Purgatory and 1 Corinthians 15:52

[Church_Militant]

sandusky:

While it is not true that there is no conflict between the doctrine of Purgatory and the finished work of Christ, it is true that clear thinkers have problems with “implied doctrines.” If one truly understands what Christ did on the cross, then one sees that there is no need for purgatory, implied, or otherwise.

My thinking is quite clear thank you very much.

So you have trouble with implied teachings in the Word of God, do ya? Then are you telling me that you also have problems believing in the diety of Jesus, the fact that he is both Man and God, and that God is three persons in one Diety? These are all implied teachings of the New Testament and yet you tell us that you, in your clear thinking, you have problems with such? I would submit that your clear thinking is more like wishful thinking.

Have you given any thought to that—that many of the things you believe are said to only be “implied?” Perhaps that is what is meant by tradition?

Nope. For the simple reason that I see it right there in the Word of God…just like the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Diety of Jesus.

Had you been following this thread, you would have known that I have already dealt with that passage. In short, Matthew is emphatically stating that there is no forgiveness for blaspheming the H.S., as supported by the parallel passage in Mark 3:

Mark 3:28-29

28 “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;
29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness…Actually I have been following this thread…and carefully. Your parallel passage is only relevent so far as it deals with the topic at hand. Mark speaks of “an everlasting sin” but does not (for some unknown reason) record the same terms that Jesus used.

Why would Christ have used the phrase if He did not mean what He said? Why would the Holy Spirit have inspired Matthew to record it that way? Are you now going to tell me that your “clear thinking” is more inspired than his?
In the context of the New Testament there are plenty of passages that help us think clearly on this doctrine. You had most of them cited for you already and have rationalized them away, but your arguments are not convincing. Is this the best that you have to refute something that has been believed by both Jews and Christians for many many centuries longer than the mere five of the post reformation era?

Besides, even your own CC does not talk of purgatory in terms of forgiveness of sins, so IMO, it is you who misunderstands scripture, and, it would seem, your own doctrine of a final purification, as opposed to further forgiveness, said forgiveness is not even “implied” in the CCC.

You split hairs here…
The CCC references to Purgatory are to be found HERE and I would point out that it is a belief (though not named “Purgatory”) also held by the Jews.

You misunderstand the doctrine. Forgiveness and “expiation” are parts of the same whole. For Christians, the writings about Purgatory go back to only a single generation removed from the death of the last apostle. (St. John)

The Acts of Paul and Thecla

“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’” (Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]).

LINK The Jewish teaching on this is still prevelent to this day. The errors of the “reformation” have apparently clouded your thinking.
Pax tecum,

 

[hurst]

sandusky:

Hurst, you obviously have not proven anything to me, or I would be in agreement with you. What you have done, IMHO, is “think” that you proven something, but you haven’t proven anything to me.

I have shown it. You just don’t accept it.

sandusky:

You keep telling me that we must do “penance.” Obviously you are using the Douay-Rheims translation which is, IMHO, inferior. It is a translation from the Latin, IOW, a translation of a translation, and it is accepted that the translators mistranslated the Greek word for “repentance,” as “penance,” and the Greek word for “declare righteous,” as “make righteous.” Repentance, and penance are two different things.

It really doesn’t matter what term is used, because the context shows that it involves works that must be judged as being worthy.

Matthew 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance.

Luke 10:13 Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida. For if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the mighty works that have been wrought in you, they would have done penance long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

Acts 26:20 But to them first that are at Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and unto all the country of Judea, and to the Gentiles did I preach, that they should do penance, and turn to God, doing works worthy of penance.

Apocalypse 2:5 Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance, and do the first works. Or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.

We must be sorry for our evil deeds and turn from them. We must instead do good deeds. If we continue to do evil deeds, then we have not completely repented or done penance for them, and will be displeasing to God to that extent.

sandusky:

What is the Greek word for “Penance,” Hurst?

I am not a Greek scholar, nor do I need to be in order to understand that what is spoken of involves more than mere belief.

sandusky:

I completely reject that I have anything to do with salvation, but believe.

How can you hold to that when we are told we must forgive our neighbor in order to be forgiven? Do you say you don’t have to forgive?

Furthermore, your assertion is not scriptural.

I agree we have nothing to do with the work Jesus did to objectively redeem us, but that redemption will not apply to us unless we repent, believe, are baptized, and live our faith by doing good works in the graces of God. That includes being merciful, forgiving all injuries from our hearts, being pure, etc. Since salvation is not merely what Christ did, but rather our ultimate obtaining of eternal blessedness in heaven, then we have something to do with it because we have to cooperate with God to reach the goal.

We are told to obtain:

1 Corinthians 9:24 Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain.

Hebrews 4:16 Let us go therefore with confidence to the throne of grace: that we may obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid.

Matthew 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

So, in the face of so much scripture to the contrary, why do you cling to a few select verses as though they trumped everything else in scripture? Scripture as a whole does not support the position you hold regarding this point.

sandusky:

Hurst, it is my opinion that you misunderstand the scriptures.

How does circumcision apply today?

You misunderstood me. It does not apply today. What I was saying is that what Paul said about it still applies, namely, that if we try to ensure our salvation by the work of circumcision, then we lose any part of Christ’s work. That is what still applies today, because the Church has issued a decree saying that whoever observes circumcision forfeits their salvation in Christ.

sandusky:

As far as what Paul says in Romans, and in Galatians, you want to limit it to the Mosaic law. I do not find that to be the case. I find Paul to be saying that any kind of law of do’s and don’ts cannot co-exist with the Gospel, which is of grace. In Gal 5:2-3, Paul says that anything done for salvation negates the work of Christ.

What you miss is that once we have life in Christ, we have to do the works of Christ in order to avoid losing it. So while you may say we can’t do anything to obtain the life of grace (besides repent, believe, and be baptized), we certainly must do things in order to keep it. There is much scripture to support this point.

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.

hurst

 

[hurst]

sandusky:

As far as James teaching in James 2, again, IMHO, you misunderstand. I include a post I made from another thread, exegeting James 2:
…

I am glad you posted that. It makes a lot of sense, and I don’t see anything wrong with it.

sandusky:

And that faith is not alone, it will be “proved” by works, but those works cannot save.

James deals with works in a purely probative manner with respect to faith.

If you deny that, then you must insist that scripture, in the writings of Paul and James, contradicts itself with respect to justification.

I do not deny it, except to say what I have said all along: that if you do not do those works that show forth your faith, then you will suffer loss.

So whether it is the works of faith saving, or the faith shown by works saving, it doesn’t matter. Indeed, faith comes first. But if not followed up with works, then it is lost.

Matthew 25:29 For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away. 30 And the unprofitable servant cast ye out into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

He who has works of faith, shall be given more faith and grace; but he who has no works of faith, even the faith he seems to have shall be taken away. And the unprofitable believer will be cast into the exterior darkness.

This and other passages support the fact that we must make use of what is given to us or else suffer loss. Did not the disciples ask Jesus to increase their faith? Are we not told to make sure our calling and election? Etc. How can you ignore these points?

hurst

 

[hurst]

sandusky:

hurst:

But while there is no contradiction in scripture to the concept of purgatory, yet there is plenty of contradiction to your understanding of what Christ did on the cross.

My understanding is the written tradition of the Lord’s apostles; it is the apostolic understanding and proclamation of the sufficiency of Christ.

Since you rely only on scripture, you are obliged to make it correlate with all of scripture. I have brought out various instances that conflict, and though you have answered a few of those, most have not been. And the ones you answered helped by showing a discrepancy in definition of terms. For example, when you say “saved” or “salvation”, you actually mean “eternally predestined to be saved”. And when you say “faith”, you mean more than just that, as well.

So it follows that there are plenty of implied notions in your language regarding salvation. Not everything you hold is explicit in scriptures.

sandusky:

I never said works of faith don’t count; what I said is works of faith don’t save—big difference.

Did you? You said you reject that we have anything to do with salvation except to believe.

The fact is, scripture says we must have charity to have God. Scripture says we must forgive to be forgiven. Scripture says we must do good works to ensure our calling and election. Scripture says those who have done good things will be resurrected unto life. Scripture says to save others and for us to save ourselves from the perverse generation. None of these things should be construed to conflict with the fact that all should be done in faith.

If nothing else, works of faith prevent us from suffering loss. They preserve us in salvation. In that sense, they do save. But that doesn’t mean we our saving ourselves apart from the work of the Cross. It means precisely the opposite: we are saving ourselves by the means of the Cross, by obedience to God, in the faith that is in Jesus Christ.

hurst

 

[sandusky]

Church Militant:

So you have trouble with implied teachings in the Word of God, do ya? Then are you telling me that you also have problems believing in the diety of Jesus…

Isaiah 7:14
14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel (lit; with us, God

John 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Those are straight-forward statements.

The Jews, as well, understood clearly what Jesus was saying, so much so, that they called it “blasphemy.”

John 10:33
*33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” *
Church Militant:

So you have trouble with implied teachings in the Word of God, do ya? Then are you telling me that you also have problems believing in the fact that he is both Man and God

Here you contradict yourself, calling His being both Man and God a fact. I do believe that fact.
Church Militant:

So you have trouble with implied teachings in the Word of God, do ya? Then are you telling me that you also have problems believing in the that God is three persons in one Diety?

Isaiah 48:16
16 “Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit.”

Matthew 28:19
19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

That’s pretty clear as well.
Church Militant:

I would submit that your clear thinking is more like wishful thinking.

I asked:

Have you given any thought to that—that many of the things you believe are said to only be “implied?”

You replied:
Church Militant:

Nope. For the simple reason that I see it right there in the Word of God…just like the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Diety of Jesus.

I remind you that you said at the beginning of your post that with the exception of the incarnation, those things were implied. Are you now changing your mind about that?
Church Militant:

Actually I have been following this thread…and carefully. Your parallel passage is only relevent so far as it deals with the topic at hand. Mark speaks of “an everlasting sin” but does not (for some unknown reason) record the same terms that Jesus used.

Regardless of how it is recorded, you conveniently focus on “an everlasting sin,” while ignoring the fact that both speak of forgiveness; Matthew uses an emphatic figure of speech, while Mark says the same thing plainly: Whoever blasphemes the H.S. has no forgiveness. That is the Lord’s point.

Will you enumerate those sins that will be forgiven after one dies?
Church Militant:

In the context of the New Testament there are plenty of passages that help us think clearly on this doctrine. You had most of them cited for you already and have rationalized them away…

Actually, you have only listed a few. ScriptureCatholic lists much more, and all of those, when taken in context, have nothing to do with purgatory. In fact, I have not rationalized away anything, but made only a few comments. Knowing that you would dismiss my comments, I have saved myself a great deal of time.

…I would point out that it is a belief (though not named “Purgatory”) also held by the Jews….

The Jewish teaching on this is still prevelent to this day.

And what does that have to do with this?

Read Romans 11, the Jews are presently apostate; they await their redemption in Christ.

The Jews believed many things that are not revealed in scripture, and rejected many things that are revealed.
Church Militant:

For Christians, the writings about Purgatory go back to only a single generation removed from the death of the last apostle. (St. John)

I don’t think you mean what you have written, as it proves my point that the Christians of the N.T. knew nothing of purgatory.

If a clear case for purgatory—one as clear as the Deity of Christ, the Incarnation, and the Trinity—could be made from scripture I would support it. But you cannot show it clearly, and besides, the sufficiency of Christ does away with any need for any other purgation.
Church Militant:

The errors of the “reformation” have apparently clouded your thinking.

My thinking is quite unclouded, thank you, very much. :tiphat:

 

[hurst]

sandusky:

hurst:

I know you brought that up, and I responded to it in post #121 by saying one does not exclude the other. I also gave other scriptural support for purgatory.

Yes, here is what you offered:

The 2 Maccabees is about prayers for the dead, and, I think, it says more than you want it to in that it also offers silver for those who died in mortal sin (the sin of idolatry), that there mortal sin may be forgiven them; that is against your doctrine that says that one who dies in mortal sin goes to hell.

If they died in mortal sin, then the prayers would not help them. But since they died in combat fighting for Israel, and their fellow Jews considered it worth their while to pray for them, we must also accept that there was hope for them.

In any case, they did something with good will. Another OT verse says:

Ecclesiasticus 7:37 A gift hath grace in the sight of all the living, and restrain not grace from the dead.

We should extend our charity even to those who have died.

Even Paul does this:

2 Tim 1:16 The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain: 17 But when he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me, and found me. 18 The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou very well knowest.

Don’t you think he should have said it differently if your perspective is the proper one?

hurst

 

[hurst]

sandusky:

As far as the 1 Corintians 15 passage, again, IMHO, you step on your own toes. There were, as Tertullian says, heretics who who baptized vicariously (do you really want to be associated with heretical actions?);

But the fact is that it points to them trying to do something for those who had died. If it were a waste of time, don’t you think Paul would have indicated that, especially if it were something that

1. would “make void” the cross, or
2. make it appear as though the “finished work” of the cross did not suffice, or
3. made it look like some kind of additional “work” was needed to help them?

sandusky:

for the record, vicarious baptism has never been practiced by the church, nor is it taught in scripture.

Protestants didn’t let church practice stop them from introducing new practices based on what they found in scripture.

Also, you could say that this verse teaches it, and that the church has been wrong all these years. Isn’t that what the reformers essentially said regarding many things?

If you really want to be sola-scriptura, I suppose you should be doing what it “clearly states” in scripture and baptise on behalf of the dead.

What really stops you from doing it, since your only basis is scripture? Is there another verse that says not to do it?

sandusky:

IMHO, the reason for that verse choice is that it is so enigmatic, and obscure. There is nothing clear about that verse at all. Because of that, I think it should left alone. Perhaps you would like to add some kind of explanation of your own for that verse?

So you are calling a passage in scripture obscure?

I don’t claim to understand it totally myself, but it is obviously something done on behalf of the dead, and not condemned by Paul.

I would add what Ott says:

The Baptism “for the dead” in 1 Cor 15:29 … was not a Baptism administered to the dead, but either a representative Baptism (vicarious Baptism) for unbaptised deceased for whom it was sought to acquire baptismal grace subsequently or a Baptism or a Baptism-like ablution ceremony, by which it was believed that one could be of avail to the dead by making intercession for them, on the analogy of the Jewish prayers for the dead (2 Mach 12:42 et. seq.). In virtue of this passage from St. Paul’s epistle, various Old-Christian sects, such as the Cerinthians and the Marcionites, undertook representative Baptism for the dead. Baptisms were also solemnised in which the dead were baptised. The Synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) opposed such Baptisms.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.359
Ludwig Ott

So, the authority of the Church decided it should not be done, and opposed the practice, which did exist.

hurst

 

[bene7]

hurst:

That event in 15:6 was not decisive

Sure it was, that’s the whole point Paul is making in Rom. 4.

Otherwise, why did God test him?

Well, it wasn’t to re-justify him or add to the justification which was reckoned to him in Gen. 15:6. There’s no mention of justification in Gen. 22, and Paul emphatically makes the point that he was justified before he was circumcised, period, and this was long before Isaac was born and his willingness to sacrifice him. It was his faith, not his justification that was tested. There is no indication whatsoever in Gen. 22 that God had his justification on trial. It’s you who are trying his justification, not God.

The fact is, by God treating him as righteous, He then gave him works to do that would result in the reward.

What was the “reward?”

For his faith was “reputed to him unto justice.”
Genesis 15:6 Abram believed God, and it was *reputed to him unto justice.*Abraham was then given a son, but he was tested in Gen 22 to see if he was relying on God or not. Why is that, if he was already just?

I don’t know what translation you’re using but Gen… 15:6 says, “Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (NASB, KJV states the same). At that point Abraham had put his faith in the Lord, and it was that faith that God reckoned it to him as righteousness. Abraham was willing to offer up his only son, why? Becuase he believed “in the Lord,” knowing that He could even raise men from the dead (Heb. 11:17-19). His faith was acting on the PROMISES God had already given to him: “and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son” (Heb. 11:17). Abraham was not willing to offer up his son in order to receive promises, he’d already received them by divine convenant. And like I said, there is no statement of Abraham being re-justified by God in Gen. 22. Your trying Abraham’s justification in Gen. 22 is truly a mistrial, and you cannot call God as a witness.

Just as Adam and Eve, who were in grace, had to be proved/tested, so did Abraham.

Adam and Eve were not “under grace,” they were “under Law” (Gen. 2:17); they transgressed the commandment and they died. This is not grace, this is pure LAW.

So, just because one is given grace, does not mean you don’t have to do anything with it to be saved.

You pervert God’s grace through Christ by making it into law (read Eph. 2:8-9).

And what happens if you don’t do those works? That is the point I am making.

Yes, and it’s an erroneous point. Men are saved BY GRACE through faith, totally apart from their own works. They are saved “unto” good works, but never by them. Good works are performed AFTER salvation, just like Abraham’s willingness to offer up Isaac AFTER he was already divinely justified.

Not doing those works will result in loss. This is related to the concept of Purgatory.

There is absolutely no mention of loss of salvation in 1 Cor. 3: 10-15. It’s about rewards or loss of rewards. And anyway, you make the same error as Church Militant (as pointed out by Sandusky), that according to the CC puragatory is not about meritoriously suffering for the reward of one’s salvation, but being cleansed of residual (venial) sins. One’s salvation is not on trial in purgatory (nor is salvation on trial in 1 Cor. 3, or Abraham’s justification in Gen. 22). According to Karl Keating ALL who are in purgatory WILL eventually go to heaven. Do you disagree with him?

But Abraham did not go to heaven when he died, because heaven wasn’t open yet. So he had to be held in waiting. This is “Abraham’s bosom” where the just waited for Christ.

Yes, a man named Lazarus was there? Was he in torment?

The sacrifice was done once for all, but the sins did not disappear in all subjects instantaneously. How could they? For many were not even born yet.

“Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” You are in unbelief.

Not only that, but the people who died in the flood were also held in waiting, and they did not exhibit the faith of Abraham, yet were preached to by Christ

These were “spirits” not “souls.” And the word is not “preached,” but “proclaimed.” I discussed this in a previous post.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[sandusky]

The 2 Maccabees is about prayers for the dead, and, I think, it says more than you want it to in that it also offers silver for those who died in mortal sin (the sin of idolatry), that there mortal sin may be forgiven them; that is against your doctrine that says that one who dies in mortal sin goes to hell.

hurst:

If they died in mortal sin, then the prayers would not help them. But since they died in combat fighting for Israel, and their fellow Jews considered it worth their while to pray for them, we must also accept that there was hope for them.

What you are saying then, is that it was OK for the O.T. Jews to pray for the dead who died in mortal sin, in spite of no exhortation to do so, because the RCC had not yet ruled that one who died in mortal sin goes to hell? Is that it?

hurst:

We should extend our charity even to those who have died.

Even Paul does this:

2 Tim 1:16 The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain: 17 But when he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me, and found me. 18 The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou very well knowest.

Don’t you think he should have said it differently if your perspective is the proper one?

Hurst, let me offer a prayer:

“Lord give mercy to the house of Klaus, because he was always very good to me when I worked for him. And may the Lord grant mercy to him in that day, and in how many things he was good to me.”

Is Klaus dead, or alive, and on what do you base your decision?

Paul offers a present prayer for the house of Onesiphorus, and a future prayer for the man, himself.

2 Thessalonians 1:11
11 To this end also we pray for you always, that our God will count you worthy of your calling, and fulfill every desire for goodness and the work of faith with power,

Paul offers a future prayer for the Thessalonians; perhaps you think we should consider that they too, are dead, and that we should write letters to the dead?

Give me the dates of Onesiphorus’ death. There are no exhortations to pray for the dead.

hurst:

Protestants didn’t let church practice stop them from introducing new practices based on what they found in scripture.

One cannot go wrong with the scripture as their authority.

hurst:

If you really want to be sola-scriptura, I suppose you should be doing what it “clearly states” in scripture and baptise on behalf of the dead.

Hurst, IMO, you are getting very tiresome. I stated that those who did that were called “heretics” by Tertullian, and you yourself say, via Ott, and via the synods of Hippo, and Carthage, that the church opposed such baptisms. I fail to see any reasonable point being made by you in that statement.

In regard to that, I asked if you really wanted to be associated with heretical actions, do you?

 

[Pryority7]

Bene, you said that Adam and Eve were not under Grace, but under Law…
Where is your scriptural proof of this?
Adam and Eve were not under the Law because they were sinless…I’m talking about before the fall. The nature of choice is always with God’s creation as part of His image. IT is this choice that choose seperation from Him thus resulting in the fall. The Law you’re talking about is the Old Testament law under Moses that God gave. Adam and Eve were not exposed to a formal written law because in their unfallen state it was already in their hearts. Their bodies, spirits and souls were united and in harmony with God. They were filled with the supernatural eternal life that is meant for all of us. We call that GRACE!!!
You guys really gotta stop. You keep knit picking this verse and that verse…tear it up and repackage it again to your little taste of how it should be and discount what others here have been telling you. Why are you here? Once again, you honestly think we’re gonna go…“Gee, bene and sandusky are right! We must repent of this Catholic wickedness!!!”
Adam and Eve were in perfect relationship with God because they were created with the gift of sanctifying grace within them. No law needed…after the fall God had to lay it all down in a written format to show us what sin was so that the problem could be identified suitably through the Law. Of course Jesus then came and fullfilled the Law. That means those who are in Him fullfill it too. This brings back the gift of sanctifying grace. This is what drives us to do good works for Him…because we love Him.
What was the last charitable work YOU did? I’d really like to hear this.

 

[sandusky]

Pryority7:

Bene…

What was the last charitable work YOU did? I’d really like to hear this.

:banghead:

 

[hurst]

bene7:

Well, it wasn’t to re-justify him or add to the justification which was reckoned to him in Gen. 15:6.

How about it was to give him the opportunity to put his justice to work. If he does it, then he will be rewarded. If not, then he would suffer loss.

bene7:

There’s no mention of justification in Gen. 22, and Paul emphatically makes the point that he was justified before he was circumcised, period, and this was long before Isaac was born and his willingness to sacrifice him.

Ok.

bene7:

It was his faith, not his justification that was tested.

I say they are intrinsically related. Without faith, one is not just.

bene7:

There is no indication whatsoever in Gen. 22 that God had his justification on trial. It’s you who are trying his justification, not God.

Am I?

Genesis 22:1 After these things, God tempted Abraham, and said to him: Abraham, Abraham. And he answered: Here I am. 2 He said to him: Take thy only begotten son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and go into the land of vision: and there thou shalt offer him for an holocaust upon one of the mountains which I will show thee.

This just goes to show that an average joe cannot interpret scripture. One must at least know all scripture in order to avoid making the mistake of thinking things like you just said about there being “no indication” his justification was on trial. And I think you say that because, as already noted, you don’t connect faith and justification.

The faith is kept by the Catholic Church in its official teachings, even if the majority of Catholics don’t actually know them or follow them. God has sent martyrs, saints, doctors, confessors, virgins, and more to show us which Church is His and contains His treasures. Don’t look at those who reject or ignore the teachings of the Church. Look to those whom the Church tells us to imitate and follow - the saints. Thomas Aquinas is a great source of knowledge for reconciling apparent contradictions and making proper distinctions with terms. Let us not rely on ourselves.

hurst

 

[hurst]

bene7:

What was the “reward?”

It is in Genesis 22:

Genesis 22:16 By my own self have I sworn, saith the Lord: because thou hast done this thing, and hast not spared thy only begotten son for my sake: 17 I will bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the sea shore: thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies. 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice.

The reward was not his justification, but a huge blessing that affects us all to this day.

Yet, if he refused, then it seems he would have lost even his justification, because he would be relying on his then-living son for the fulfillment of the promise of his posterity, and if he did that then he would no longer be able to say he believed God.

So you see, we must persevere in faith. It is not a one-time thing that we can later ignore. Rather, it is a one-time thing that gives us something to work with, and we must work with it or else lose what we do have. This concept is scriptural:

Matthew 25:26 And his lord answering, said to him: Wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sow not, and gather where I have not strewed: 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received my own with usury. 28 Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him that hath ten talents. 29 For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away. 30 And the unprofitable servant cast ye out into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

There are two cases:

1. we lose the reward of our work, but still obtain our salvation
2. we lose even our salvation

Here, “salvation” means the actual eternal life of the blessed in heaven. (I am not using the term “salvation” to mean an eternal predestination ensured by God. The Church teaches that God does not do that for everyone, but only for some [Ott, p.242]).

The fact is, we can increase our grace by good works, and are even expected to do so, as the parable above indicates.

1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the rational milk without guile, that thereby you may grow unto salvation

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Luke 19:13 And calling his ten servants, he gave them ten pounds, and said to them: Trade till I come.

Luke 17:5 And the apostles said to the Lord: Increase our faith.

2 Corinthians 9:10 And he that ministereth seed to the sower, will both give you bread to eat, and will multiply your seed, and increase the growth of the fruits of your justice

And we lose grace by neglecting to do good works or by doing evil works. This will have to be atoned. For although Christ forgives us, we still have to obtain forgiveness for our deeds, and atone for them.

Matthew 5:26 Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.

Matthew 25:41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat … 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

Apocalypse 2:23 And I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the reins and hearts, and I will give to every one of you according to your works.

Romans 11:21 For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall.

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.

1 Timothy 3:6 Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil.

As you see, one can lose not only the reward on top of salvation, but also salvation itself (as defined differently from eternal predestination), based on his works or lack thereof. It is abundantly clear by the testimony of scripture, and it must be taken into account with the verse that seem to say the reader is eternally predestined to bliss in heaven simply for believing Christ did everything for him already.

hurst

 

[hurst]

bene7:

I don’t know what translation you’re using but Gen… 15:6 says, “Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (NASB, KJV states the same). At that point Abraham had put his faith in the Lord, and it was that faith that God reckoned it to him as righteousness.

I am using the Douay-Rheims Version.

He “believed” God, not “believed in” God. He believed what God said, that God would do it somehow.

There is no reward for merely believing in God, that He exists.

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.

bene7:

Abraham was willing to offer up his only son, why? Becuase he believed “in the Lord,” knowing that He could even raise men from the dead (Heb. 11:17-19). His faith was acting on the PROMISES God had already given to him: “and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son” (Heb. 11:17).

Ok

bene7:

Adam and Eve were not “under grace,” they were “under Law” (Gen. 2:17);

I said “in grace”. They were created in justice and grace and life.

bene7:

they transgressed the commandment and they died. This is not grace, this is pure LAW.

Be careful. Jesus is our King and gives us laws, even now.

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ: and love one another, as he hath given commandment unto us.

And if we don’t follow this new commandment, what happens?

2 Peter 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Do you assert that we are no longer under a commandment that threatens death if we disobey?! Yet we are under the “law” of grace.

Your interpretation is contrary to various scripture.

bene7:

So, just because one is given grace, does not mean you don’t have to do anything with it to be saved.

You pervert God’s grace through Christ by making it into law

Rather, you deny Christ is a King and Judge by ignoring His Commandment. Matthew 15 is something you should look into, because Christ warns about taking one’s tradition to get around the commandment of God.

It would seem that you wish to escape the consequences of the new commandment to have charity, since your tradition says all believers go straight to heaven without anything required on our part.

But scripture says more than belief is required:

1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ: and love one another, as he hath given commandment unto us.

1 Timothy 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity, from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith.

bene7:

(read Eph. 2:8-9).

What I am saying does not go against Ephesians

8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory.

Faith is a gift, and is not “of ourselves”, but we must cooperate by accepting the gift of faith. And in accepting it, we admit it is not of ourselves, but give thanks for it.

But if we reject the gift, then we do an evil work and are lost. So we need grace that comes through faith by cooperating with the gift of faith and the grace that saves us. We must do our part to be saved, but without God’s gift, nothing we do on our part will avail us of salvation.

So we must do something to cooperate with God, or else not be saved. And we must continue to cooperate with God’s gift, or else lose. It is in that sense that we must contribute to our salvation, and it is not contrary to Eph 2:8-9, but rather incorporates other scripture, such as Eph 2:10, 2 Pet 1:10, Apoc 2:5, and more.

hurst

 

[hurst]

bene7:

hurst:

And what happens if you don’t do those works? That is the point I am making.

Yes, and it’s an erroneous point.

It is based on numerous scripture passages, and you call it erroneous? Scripture should be used to support itself, not to tear itself down.

bene7:

Men are saved BY GRACE through faith, totally apart from their own works. They are saved “unto” good works, but never by them.

But they can lose their status of being saved by despising the good works of faith, such as forgiving their brother.

We must obey the new commandment.

You seem to focus on a few sections of scripture as the sole rule of your doctrine, but how do you define “grace”? As the favor of God, or as a gift of strength to do good, or something else?

Regardless, we still have to do something, namely, cooperate with God by our free will. That is well-supported.

bene7:

Good works are performed AFTER salvation, just like Abraham’s willingness to offer up Isaac AFTER he was already divinely justified.

Good works are performed after FAITH to show forth justice, unto salvation, which only finds its completion once we reach heaven.

Romans 5:21 That as sin hath reigned to death; so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Peter 1:5 Who, by the power of God, are kept by faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 Wherein you shall greatly rejoice, if now you must be for a little time made sorrowful in divers temptations: 7 That the trial of your faith (much more precious than gold which is tried by the fire) may be found unto praise and glory and honour at the appearing of Jesus Christ: 8 Whom having not seen, you love: in whom also now, though you see him not, you believe: and believing shall rejoice with joy unspeakable and glorified; 9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

If Abraham did not obey God, then we would not be blessed.

And if we do not obey, we will either be lost, or suffer loss of reward and have to make atonement in purgatory.

bene7:

There is absolutely no mention of loss of salvation in 1 Cor. 3: 10-15. It’s about rewards or loss of rewards.

I agree in that case.

bene7:

And anyway, you make the same error as Church Militant (as pointed out by Sandusky), that according to the CC puragatory is not about meritoriously suffering for the reward of one’s salvation, but being cleansed of residual (venial) sins.

I don’t think I said that. There is no merit in purgatory. One must have already been judged before entering purgatory. There is atonement there, but those in purgatory are helped by the rewards merited by the faithful on earth by good works of faith done in God’s grace.

bene7:

One’s salvation is not on trial in purgatory (nor is salvation on trial in 1 Cor. 3,

Agreed.

bene7:

or Abraham’s justification in Gen. 22).

But his faith was definitely on trial, and that is related to justification. But I submit to whatever the Church teaches on this point. Perhaps he would have only lost reward of everyone else’s blessing and salvation, but not his own…

bene7:

According to Karl Keating ALL who are in purgatory WILL eventually go to heaven. Do you disagree with him?

I do not disagree. He is correct. Everyone in purgatory will end up in heaven, without exception. But there is no merit in purgatory, so they have to rely totally on the action of God, who applies help in proportion to the charity of us on earth or by the merits of those already in heaven.

hurst

 

[hurst]

bene7:

Yes, a man named Lazarus was there? Was he in torment?

He was consoled, but no one there was in heaven, for it had not yet been opened.

bene7:

hurst:

The sacrifice was done once for all, but the sins did not disappear in all subjects instantaneously. How could they? For many were not even born yet.

“Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” You are in unbelief.

How am I in unbelief? Is it not rather that you are neglecting distinctions made in other parts of scripture?

When John the Baptist said that about Christ, it was before the sacrifice of the Cross had actually happened. Nor does Christ take away the sins of all unconditionally. There are those who refuse to admit they have sin

John 9:41 Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth.

And there are those whose sins will be retained

John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

And there are sins that will not be forgiven

Matthew 12:31 Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

John 8:24 Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.

Why do you not take these things into account?

bene7:

hurst:

Not only that, but the people who died in the flood were also held in waiting, and they did not exhibit the faith of Abraham, yet were preached to by Christ

These were “spirits” not “souls.” And the word is not “preached,” but “proclaimed.” I discussed this in a previous post.

How does that change the fact that they were in a place different from heaven or hell?

hurst

 

[Church_Militant]

Isaiah 7:14

14, John 1:1 John 1:14 …Those are straight-forward statements.Are they? Do they explcitly name Jesus as the Son of God? No they do not, you read them automatically projecting the doctrine onto to them. These are implied statements that you read from a 2,000 year advantage and the very same Christian traditions that every other believer in the diety of Christ do.

The big differenece is that you refuse to consider the possibilty that the same rules apply to the passages that ehave already been cited to you.

Here you contradict yourself, calling His being both Man and God a fact. I do believe that fact.

The same rules have to apply throughout.If not then you have an badly inconsistent way of interpreting the Word of God, and of course I think you do.

I remind you that you said at the beginning of your post that with the exception of the incarnation, those things were implied. Are you now changing your mind about that?

Not at all, but I simply point out that you are inconsistent in your thinking about implied doctrines in the Word of God.

Regardless of how it is recorded, you conveniently focus on “an everlasting sin,” while ignoring the fact that both speak of forgiveness; Matthew uses an emphatic figure of speech, while Mark says the same thing plainly: Whoever blasphemes the H.S. has no forgiveness

. That is the Lord’s point.The only relevent part of the passage is the term “the age to come”… Now what sins are forgiven and how does that come to pass and what exactly else could that phrase mean? You tell me that it cannot be Purgatory…fine. Tell us then what it DOES mean.

I have no need to enumerate any sins sins since the list would consist of all sins except the one that Jesus mentioned. This would even include all Mortal sins (“a sin that leads to death”) that were repented and confessed as well as all Venial sins (those that do not lead to death). Since you want examples from scripture of reparation for sins I suggest that you look up the story of King David, a man after God’s own heart, who fell into adultery and murder and then look at precisely what God did to him about it. Focus especially on the very words of the prophet to David.

Actually, you have only listed a few. ScriptureCatholic lists much more, and all of those, when taken in context, have nothing to do with purgatory. In fact, I have not rationalized away anything, but made only a few comments. Knowing that you would dismiss my comments, I have saved myself a great deal of time.

First off, this is not ScriptureCatholic. Second, if you don’t expect to gain any ground with us then why waste your time at all?

I don’t go to n-C/a-C sites to pester them about what they believe. There are plenty of hungry and lost people out there for me to deal with that really want to hear the truth and whose hearts the Holy Spirit has opened. I feel the same way about you…but I’m a Catholic on a Catholic apologetics forum and I have yet to encounter many guys liek you who are here to do more that mess with the brothers and sisters here.

Face it…the Catholic Church has been here for over 2,000 years and we are not gonna change, not gonna go away, and we are not gonna become like all the post reformation splinter churches because of your arguments against Purgatory or any other Catholic teaching. Especially not as long as there are guys like me around who have been part of churches like yours, know what all you guys teach and after digging into the Word of God and the teachings of the early Christians are never returning to those other religions nor will we sit idly by and allow less knowledgeable Catholics to be deceived about what we believe.

cont’d

 

[Church_Militant]

Read Romans 11, the Jews are presently apostate; they await their redemption in Christ.

The Jews believed many things that are not revealed in scripture, and rejected many things that are revealed.

You think? but the very passage that you cite says otherwise.1 I say then: Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people, which he foreknew. Know you not what the scripture saith of Elias; how he calleth on God against Israel? 3 Lord, they have slain thy prophets, they have dug down thy altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 But what saith the divine answer to him? I have left me seven thousand men, that have not bowed their knees to Baal.

I don’t think you mean what you have written, as it proves my point that the Christians of the N.T. knew nothing of purgatory.

Not so! From 2nd Maccabees 12:46 all the way to today, all the passages are there. Whether you and your friends choose to believe them is on you guys.

If a clear case for purgatory—one as clear as the Deity of Christ, the Incarnation, and the Trinity—could be made from scripture I would support it. But you cannot show it clearly, and besides, the sufficiency of Christ does away with any need for any other purgation.

The clear case is there. The issue has nothing at all to do with the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. It has to do with reparation, purification, and holiness. It has to do with loving God.

I’m off to go win some souls if the Lord is willing.

 

[hurst]

sandusky:

hurst:

If they died in mortal sin, then the prayers would not help them. But since they died in combat fighting for Israel, and their fellow Jews considered it worth their while to pray for them, we must also accept that there was hope for them.

What you are saying then, is that it was OK for the O.T. Jews to pray for the dead who died in mortal sin,

You misunderstood me, I think. I said that if they did die in mortal sin, then the prayer would not help them.

However, there is reason to believe they did not die in mortal sin, since they had suffered for Israel, and did not shirk their duty to God. That the Jews thought of praying for them rather them condemning them also gives us cause to think there was a reason for hope.

sandusky:

in spite of no exhortation to do so,

But there is another place in scripture that supports it

Ecclesiasticus 7:37 A gift hath grace in the sight of all the living, and restrain not grace from the dead.

In any case, it was common to mourn for the dead and give them a burial.

sandusky:

because the RCC had not yet ruled that one who died in mortal sin goes to hell? Is that it?

There are plenty of verses in the OT that distinguish between the wicked and the just. But also, they did not have the fullness of the truth back then, for Christ had not yet come. Still, they hoped for something good for them for that they fought bravely, and anticipated the resurrection.

sandusky:

Hurst, let me offer a prayer:

“Lord give mercy to the house of Klaus, because he was always very good to me when I worked for him. And may the Lord grant mercy to him in that day, and in how many things he was good to me.”

Is Klaus dead, or alive, and on what do you base your decision?

You have a valid question.

It seems more likely that he is not alive, otherwise he would say him and his house. Based on the OT usage, a person was always separate from “his house”

Genesis 12:17 But the Lord scourged Pharao and his house

Leviticus 16:17 Let no man be in the tabernacle when the high priest goeth into the sanctuary, to pray for himself and his house

Judges 8:27 … and it became a ruin to Gedeon and to all his house.

Judges 9:19 If therefore you have dealt well, and without fault with Jerobaal, and his house, rejoice ye this day…

DRV 2 Kings 7:25 And now, O Lord God, raise up for ever the word that thou hast spoken, concerning thy servant and concerning his house:

DRV 3 Kings 2:33 And their blood shall return the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever. But to David and his seed and his house, and to his throne be peace for ever from the Lord.

Jeremias 23:34 And as for the prophet, and the priest, and the people that shall say: The burden of the Lord: I will visit upon that man, and upon his house.

Exodus 8:9 And Moses said to Pharao: Set me a time when I shall pray for thee, and for thy servants, and for thy people, that the frogs may be driven away from thee and from thy house, and from thy servants, and from thy people: and may remain only in the river.

etc.

sandusky:

Paul offers a present prayer for the house of Onesiphorus, and a future prayer for the man, himself.

It seems more likely that he is praying for his house that remains, and separately for mercy for him “in that day” of resurrection.

However, regardless of whether he is alive or not, Paul is praying for mercy “in that day”, and this goes counter to your notion that one must not “make void” the cross by implying that one does not “already” have mercy or salvation or eternal life, etc.

sandusky:

2 Thessalonians 1:11
11 To this end also we pray for you always, that our God will count you worthy of your calling, and fulfill every desire for goodness and the work of faith with power,

Paul offers a future prayer for the Thessalonians; perhaps you think we should consider that they too, are dead, and that we should write letters to the dead?

No. As I showed above, the conclusion was based on OT usage of a man and his house.

sandusky:

Give me the dates of Onesiphorus’ death. There are no exhortations to pray for the dead.

Admittedly, not everything is explicit in scripture. And the Paraclete was promised to lead us into all truth.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.

However, nothing proves he was alive, nor that we should not pray for the dead.

hurst

 

[hurst]

sandusky:

One cannot go wrong with the scripture as their authority.

What basis do you have to make such a statement? Certainly not the many denominations with conflicting fundamental beliefs based on those same scriptures.

sandusky:

hurst:

If you really want to be sola-scriptura, I suppose you should be doing what it “clearly states” in scripture and baptise on behalf of the dead.

Hurst, IMO, you are getting very tiresome. I stated that those who did that were called “heretics” by Tertullian, and you yourself say, via Ott, and via the synods of Hippo, and Carthage, that the church opposed such baptisms. I fail to see any reasonable point being made by you in that statement.

My point is what I said: “if” you are going to be basing all authority solely on scripture, then you would have to practice baptism for the dead. Not that I advocate either position myself. But the opposition to it is an “extra-biblical” source.

sandusky:

In regard to that, I asked if you really wanted to be associated with heretical actions, do you?

No. That is why it is more sensible to follow Church authority in such matters. While it is deplorable that so many do not abide by the teachings of the faith, it is nevertheless kept intact in the long run on account of the Church and those giving their lives to its service.

Thus, when the Church authoritatively determines anything, we ought to take it as God’s living Word for us. The Bible speaks of the Church, and if the Bible is true, then there is a Church we must obey. It is that simple.

hurst