if they have been forgiven in this life.

 

[SteveVH]

The same logic does not apply here. You’re actually bringing up a question that is foreign to this thread.

My intent is not to begin a discussion on the Trinity. I am simply pointing out that the Bible is not a complete compendium of the Christian faith and the fact that Scripture may not lay out in great detail a doctrine of the Catholic Church, says nothing about the veracity of the doctrine. In fact, 1 Cor 3 supports the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Proof may be too strong a word, but not in light of the other evidence we have:

Matthew 5:25-26
“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny."

Matthew 12:31-32
31 “And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]
"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’"

The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity 2:3–4 [A.D. 202]
“This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with disease. . . . For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other . . . and * knew that my brother was in suffering. But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then . . . I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me. Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me: I saw that the place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. . . . [And] he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment.”

Tertullian - (The Crown 3:3 [A.D. 211]).
“We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into eternal life]”

Tertullian - (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216])
*“A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice.” *

I can keep going if you wish. Purgatory, a place between heaven and hell, where one is purified before entering heaven was the belief of the early Church. I haven’t even started the many quotations from early writings that provide evidence of this fact.*

 

[Koineman]

My intent is not to begin a discussion on the Trinity. I am simply pointing out that the Bible is not a complete compendium of the Christian faith and the fact that Scripture may not lay out in great detail a doctrine of the Catholic Church, says nothing about the veracity of the doctrine.

There really is much more support for the Trinity from Scripture than there is for Purgatory. But discussion of the Trinity would take us far off course.

Also, regarding the boldfaced part, I would disagree. The less detail Scripture gives, the more risk there is of engaging in eisegesis.

In fact, 1 Cor 3 supports the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.

I’d say its support of Purgatory is questionable at best.

Proof may be too strong a word, but not in light of the other evidence we have:

Matthew 5:25-26
“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny."

This passage needs to be exegeted. Is the Lord talking about temporal affairs in this life or the next life?

Matthew 12:31-32
31 “And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

This is a pretty good verse to quote and warrants looking into further.

Your quotes from early church writings should really be posted and examined in their context, to be fair. I did that with the 1 Cor. 3 passage.

I can keep going if you wish. Purgatory, a place between heaven and hell, where one is purified before entering heaven was the belief of the early Church. I haven’t even started the many quotations from early writings that provide evidence of this fact.

The earlier the better.