Purgatory and 1 Corinthians 15:52

[RonWI]

If you would go to daily masses you would hear prayers for the souls in purgatory. I know I do.

I am sure I would. That’s my point. Daily mass, yes. At the funeral, no. I’ll bet I have been to a dozen Catholic funerals in the last 10 years. Not once have I heard anything to even suggest the departed was anywhere other than in heaven.

My most recent one was this past Saturday. The priest and the person eulogizing both specifically said he has rejoined his wife in heaven. Very comforting, I suppose.

 

[hurst]

bene7:

The doctrine’s not found in Scripture,

It is, indirectly, by admitting the possibility of a purification in the other world. Among other places, let me focus on the following one:

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. 32 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.

bene7:

… so give men the name of the Pope or Prelate who was personally instructed by the Lord on the reality of this place called “Purgatory?” What day, what year was he visited?

As you should know, not all Truth was immediately explicitly known. Rather, the Holy Spirit was promised, who would lead us into all truth.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

There is a Pope, St. Gregory the Great (circa 600 A.D.), who was blessed with much grace from the Holy Spirit. While not necessarily the first, he was certainly one recorded Pope who expounded on this point, found in Matt 12:32 above:

“In this sentence it is given to understand that many sins can be remitted in this world, but also many in the world to come”
(Dial. IV 39) cf. Augustine, De civ. Dei XXI 24, 2. D 456
[Ott, p.483]

There are also major Fathers of the Early Church who expound on this point also, showing that the concept of being purged of sins after death has been held from the earliest times of the Church.

I realize that the notion of Purgatory goes against your understanding of being purified from sins. For you seem to hold that various verses of scripture teach that Christ purified us of all sins once and for all as if it means we have nothing to do in cooperation with the purification of our sins, apart from believing that Christ already did it. While this is not a right understanding on the issue according to Church teaching, neither is it consistent with all scripture, for you then make penance to be superfluous, which was plainly shown to be required.

Acts 20:21 Testifying both to Jews and Gentiles penance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

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.

Those who come to God can still fall away. That Christ purged sins does not mean that they automatically don’t sin anymore. Free will is still in place. If they were purified as you claim, then how is it that they do not remain so? The following is clearly addressed to believers:

2 Corinthians 12:21 Lest again, when I come, God humble me among you: and I mourn many of them that sinned before, and have not done penance for the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness, that they have committed.

2 Peter 1:9 For he that hath not these things with him, is blind, and groping, having forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

So, if we sin again, we must apply for the grace of God again through penance and by returning to our first works.

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.

This should clearly show even to a Bible-only proponent, that one must not understand that the purging Christ did was actually already applied to everyone, even those who believe, as if it were all in the past. It is not merely a paid penalty. It is an obtained capability. And if we sin after believing, we must repent and return to good works, doing works worthy of penance, which is more than merely believing, though believing is required to see what we must do, if we are to do anything salutary. Through faith, we obtain grace to do the good works necessary to be saved. These works are primarily in the soul, but overflow into the body towards our neighbor.

But charity is above faith, and so faith cannot be certain of our charity, which charity is needed to prove that we are born of God, thus the reason why we cannot know by faith that we have attained salvation. Not only that, but once obtained, there is no faith or hope needed, for having something precludes the believing or hoping to have it.

hurst

 

[hurst]

bene7:

Paul knew nothing of it, nor did Peter, John, Luke, James or even Jude.

How can you be so sure? Don’t you mean to say that you can’t understand how they could, since you don’t see them explicitly mention it by name?

But not all things were written down, as I am sure you have heard.

2 Thessalonians 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

2 Cor 3:2 You are our epistle, written in our hearts, which is known and read by all men: 3 Being manifested, that you are the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, and written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart.

And it is something passed on as part of the faith down through the centuries within the Church, which is the foundation of the Truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

In fact, there were other epistles that are not in the Bible, though approved of by Paul:

Colossians 4:16 And when this epistle shall have been read with you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans: and that you read that which is of the Laodiceans.

So one cannot base the non-existence of something on the non-explicit mention of it in the particular books of the Bible handed down to us.

Not anyone who reads scripture is a minister thereof. Yet, there are ministers

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter, but in the spirit. For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth.

Why set yourself up as an opposing Apostle of Christ - indeed, a false one. For you spread a contrary Gospel.

2 Corinthians 11:13 For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

You are being instructed in the proper understanding of the Gospel now, but you reject it, prefering to follow your own understanding of the letter.

For though you proclaim Christ in a sense, it is with a false sense of salvation, and it leads to the rejection of other divinely revealed truths. And if you reject one part, it proves you have not accepted all.

But I have hope that you do so not out of malice, but out of ignorance. And I say the same for all of us who might be saying things amiss, for we must keep ourselves within the teaching of the Church. May we all be led into the fullness of truth.

bene7:

In fact Jude says to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”

You imply nothing else is to be written after this? Yet Jude was not the last book written. The faith is not entirely contained in the written work of the NT, as has been shown.

bene7:

And the doctrine itself militates against Paul’s teachings regarding the cross,

But it does not. It only goes against your traditional understanding of those scriptures. Do you deny the need to do penance for our sins, whether committed before or after baptism?

bene7:

And who is this god that changes his mind? Can a god like that be trusted??

Well, apart from this, God seems to have changed His mind concerning unclean animals:

Acts 11:7 And I heard also a voice saying to me: Arise, Peter; kill and eat. 8 And I said: Not so, Lord; for nothing common or unclean hath ever entered into my mouth. 9 And the voice answered again from heaven: What God hath made clean, do not thou call common.

The Jews were probably pointing out that the Christians were wrong by the same token.

bene7:

Or maybe, just maybe, it’s the claim by the Catholic church that says the reality of Purgatory was revealed to it, that can’t be trusted. Unless it can provide proof of this divine revelation. So far it hasn’t. It simply claims to have authority to teach it.

It also finds an indirect basis in Scripture, as well as direct support by the Early Church Fathers.

hurst

 

[hurst]

bene7:

But others have claimed such authority as well. Like the Judaisers in Galatia. And Paul responded with:

GAL 1:6-8 “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.”

Alas, this applies perfectly to you. For what you teach regarding Purgatory is contrary to what was handed down for centuries even before the reformation to which you adhere. And your concept of what Christ did on the cross is also distorted, and causes you to misunderstand the many other concepts which it undergirds, including not only Purgatory, but also veneration of the Saints, acquisition of merits for the benefit of others and sharing in the work of Christ, Indulgences, True Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, necessity of Holy Confession, and more. For what Christ did was not so we could separate from others, but rather be united to others and practice obedience to faith.

bene7:

The verses you provided had to do with discipline. The Church is to discipline itself and carry out disciplinary action where and when needed.

But it was discipline as the result of impurity and sin. It was penance, actually. The two are not the same. In any case, Luther was disciplined, as was others, but you follow in their steps.

But either way, it shows that the person was not already purified, which you contend as Gospel truth.

bene7:

But this has nothing to do with “Purgatory” or the cleansing of one’s sins either in this life or the next.You quote Hebrews 11:1 regarding faith, but it’s in Hebrews 1:3 that we find the content of that faith, as to who Christ is and what He accomplished for us:

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;

You should see by now that this underlined portion can not mean that all people are already clean. It is for you to change your course of understanding this to be in line with other scripture, not to mention the Church.

bene7:

I am quite aware of a Catholic’s unbelief in the finished work of Christ on the cross. But every time I actually hear one of you verbalize it (or in this case, write it) I am still shocked and taken back.

The finished work of Christ should not be taken to mean that our work is finished. He amassed a huge store of merit and grace for our salvation, and we must “go to Joseph” and ask for this “grain” kept to offset the famine of sin that souls suffer on earth.

Romans 2:9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

We all work, but we must work by the grace of God, merited for us by Christ. Whatever work we do, will be judged and tested.

1 Corinthians 3:13 Every man’s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is.

And we work for the salvation of others

1 Corinthians 9:1 Am not I free? Am not I an apostle? Have not I seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord?

1 Corinthians 1:21 For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world, by wisdom, knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe.

Jude 1:22 And some indeed reprove, being judged: 23 But others save, pulling them out of the fire. And on others have mercy, in fear, hating also the spotted garment which is carnal.

Is it not plain here, that we must cooperate with God for the work of salvation to be finished? I don’t say the work of redemption, for Christ finished that atonement on the Cross. But I mean the work of actually being saved and saving others by applying the redemption to our souls, by believing and living according to that belief, and hoping and loving according to that belief; and persevering in that belief, hope, and charity to which we are called.

We must profit by Christ’s atonement in order to be saved in the end. We indeed taste salvation, but that is not the fullness thereof. We must persevere to actually obtain it.

Matthew 10:22 And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.

hurst

 

[Pillar_of_Cloud]

bene7:

But I don’t agree with you that the forgiveness of sins “flows” from the cross of Christ. His sacrifice actually procured, brought into effect, the forgiveness of sins. And everyone who truly believes in Him (not a church) receives the forgiveness of sins He procured through the sacrifice of Himself…

I find it hard to believe you read anything I wrote about Redemption and forgiveness of sin with the kind of response you gave me. If you have contention with what I said, at least address that instead of verse lobbing against a word technicality as if it proves your point. Or even then, an acknowledgement that you even read my post would be appreciated.

Even then, the distinction you are making between “flow” and “procured” is illusionary, just like the Gnostics you brought up. Sins are forgiven BY the Cross, is that better?

Not that I disagree with “procured” anyway, since that still means that the Cross gives access to the forgiveness of sins the Old Testament sacrifices couldn’t.

But, Forgiveness is still dispersed differently than Redemption, which was given to all men whether or not they know Jesus.

Read both of these very verses you posted, and tell me that I’m misinterpreting:

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins”(Acts 10:43).

"Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Himforgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you(Acts 10:38)

Those who believe in Jesus recieve forgiveness of sin. Through Him, forgiveness of sins is proclaimed. That is what these two verses are saying. Ok, now, how does this disprove the use of the word “flows?” Let’s construct these artificially for sake of debate.

Therefore, let it be known to you, brethren, that [In His Cross, from which forgiveness flows], forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. (Again, I am constructing this artificially, not trying to interpret the verse, only for the sake of showing these is no contradiction between what I say and Scripture)

Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins [through His Cross, from which forgiveness flows.]

Now I ask, although these are fake add ons, would it change the meaning of the passages at all if they were true? Instead of giving the name of Jesus, it gives His act of salvation. If not, please answer why.

Actually John here is not directly confronting believers, but the problem of Gnosticism that had infiltrated the churches at that time. Gnostics didn’t believe that God could actually come in the flesh, nor did they believe in the moral concept of sin. Matter was simply an illusion. That’s why he says:

1JOHN 1:8 “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

It is impossible for a true believer to say he has no sin. The reason one believes in Christ is because he has been convicted by the Spirit of sin. It’s the Gnostic that claimed he had no sin, and the truth was not in him. In 1 John 1:9 John is saying to those who leaned toward the false doctrines of Gnosticism that if they confess (i.e., acknowledge) their sins, He (God) is faithful and righteous (because of Christ’s sin-sacrifice) to forgive them of their sins, and to cleanse them from all unrighteousness (because of the shed blood of Christ on the cross).

You need to understand Scripture in its proper context. All Scripture is written for you, but not all Scripture is necessarily written about you.

See, now this is more legitimate. Interesting how you bring up the historical context. Thanks for it, but there is one thing I find a bit confusing: “You need to understand Scripture in its proper context. All Scripture is written for you, but not all Scripture is necessarily written about you.”

If this is true, how does one make the distinction? By what process do we know what is written for us and what is not? All Scripture has a historical context, so one could certainly say all Scripture was written about those in that context. But in our present day situation, 2000 years later, how do we discern what is “about” us and what is not? I’m very interested in your answer.

Lastly, I certainly hope this isn’t all. I’m interested too to know your responses to my other arguments, since I’m sure I’m not perfect in them either. Thanks!

God bless.

 

[Pryority7]

You know, I’ve been getting into this discussion, especially with Bene, and I must admit something…I don’t know as much as I thought I did. That is, I’m not as well versed in Catholic Theology as some of you guys are…I’m learning alot, and Bene, no matter what you say, no matter how much you twist scripture around to prove your stance on this issue, the truth is that I will believe what the Catholic Church Teaches. I’d rather rely on 2,000 years of apostolic teaching than from some dude from God knows where on his little two cents on what HE thinks these things mean. My arguments are weak in comparison to the other’s arguments…yes…but at least I admit it. I will not compromise any scripture and the truths it holds so that I can have something to prove to you or anyone else. I will continue to give my (name removed by moderator)ut, but Bene, since you’re back in the forum, stop private Ming me and bring out your arguments out in the open. Let everyone see your divine priviledged “wisdom”.
Dude, seriously, you’re dealing with a whole bunch of Catholics here. Why don’t you just either be willing to have an open mind and at least consider the readings others have given you, or just leave the forum. For real. We will not…I will not adhear your subjective interpretation of scripture to justify your non belief in purgatory. You know what’s funny? One day, you, like all of us, will die, and then…whoaaaa!!! You’re going to be like…well, you’ll see.

 

[bene7]

Pryority7:

but Bene, since you’re back in the forum, stop private Ming me and bring out your arguments out in the open.

What??? I’ve never given you a PM.

Bene

 

[sandusky]

Sean Boyle:

If Christ’s death delivered us from sin once and for all. Then why did the good thief still need to died an agonizing death (temporal punishment). Why is there still pain for women in child birth?

Everyone dies Sean as a result of living in a fallen world; death is a consequence of that, as is the pain of women in childbirth.

But, to say that death is a temporal punishment is only half right. It is a punishment for the unbeliever, but death is not a punishment for the believer.

Philippians 1:21
21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.

For the believer, death is not a “temporal punishment,” but gain.

Also,

Romans 5:1
1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ

And,

Romans 8:1
1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Zero, zip, nada. No condemnation = no punishment.

Furthermore,

2 Corinthians 5:17-19
17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
19 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.

If God says that those who are in Christ,

1. Gain when they die
2. Are at peace with Him (in this life, and the one to come)
3. Are never again subject to His condemnation
4. And their sins are not counted against them

Why do you persist in a doctrine that calls for punishment of a believer even when you can produce no convincing evidence of such doctrine, and when scripture speaks so strongly against such a doctrine?

 

[sandusky]

Hurst:

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.

Hurst, will you give some support for your statement that Christ’s sacrifice was not a penal substitution?

Hurst:

It is, indirectly, by admitting the possibility of a purification in the other world.

Think about what you are saying here, Hurst, ie, if one admits the possibility…then indirect support can be found. That is eisegetical reasoning.

Hurst:

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. 32 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.

There is a Pope, St. Gregory the Great (circa 600 A.D.), who was blessed with much grace from the Holy Spirit. While not necessarily the first, he was certainly one recorded Pope who expounded on this point, found in Matt 12:32 above:

“In this sentence it is given to understand that many sins can be remitted in this world, but also many in the world to come”
(Dial. IV 39) cf. Augustine, De civ. Dei XXI 24, 2. D 456
[Ott, p.483]

I strongly disagree with you. That verse says nothing about purgatory, nor does it say anything about forgiveness after death, and is refuted by Hebrews 9:27.

What Matthew is using is a figure of speech known as tapeinosis (or demeaning) when used positively, and antenantiosis when used negatively, as it is in Mt 12:32.

When Matthew says, *it shall not be forgiven him…*he is saying: he shall have the gravest punishment in this age and in the age to come.

That is supported by looking at the parallel recording of the same incident by Mark in his Gospel, 3:29:

Mark 3:29
29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—

 

[hurst]

bene7:

Yes, Paul begins his greetings to the true believers at Corinth with what they actually (objectively) are, now being “in Christ Jesus,” that is, “sanctified,” set apart in Him for God’s eternal purposes. But what Paul is addressing in 3:1 has to do with immaturity, not impurity. The need for experiential sanctification, not regeneration.

How can you be so sure about this, when chapter five begins thusly:

1 Cor 5:1 It is absolutely heard, that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as the like is not among the heathens; that one should have his father’s wife. 2 And you are puffed up; and have not rather mourned, that he might be taken away from among you, that hath done this deed. 3 I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus; 5 To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This seems like blatant impurity, and not the immaturity of a baby needing milk. Notice that the guilty one is dealt with heavily, for his salvation.

bene7:

In fact Paul presents three classifications of humanity in 1 Cor. 2:14 - 3:2:

2:14: The “natural man” (psuchikos): …

2:15: The “spiritual man” (pneumtikos): …

3:1-2: The “fleshly man,” the “babe in Christ” (sarkikos): This was the state of the Corinthian believers. As believers they were already sanctified (set apart) in Christ (1:2), but they were still “babes,” spiritually speaking, needing milk to drink. Not able to take “solid food.” They were still “fleshly” in their behavior and walking like mere men; their objectives and affections being as that of the natural men.

Nice distinctions. But on the third one, again, how can they be babes needing milk as mere fleshly men, when the apostle says:

1 Cor 5:1 … and such fornication as the like is not among the heathens; that one should have his father’s wife.

He is saying they are worse than the heathens!

In fact, far from giving them milk, he is saying to separate them out!

1 Cor 5:11 But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? 13 For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves.

So fleshly immorality was not to be tolerated among the believers. Nor can you say they aren’t believers. My point here is that one can lose their “sanctification” if they do not cooperate by their conduct and works. Even by your own definition of sanctification as meaning being “set apart for God’s purpose”, the evil one was to be put away from those who were set apart, and thus lose even the status of being one of the group. In current Church terminology, I would say this is equivalent to being excommunicated.

bene7:

This was the reason for Paul’s letter to them. They were in need of discipline, to mature in Christ, to walk as spiritual men,

As shown above, another reason was to “excommunicate” one of the believers. That is apparently part of the exercise of his power of the rod that he mentioned in 1 Cor 4:21.

hurst

 

[hurst]

bene7:

None of this had to do with purifying sins. It had to do with the Corinthian believer adjusting his objectives and affections to that of his calling,

May I ask how you define “purifying sins”?

bene7:

You’re right, the cross of Christ does not “cover over” our sins. It actually “takes away” our sins: “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29; cf. Col. 2:13-14).

However, you interpret that in the past perfect tense, as though the sins have already been taken away, including future ones. While Christ did pay for all future sins, they are not already taken away before they are committed.

bene7:

In 1 Cor. 6 Paul chastises these Corinthian “babes” about their behavior. Reminding them that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God, and lists the various* types* of unrighteous. …
Paul does not identify them with the unrighteous, or as sinners in need of redemption. But as believers whose sins have been washed by the blood of Christ, as believers sanctified and justified in His name and in the Spirit of God, yet still in need of discipline and maturity. It wasn’t their sins that needed cleansing (that was done by Christ’s sustitutionary sacrifice), they needed to “clean up their act”.

What I hear you saying is that when a believer “sins”, it is not a “sin”, but just immature behavior that needs to be corrected.

But those same scriptures indicate that fornication was among them, and he put one of them out because of it. And those same scriptures explicitly say fornication is sin:

1 Cor 6:18 Fly fornication. Every sin that a man doth, is without the body; but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body.

Do you now still contend that the guilty man was merely immature and needing to be corrected, while remaining without sin?

bene7:

None of this has to do with “Purgatory,” nor does Paul even present such a concept.

The connection is that the guilty believer was made to suffer at the hands of satan by Paul to punish the flesh for the “sin” of fornication. You seem to be avoiding accepting it as such. Of course, once you do accept it, then what will stop you from accepting Purgatory, which is based on the same principle of having to do penance and atone for sins committed after believing?

hurst

 

[hurst]

sandusky:

If God says that those who are in Christ,

1. Gain when they die
2. Are at peace with Him (in this life, and the one to come)
3. Are never again subject to His condemnation
4. And their sins are not counted against them

Why do you persist in a doctrine that calls for punishment of a believer even when you can produce no convincing evidence of such doctrine, and when scripture speaks so strongly against such a doctrine?

Because who of us is perfectly in Christ? If we are, then indeed, there is no purgatory for us, for we will go straight to heaven. To be such, we must place all our desire in God through Christ, and be living saints. In fact, we are called to this, and are able to do it by the grace of God and the desire of our wills.

But as 1 Corinthians shows, some believers are not fully in Christ, and so the imperfect must endure chastisements for correction.

Apocalypse 3:19 Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore, and do penance.

And Paul even chastised himself to keep himself in line:

1 Corinthians 9:27 But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.

We must be zealous, then. And if we aren’t, we cannot claim to be fully in Christ, much less remain long in Him:

Apocalypse 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot. 16 But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

So if we are chastised and must suffer in this life to prove ourselves worthy, then what of those who believe but do not accept the suffering in this life? It must happen in the next. Or do you think that since Christ suffered, we don’t have to? Folly.

Matthew 5:10 Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Romans 8:17 And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.

Philippians 1:29 For unto you it is given for Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him.

2 Thessalonians 1:4 So that we ourselves also glory in you in the churches of God, for your patience and faith, and in all your persecutions and tribulations, which you endure, 5 For an example of the just judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which also you suffer.

2 Timothy 3:12 And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution.

Enduring suffering of the loss of earthly consolation so that we may receive heavenly consolation is the primary aspect, I think. If we die in an imperfect state, then we will suffer after we die and before we enter heaven.

An imperfect state is one in which we have not fully entrusted ourselves to Christ, and His merits have not been fully applied, but only partially. This is why confession is so important and valuable. It provides a means after baptism to declare our sins that Christ’s merits may be applied. The primary act in confession is actually the invisible contrition in our souls, which is made manifest for the remission of penalty via verbal confession to the witness. And the priest is the best witness because he has the Christ-given authority to loose our sins that we committed after having believed in Christ’s forgiveness.

John 20:21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

For anyone who sins is a slave to sin.

John 8:34 Jesus answered them: Amen, amen I say unto you: that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin.

We need to be delivered again, but it cannot be done by a new baptism:

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, … 6 And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery. … 8 But that which bringeth forth thorns and briers, is reprobate, and very near unto a curse, whose end is to be burnt.

Thus confession is needed; or if we die being perfectly sorry, some form of temporary suffering in purgatory is needed to satisfy God’s justice and atone for the sins.

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

hurst

 

[Pryority7]

Bene, are you actually stating that you haven’t been PMing me? You know, you’re lying in front of everybody right? I can easily post all the messages you sent me that are not on this forum. Just admit it man…no harm, no foul…unless you had other motives…like trying to buy me out of the Catholic faith under everyone elses nose…did I become like a pet project to you or somthing?

 

[Mickey]

Pryority7:

You know, you’re lying in front of everybody right? I can easily post all the messages you sent me that are not on this forum.

The mods would not like that. Bene needs to go to confession.

 

[sandusky]

Pryority7:

Bene, are you actually stating that you haven’t been PMing me? You know, you’re lying in front of everybody right? I can easily post all the messages you sent me that are not on this forum. Just admit it man…no harm, no foul…unless you had other motives…like trying to buy me out of the Catholic faith under everyone elses nose…did I become like a pet project to you or somthing?

I PM’d you last week P7.

Perhaps you have me confused with Bene?

Sandusky

 

[Pryority7]

Yes…you are right Sandusky. My apologies to Bene…it’s just that it’s been such a verse by verse battle and I guess you two are in the front lines right now…I got confused.
Nonetheless, my statement stands. Let’s just keep sharing in the main forum please.

 

[Pryority7]

Okay, I’ve been doing more study on 1 Corinthians 15, and I discovered some interesting things:
First, in verse 14, the one whose work stands will recieve a reward…then it talks about the one whose work is burned up and how that one will suffer loss. Not so much that that one will not be rewarded, but that that person will suffer loss. The Greek word for “suffer” according to the Louw-Nida lexicon, the Liddell and Scott Lexicon, Walter Bauer Lexicon and the UBS Greek Dictionary, is zemiothesetai I] meaning “punishment”. Therefore, the believer on that day will undergo some form of punishment due to his works (in greek, egron , the same work Paul uses in Romans to describe sin, even though it may be more neutral) being burnt up. No loss of reward, more like loss of works, since they are what is burnt up, not the reward. Being saved is a reward in and of itself so Paul goes on to say that “the person will be saved, but only as through fire”
Check out what Paul says right after that: “Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destorys God’s temple, God will destroy that person…(verse16 and 17)” So there is the pattern "Heaven-reward-suffering-purgatory- and destruction-Hell…
I know I don’t hold a Theology degree, and this only points more to the concept of Purgatory, but I figured this was some cool stuff I found and it really reinforces the point being made here.

 

[hurst]

sandusky:

Hurst, will you give some support for your statement that Christ’s sacrifice was not a penal substitution?

Sure.

First of all, let me put forth a definition of penal.

From Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Penal : \Pe"nal, a. [L. poenalis, fr. poena punishment: cf. F. p['e]nal. See Pain.]
Of or pertaining to punishment, to penalties, or to crimes and offenses; pertaining to criminal jurisprudence: as: (a) Enacting or threatening punishment; as, a penal statue; the penal code. (b) Incurring punishment; subject to a penalty; as, a penalact of offense. (c) Inflicted as punishment; used as a means of punishment; as, a penal colony or settlement.

Now, if Christ were to be punished in our place, then He would presumably have to endure Hell for eternity, and forever “be sin” for us while we enjoy being righteous for Him in heaven. Perhaps you believe that as God He overcame that punishment? But there is no reward for enduring punishment of sins

1 Peter 2:19 For this is thankworthy, if for conscience towards God, a man endure sorrows, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what glory is it, if committing sin, and being buffeted for it, you endure? But if doing well you suffer patiently; this is thankworthy before God.

But in fact, Christ was rewarded.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour: that, through the grace of God, he might taste death for all.

We see here in “plain language” that Christ was rewarded for having suffered. That is not a penal substitution.

In fact, we are called to suffer with Him in order to join Him in glory

1 Peter 2:21 For unto this are you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps.

2 Timothy 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us.

Hebrews 5:9 And being consummated, he became, to all that obey him, the cause of eternal salvation.

1 Peter 3:9 Not rendering evil for evil, nor railing for railing, but contrariwise, blessing: for unto this are you called, that you may inherit a blessing.

Secondly, it was through grace. So the fact that He tasted death was not for punishment, but for overcoming so that we who follow and live in Him will also overcome with Him.

John 16:33 These things I have spoken to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you shall have distress: but have confidence, I have overcome the world.

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 John 4:9 By this hath the charity of God appeared towards us, because God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we may live by him. 10 In this is charity: not as though we had loved God, but because he hath first loved us, and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins.

(continued)

 

[hurst]

Thirdly, Christ is making a “sin offering” of Himself, for He is the Eternal High Priest

Hebrews 7:17 For he testifieth: Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. … 26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, in offering himself.

Even the Jewish High Priests did not suffer penalty or consider the offering to be suffering penalty.

Exodus 29:33 That it may be an atoning sacrifice, and the hands of the offerers may be sanctified. …

Numbers 5:8 … offered for expiation, to be an atoning sacrifice.

Neither is Christ “suffering imposed penalty” as much as voluntarily offering Himself to atone for sins, and to free us from slavery to sin. And He is in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin, to atone for sinful man.

Philippians 2:7 But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. 8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. 9 For which cause God also hath exalted him, …

Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore it behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful priest before God, that he might be a propitiation for the sins of the people.

So that He “became sin” for us (2 Cor 5:21) must not be seen as actually “becoming sinful” as if deserving our punishment, but rather as voluntarily and obediently taking on the task of atoning for our sins by becoming an offering in the “likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3). For He came not to be penalized for us, but to give His life for us and destroy the works of the devil. (1 John 3:8).

But it was a substitutionary atonement, since Christ had no sins of His own to atone for. So He gave of Himself for us.

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: 6 Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me. 15 As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep. … 17 Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. 18 No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

So the voluntary nature of His offering is clearly put. It should also be clear that what He did was for all mankind. Redemption was actually accomplished for all mankind, because it was an atonement for all. But not all are saved. Redemption is not the equivalent of Salvation. One must believe to receive, and in receiving, one must use it or lose it.

hurst

 

[sandusky]

Pryority7:

Okay, I’ve been doing more study on 1 Corinthians 15, and I discovered some interesting things:
First, in verse 14, the one whose work stands will recieve a reward…then it talks about the one whose work is burned up and how that one will suffer loss. Not so much that that one will not be rewarded, but that that person will suffer loss. The Greek word for “suffer” according to the Louw-Nida lexicon, the Liddell and Scott Lexicon, Walter Bauer Lexicon and the UBS Greek Dictionary, is *zemiothesetai * meaning “punishment”. Therefore, the believer on that day will undergo some form of punishment due to his works (in greek, egron , the same work Paul uses in Romans to describe sin, even though it may be more neutral) being burnt up. No loss of reward, more like loss of works, since they are what is burnt up, not the reward. Being saved is a reward in and of itself so Paul goes on to say that “the person will be saved, but only as through fire”
Check out what Paul says right after that: “Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destorys God’s temple, God will destroy that person…(verse16 and 17)” So there is the pattern "Heaven-reward-suffering-purgatory- and destruction-Hell…
I know I don’t hold a Theology degree, and this only points more to the concept of Purgatory, but I figured this was some cool stuff I found and it really reinforces the point being made here.

It is good that you are going to lexicons, P7, but I disagree with your findings.

The word in question is zemeao; it is used in the future, passive, indicative, 3s, in 1 Cor 3:15, as you have indicated in your post. However, its meaning is more along the lines of suffer, and in the active voice signifies “damage,” and in the passive voice, as it is in 1 Cor 3:15 it means to “suffer loss,” or “forfeit,” as I said initially.

I have the Louw-Nida, Liddell, Scott, and they, as well as other lexicons I have, list the best translation as “suffer loss,” because of the use of the passive voice. It is true that they say it means punishment as well, but in a general sense, and more so with the active voice, and even more so as a last choice. That is because there are a number of different words for punishment in the Greek that carry, without question, the meaning of punishment.

Here are the verses in the N.T. that use zemeao:

Matthew 16:26
26 “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?

Mark 8:36
36 “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?

Luke 9:25
25 “For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits himself?

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

2 Corinthians 7:9
9 I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us.

Philippians 3:8
8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,