Purgatory and 1 Corinthians 15:52

[bene7]

Church Militant:

Begin with Matthew 12:32, which says, “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” Does this not imply that some sins can be forgiven in the age to come? Now think this through…There is no sin to forgive in heaven, right? Sin is not forgiven in hell because it’s too late and permanent. So…Implicit “purgatory”

Actually, this verse speaks nothing of “Purgatory.” Not even implicitly. “Purgatory” can hardly be called an “age to come.” This quote from Christ actually supports the Biblical doctrine that there is yet an age to come on this earth: The future Millennial Kingdom age when Christ will reign on His father David’s throne in Jerusalem over Israel and the Gentile nations at His second advent. Which will fulfill even the promise given to Mary about her Son at the Annunciation (see Lk. 1:32-33), and the direct fulfillment of many Old and New Testament prophecies concerning that glorious, future age (Rev. 19:15; cf. Zech. 14:9, 16). Christ wasn’t talking about “Purgatory.”

1st Corinthians 3:15 which says, “If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” Again this cannot refer to heaven or hell for the same reasons as above. This is essentially the definition of Purgatory.

I already explained this in detail in a previous post. This judgment is about the believer’s works and the fire reveals their worth and has absolutely nothing to do with cleansing of residual sins. Read the whole context, it’s made quite evident.

1st Peter 3:18-20 which says, "Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:

Christ died once for our sins that He might offer us to God. The text says not that he “preached” the gospel to those “spirits” (not disembodied souls) in prison, but the Greek word actually means to make proclamation. No doubt Jesus proclaimed (not preached) to those imprisoned “spirits” His triumph over sin through the cross. I believe those “spirits” to be fallen angels, not the souls of men made righteous in Christ. God does not imprison His own sons. Also, according to the CC, there’s no “preaching” being done in “Purgatory.”

and 1st Peter 4:6 which says, “For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: that they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh; but may live according to God, in the Spirit” [Note that it was a prison for disobedient spirits and yet they were saved when Jesus preached to them.

First Peter 4:6 is a completely different context than 3:18-19. And the Greek word is “preached,” not “proclaimed.” Peter is referring to martyrs who were wrongfully judged by men and died for their faith, but now live in the spirit to the will of God. This has nothing to do with those “spirits” in prison mentioned in 1st Pet. 3:19, and certainly NOTHING to do with “Purgatory.”

As for the 2nd Maccabees passage, well, read my previous post. According to Catholicism, no one who commits a mortal sin and dies outside a state of grace is in “Purgatory.”

Like I said, “Purgatory” is not taught in Scripture, not even implicitly.

Blessings,
Bene
[/quote]

 

[bene7]

McKenzie:

Bene,

I still would like to see a reply to my post on January 24, or from anyone else with the no-purgatory belief for that matter, in regards to the existence of a temporary third state?

McKenzie, there is a temporary “third place” for unbelievers. It’s called Hades. But since the cross of Christ, no true believers are there any longer. Paul emphatically states that for believers:

2COR. 5:8 "…we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord."

According to Paul, there is no “third place” for *true * believers. We go straight Home to be with the Lord. And why not? We’ve been cleansed from ALL sins through His shed blood.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Mickey]

bene7:

Like I said, “Purgatory” is not taught in Scripture, not even implicitly.

Wow, are you gonna be freaked out one day when you find yourself in purgatory!

 

[Gene_C]

Hi Bene7,

You said, after I mentioned the passage in 2 Corinthians 5:

“Yes, but this passage says NOTHING about one’s stint in “Purgatory,” or sins even being cleansed or purged at that time. In fact, just prior to verse ten Paul emphatically states that to be absent from the body is to be “AT HOME WITH THE LORD;” which he says is preferred. This appraisal of our WORKS (not sins), done in the body while in this life, is expanded upon by Paul in 1 Cor. 3 (of which I’ve already commented - see my previous post). 2 Cor. 5 has nothing to do with cleansing or purging of sins.”

ME: What is a “sin”? It is a “work” of the flesh.

Galatians 5:19-21:

“The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

The Greek word for “acts” is ergon. It is an act, deed or thing done. It is the same word that Paul uses in Romans and Galatians when he talks about works. It is the same word used in 1 Corinthians 3.

Sins are works of the flesh. Some lead to death for the follower of Christ. Some do not lead to death for the follower of Christ.

Do you see it?

Peace,

Gene

 

[bene7]

Pryority7:

I think the whole problem is indeed based on the Sola Scriptura idea…Bene…you HAVE to hold on to that or your whole argument collapses.

So then you do admit that the doctrine of “Purgatory” is not Biblical. Thank you. As for me hanging on to God’s Word as the foundation and content of my faith - really not such a bad idea. Even Jesus backed up His death and bodily resurrection by the Scriptures (see Lk. 24:27, 32, 45). I consider what’s good enough for Him is good enough for me.

I won’t repeat the replies Church Militant already presented…they speak for themselves.

Yes, they certainly do speak for themselves, but not exactly what CM claims they “speak.” See my post #60.

Your anti-tradition concept leads you to believe that EVERY tradition is man made…that it’s not from God. That’s outrageous man…

I’m not anti-tradition. Believers may observe and develop traditions that are rooted in and conform to divine revelation (like Christmas), but it’s another thing, altogether, to develop doctrines that are required to be believed that find no support in what has already been divinely revealed regarding “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” Especially when they militate against, or contradict, all that has been revealed in the N. T. Epistles regarding the cross of Christ and the cleansing of the believer of all sins. “Purgatory” being a stark contradiction of these divinely revealed N. T. truths.

I’ll ask you again, Pry, what does the following verse say to you?

HEB. 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

And what do you think Paul meant when he wrote to the Corinthian believers:

1COR. 6:11 “And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.”

Actually, Pry, the problem is you elevating extra-Biblical tradition to a higher authority than the divinely inspired written Word of God. In fact, you seem to be arguing for the notion that such tradition even supersedes it (as the Pharisaic Jews did in Jesus’ day and He rebuked them). I consider that a very dangerous position to hold.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Pryority7:

But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy a pious thought. Thus they made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.
When Judas did this “atonement”, he had those who died in a state of godliness, not those who died guilty of the sin of idolatry,

“Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” Why would he make atonement for those who never sinned the sin? And can you show me in the Law where the Jews were to “make atonement” for the dead? He was correct in that there will be a future bodily resurrection, but no where was it instructed in the Law to make atonement for the dead. It’s stuff like this that contributes to the conviction that the books of Maccabee are not divinely inspired. Still, where do you get the Catholic doctrine of “Purgatory” out of all of this?

By the way, don’t freak out on the word “atonement” in this reading…I know, I know…“Only Christ’s death atones for our sins!!!” I know…I agree. Don’t get caught up in the word play here, okay? Obviously the word “atonement” does not take up the same degree as does the sacrifice of the Lord. Can you please try to understand that? Any scholar who is well versed in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic will vouch for this

Why would I “freak out” on the word “atonement?” But you must understand that the word “atonement” is an Old Testament term. It’s the Hebrew word “kaphar,” and means “to cover.” The animal blood sacrifices under the Law could only cover the sins of Israel, they could not actually take them away. That’s why Israel observed the “Day of Atonement” year after year after year (read Heb. 10). “Atonement” is not a New Testament word. When describing the work of Christ on the cross it uses three words, specifically: reconciliation, redemption and propitiation. Collectively they are the work accomplished by Christ’s substitutionary sin-sacrifice. One is Godward while two are manward. When a sinner, by faith, turns to Christ he is perfectly, completely and forever reconciled to God, redeemed (purchased) through His blood (paid in full), and through the shedding of Christ’s precious blood God’s offended holiness because of our sins is/was perfectly, completely and forever satisfied (appeased). At the time of true faith the believer enters into this completed work. Now if you could ever grasp this truth, Pry., you’d understand why the extra-Biblical doctrine of “Purgatory” must be false.

Now the KJV translates the Greek word “katallage” as “atonement” only once (Rom. 5:11). But “katallage” means “reconciliation,” not “atonement” (see Rom. 11:15; 2 Cor. 5:18-19). An unfortunate translation.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Gene C.:

Hi Bene7,

You said, after I mentioned the passage in 2 Corinthians 5:

“Yes, but this passage says NOTHING about one’s stint in “Purgatory,” or sins even being cleansed or purged at that time. In fact, just prior to verse ten Paul emphatically states that to be absent from the body is to be “AT HOME WITH THE LORD;” which he says is preferred. This appraisal of our WORKS (not sins), done in the body while in this life, is expanded upon by Paul in 1 Cor. 3 (of which I’ve already commented - see my previous post). 2 Cor. 5 has nothing to do with cleansing or purging of sins.”

ME: What is a “sin”? It is a “work” of the flesh.

Galatians 5:19-21:

“The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

The Greek word for “acts” is ergon. It is an act, deed or thing done. It is the same word that Paul uses in Romans and Galatians when he talks about works. It is the same word used in 1 Corinthians 3.

Sins are works of the flesh. Some lead to death for the follower of Christ. Some do not lead to death for the follower of Christ.

Do you see it?

Peace,

Gene

Gene, you have a complete misunderstanding of all this. “Works” by the believer can be done either “in the Spirit,” or by the energy of the flesh. But that doesn’t mean they’re “sinful,” i.e., morally wrong. It is at the judgment seat of Christ that the value of those works (not sins) will be appraised. There is no purging of sins in 1 Cor. 3. The fire revealing their value, the believer subsequently receiving a reward, or not.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Mickey:

Wow, are you gonna be freaked out one day when you find yourself in purgatory!

You’ve got that right, my friend. Just as I’d be “freaked out” if I walked into a wardrobe closet and ended up in Narnia. Who wouldn’t be “freaked” if reality and fantasy merged. But, that ain’t gonna happen .

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Pillar_of_Cloud]

I’d like to add my two cents, but don’t respond with too many accusations cause my knowledge and time is limited.

Bene, from what I can tell (and please correct me if I’m wrong) you consider yourself a true Bible-Christian, perhaps of even Fundamentalist or Baptist background? I have a lot of good Baptist friends, but, there has always been one thing about their practice that as thrown me off.

You don’t believe in Baptismal Regeneration, right? But you do full immersion baptisms as an outward symbol, right? Do you have anyone in your church who has been baptized multiple times? I know a couple of baptist friends who have, and I don’t know where in Scripture they get the idea. As far as I know, no one was ever baptized twice or more in Scripture. I know I’m working off a lot of assumptions about your background, but if you know of the practice, could you explain to me its Scriptural roots?

Ok, now back to the real topic. I’m probably repeating, but there is that passage, in Col. 1:24 “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church”

This has always thrown me off about the whole “instant and forever” purification of Christians who believe on the name of the Lord. Is Paul saying that Christ’s sufferings were lacking? Or especially that he completes the suffering, in what was LACKING of Christ’s? This cannot be the case, can it? If not, then, how do we reconcile this? Obviously…he believes his suffering counts for something, that it is not void because of Christ’s perfect sacrifice. As I read it, there are two options. 1) Christ’s suffering was incomplete, and we must suffer up the difference. or 2) Christ’s suffering are complete, but Paul is participating in Christ’s sacrafice (i.e. not in spite of but according too) to accomplish a greater reconciliation

In according with the second option, any sufferings we endure here on Earth help us the same, we are participating in Christ’s sufferings to bring about a greater reconciliation for ourselves or others (i.e. His body the Church). Thus, the idea of redemptive suffering.

The problem then becomes, of what point is this redemptive suffering of mere human beings, if Christ’s suffering was perfect? This is harder to answer, but the alternative is to deny redemptive suffering, and thus contradict Paul (or better yet, Holy Scripture) which says Paul’s suffering amounted to something.

If we establish that suffering amounts to something, and that it is in accord and through Christ’s suffering that it has meaning, Purgetory adds another level of depth. In the later epistles, James and John (I don’t remember exact quotes though) Scripture speaks of covering sins through deeds, about sins leading to death and those that don’t. This indicates that believers can sin, and not be put to death for them (always, that is, but also confirming that believers can become dead in the Lord’s eyes, negating the OSAS theory). But one wonders, if “nothing unclean will enter heaven” (somewhere in Rev.) what happens to those believers who are unclean and die? They can’t go to Heaven because they are unclean (and Scripture doesn’t lie) nor Hell, (because they have not commited sins leading to death). The response to this, I know, will be to say that the Blood of Jesus covers all our sins and we enter Heaven immeadately because so. But, that flies in the face of James and John, who say believers can sin and fall into death.

Adding these things together, Purgetory doesn’t have to be invented, it must exist by God’s mercy (although it will cease to be eventually) else any person who commited a lesser sin be cast to Hell for being unclean. 1st Corinthians 3:15 , “If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” If his works are sinful, even lesser sins, they shall be burned up, and he shall suffer loss, yet be SAVED? As though by fire, even more. It seems a purification of a man’s works is necessary for salvation if he is not completely clean. Call if Purgetory, call it Bob’s Diner for all I care…but it seems as though someway, somehow, it must exist or else Scripture lies.

:twocents:

 

[JimG]

Pillar of Cloud:

I’m probably repeating, but there is that passage, in Col. 1:24 “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church”

I enjoyed reading your thoughts about this passage. Apparently St. Paul does think that his suffering is not meaningless. He thinks, even, that it “completes what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.”

What could possibly be lacking in Christ afflictiions? His suffering and death was efficacious for our salvation. Still, St. Paul makes the statement. Our suffering means something.

That only thing that could be lacking in Christ’s afflictions, is our own suffering offered in union with His. Because it is in union with His, that makes it redemptive.

And if our suffering here in this life can be redemptive when done in union with Christ, that is in itself a “third state.” Not hell, not heaven; but suffering nonetheless. With Christ, it is not meaningless.

 

[McKenzie]

bene7:

McKenzie, there is a temporary “third place” for unbelievers. It’s called Hades. But since the cross of Christ, no true believers are there any longer. Paul emphatically states that for believers:

2COR. 5:8 "…we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord."

According to Paul, there is no “third place” for *true * believers. We go straight Home to be with the Lord. And why not? We’ve been cleansed from ALL sins through His shed blood.

Blessings,
Bene

Hi Bene,

Thank you for the response. As you have agreed, there at least existed a third state so we know that the existence of this state is compatible with scripture. There is proof in scripture that there can be more than heaven and hell.

You seem to be stuck on the fact that the word “purgatory” is not mentioned in the Bible. Yet you cannot show me the words “Trinity” or “Incarnation” in the Bible. You support these doctrines on the same evidence as the doctrine of purgatory - you cannot find the words but they are taught in scripture.

Your quote does not show that Paul did not believe in a third place. Paul would rather go to be with the Lord, as we all want, but that in no way shows that he taught against it’s existence. Quote the opposite in fact, Refer again to 1Cor. 3-15. We know a third state can exist and Paul points to a place that is not heaven and is not hell.

And as someone mentioned before, the real argument here is more than purgatory. It all goes to the ultimate disagreement of the doctrine of sola scriptura. So as they recommended, a new thread should be started because until you accept that sola scriptura is contrary to scripture and the doctrine is incorrect you will never agree on the doctrine of purgatory - even with all the Scripture evidence that has been put forward supporting it and none of the Scripture you have put forward contradicting it.

Peace.

 

[Mickey]

bene7:

But, that ain’t gonna happen.

Don’t be so sure. Your knowledge is aprreciated here–but it is a knowlege based on revision. And at the very least you must admit that your revisionist teachers could be mistaken–and that the Catholic Church had it correct all along. We are obedient to Sacred Scipture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterial teaching office. Because some reformers and bene think it is not so–doesn’t mean it is not so. But of course,no one here is going to change your mind, just as you will change no one’s mind on this subject. Blessings to you on your journey.

Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment** .**
(St Augustine The City of God** 21:13** A.D. 419**])**

---

---

---

 

[Pryority7]

I really liked Pillar Of Clouds’ (name removed by moderator)ut on this subject. Very insightful. This is true, as it says in 1 Peter 4:3 about rejoicing that we are sharing in the sufferings of Christ. When is that sharing complete? When a mother loses her child, Christ is there with her, her suffering becomes His. The meaning of suffering and death has been changed forever by the cross. The cross is the key to the mystery of suffering, and it applies to every individual who has Christ in their lives. Our suffering is molding us…helping us become more like Him…perfect. This perfection is completed in purgatory. Christ is there with us, suffering with us, His precious blood cleansing us…there is no contradicition here…no scandal…purgatory is God’s love made manifest in our individual sufferings, which He will see through with us to the very end so that when we walk into the Throne Room, we will be clean and spotless…like Him.
Amen.

 

[Gene_C]

Hi Bene,

You said: “Gene, you have a complete misunderstanding of all this.”

ME: What we have is a complete disagreement. Snide remarks have no place on a Christian forum. Or do you not consider Catholics to be Chrstian?

If you know anything about theology, especially Protestant “theology,” you’ll know that there are many disagreements within the Evangelical camp regarding exactly HOW a person is saved. Everybody agrees, Catholic and Protestant and Orthodox alike, that it is our Lord Jesus Christ Who saves us through His incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension and future return in glory.

HOW this is applied to the individual is where the disagreements come in.

You said: “”Works” by the believer can be done either “in the Spirit,’ or by the energy of the flesh. But that doesn’t mean they’re ‘sinful,’ i.e., morally wrong. It is at the judgment seat of Christ that the value of those works (not sins) will be appraised. There is no purging of sins in 1 Cor. 3. The fire revealing their value, the believer subsequently receiving a reward, or not.

ME: If you stick to the context, as you have told us to do, you will see that in the passage from Galatians 5, Paul refers to sins as “ergons” of the flesh. Again, if you take the time to look up this word, you will see all the many passages that it is used in. Try Strong’s Concordance.

What you have is a misunderstanding of the word “works.” Yes, there are GOOD works done in the flesh, and good works done in the Spirit. What will last in glory are the good works done in the Spirit.

But Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, uses the same word that he used for works in his letters to the Romans and Galatians, to refer to sinful acts. Basically, sins are EVIL works, done in the flesh. This is Bible. You can’t get around it. Look it up in Thayer’s Lexicon and Strong’s.

Now we also know, from John’s first letter, and also from Paul and James, that there are sins that lead to spiritual death, (we call them mortal sins), and there are sins that DO NOT lead to spiritual death (called venial sins). This, too, is Bible.

From the passages of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5 and 1 Corinthians 3, “works” are mentioned. Again, these can be: good works, done in the flesh or in the Spirit; and evil works, sins, that can only be done in the flesh.

The context of both passages shows that no distinctions are made.

Again, sins are referred to as works, works of the flesh.

On the personal side, I was raised Catholic, met the Lord in a Baptist congregation and spent the next 30-plus years in the Evangelical camp, at the end beginning to study for the ministry. It was through my extensive reading and study of SCRIPTURE, especially the doctrines of purgatory, Mary’s place in theology, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, all from Scripture, that led me back to the Church.

Question what you are being taught, and don’t try to make Scripture fit any pre-conceived notions.

Peace,
Gene

 

[Pryority7]

Wow. Very good Gene. I need to do that research and go to those sources to see for myself. I’m learning much on this post. Thank you.
P7

 

[bene7]

Pillar of Cloud:

Bene, from what I can tell (and please correct me if I’m wrong) you consider yourself a true Bible-Christian, perhaps of even Fundamentalist or Baptist background? I have a lot of good Baptist friends, but, there has always been one thing about their practice that as thrown me off.

You don’t believe in Baptismal Regeneration, right? But you do full immersion baptisms as an outward symbol, right? Do you have anyone in your church who has been baptized multiple times? I know a couple of baptist friends who have, and I don’t know where in Scripture they get the idea. As far as I know, no one was ever baptized twice or more in Scripture. I know I’m working off a lot of assumptions about your background, but if you know of the practice, could you explain to me its Scriptural roots?

I am a “Biblicist.” My faith rests in the revealed Word of God. I am nondenominational. “Fundamentalism” has taken on various meanings today and is not considered a denomination. I am glad you have a lot of “good Baptist friends” rather than a lot of “bad” ones. Since you have so many good Baptist friends why is it you haven’t asked them to explain their peculiar “practice” of multiple baptisms?

True, I do not believe in “baptismal regeneration.” True, I do consider baptism an outward symbol of an inward reality. The true believer having died with Christ, buried with Him and now raised to new life in Him. Personally I prefer full immersion but wouldn’t make a big deal of it. It’s merely an outward symbol of a spiritual reality in Christ.

You’re wrong about multiple baptisms as being a “practice” of Fundamentalists or Baptists. However, I have known many people who have been baptized twice. The reason being their first baptism was performed upon them while in an unbelieving state. They came from a religious background, like Catholic or Lutheran, that baptized infants or the very young. Their desire was to now be publicly baptized as one who has personally and consciously believed in the Person of Jesus Christ as Savior, and one who trusts completely in His vicarious work on the cross for their redemption. If you’ll read the Book of Acts you’ll see only those who actually believed were baptized. No where is it recorded that parents brought their infants to be baptized. I’ve read all the “proof-texts” Catholics present in which they read infant baptism INTO them, but one would be hard pressed to derive such a doctrine OUT of them. Just like you do with the doctrine of “Purgatory.”

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Pillar of Cloud:

Ok, now back to the real topic. I’m probably repeating, but there is that passage, in Col. 1:24 “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church”

This has always thrown me off about the whole “instant and forever” purification of Christians who believe on the name of the Lord. Is Paul saying that Christ’s sufferings were lacking? Or especially that he completes the suffering, in what was LACKING of Christ’s? This cannot be the case, can it?

Right, this cannot be the case, especially if you begin with the beginning of the chapter (it’s always good to start with chapter one). Paul says in Col. 1:12-14, that God the Father has “qualified” believers to share in the inheritance (eternal life), and that through Christ (the cross) and He has “delivered (past tense) us from the domain of darkness, and has transferred (past tense) us to the kingdom of His beloved Son IN WHOM we HAVE redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

So right up front it is made crystal clear that NOTHING was lacking in the suffering, death and shed blood of Christ on the cross to procure our complete redemption. Since God already sees, positionally, every true believer as transferred into the Son’s Kingdom, fully redeemed by His blood and his sins forever forgiven. Further on Paul states that the true believer is reconciled to God, having made peace with Him through the blood of Christ’s cross. No, my friend, you’ll find no hint in Paul’s letter to the Colossians that there was anything lacking in Christ’s redemptive and reconciliatory work on the cross on our behalf.

The Son was sent into this world to accomplish a work, a work which was His, and His alone, and which He did accomplish perfectly and completely on the cross. Part of that work was the “work of reconciliation:”

ROM 5:10 “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life” (i.e. from the wrath of God).

At the time of Paul’s conversion Jesus said to Ananias:

ACT 9:15-16 "But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake. "

Jesus Christ completely and perfectly accomplished the “work” of reconciliation through His suffering and death on the cross (“It is finished”). Subsequently Paul was personally called by the resurrected Christ Himself, as an Apostle, to take the “word” of reconciliation to the Gentiles and to the sons Israel, which would also require much hardship and suffering on his part (read 2 Cor. 11:23-33). This was the “suffering” on behalf of Christ’s Body, the Church (those who received the “word” of reconciliation through faith) that Paul was talking about.

2COR. 5:18-19 “Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation” (see also 2 Cor. 6:1-10).

Through His suffering and death on the cross Jesus completed the “work” of reconciliation. But the “word” regarding this accomplished work of Christ would require suffering as well. So in that respect Paul did “fill up” (complete) that which was lacking in Christ’s afflictions. Suffering was required for the “work” of reconciliation to be completed (and completed it was). And suffering continued to be required for the ministry of the “word” of reconciliation to be accomplished by Paul on behalf of the Church.

But Paul in no way ever hints at the idea that his sufferings in taking the “word” of reconciliation to the Gentile world was expiatory in any sense, or meritoriously aided in the cleansing of his sins or those of the Church. Paul emphatically testifies throughout his Epistles that that work was accomplished completely and perfectly through the suffering and death of Christ on the cross alone, and we enter into that finished work through faith alone. Anything else is blasphemy.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Gene C.:

But Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, uses the same word that he used for works in his letters to the Romans and Galatians, to refer to sinful acts. Basically, sins are EVIL works, done in the flesh. This is Bible. You can’t get around it. Look it up in Thayer’s Lexicon and Strong’s.

Sorry Gene, but you still continue to be way off track. There are no “sins” being dealt with in 1 Cor. 3. The fire does not reveal the value of one’s sins, and sins are not categorized as “good” or “bad.”

The context is how a Christian worker builds upon the foundation of Christ. This is “labor,” Gene, not “sins.” Doing works or laboring in the “energy of the flesh” is not the same as the carrying out or practicing the “desire” or “deeds” of the flesh" Paul lists in Gal. 5:16ff.

These are two very different contexts.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Mickey:

Don’t be so sure. Your knowledge is aprreciated here–but it is a knowlege based on revision.

No, it’s knowledge based on the original, God-breathed (theopneustos) Scriptures. I wouldn’t call the writers of the N.T. revisionists. You quote Augustine (I quote Scripture), but he came on the scene centuries after the Apostolic age and the writings of N.T.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[hurst]

bene7:

The true believer is/was purified of ALL sins when he personally put his faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

This is based on an erroneous understanding of what Christ did on the Cross for us. Faith is only the beginning of a life of grace, a certainty of that which is unseen.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.

It does not cover our sins apart from our applying His merits. We must cooperate and practise charity in order to actually be purified.

bene7:

To believe that you must STILL be purified of sins is essentially *unbelief * (see Heb. 1:3 - and what Paul wrote to these Corinthian believers in 1 Cor. 6:11; 1:2, 30).

Then you are accusing St. Paul of unbelief. Speaking to those same people he said were sanctified, he calls them carnal:

1 Cor 1:2 To the church of God that is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, in every place of theirs and ours.

1 Cor 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto little ones in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal. 3 For, whereas there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal, and walk according to man?

This is an example that shows they are not totally “purified” from sin.

But perhaps you will say that Christ “covers” over our sins, as though they weren’t there. Well, Paul isn’t ignoring them, and is even taking them to task about it.

Please reconsider your interpretation of Scripture according to the truth that Christ’s work on the Cross was not a penal substitution that renders us “pure” in spite of our sins and bad conduct. It was an atonement that obtained our deliverance from slavery that we might be free to walk (by the light of faith) and do (by the grace of God) the works of charity that will render us worthy of eternal life and heavenly rewards.

bene7:

Paul also wrote to the Corinthians that to be at home in the body we are absent from the Lord, but prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be “at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:6-8). When a true believer dies he goes straight into the presence of Christ. And why not?

Because being a “true believer” is not enough. Believing allows one to see the Kingdom of God.

John 3:3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

But we must take hold of it, too. And that requires effort on our part.

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.

Acts 14:21 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith: and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God.

bene7:

He’s already been purified of ALL sins by His substitutionary, sin-sacrifice. That’s what the cross was all about. That was its purpose.

No, it wasn’t. This misunderstanding by Protestants is the basis of so much of their rejection of the teaching and practice of the true Church.

Christ earned something good for us because His sacrifice was so pleasing to His Father. We must follow His example. He did not merely become displeasing to God as a sort of trade-off to accept us sinners into heaven, leaving nothing for us to do towards our salvation. That is unscriptural and misleading.

hurst