Purgatory? Real or Man Made

[ddarko]

usccb.org/seia/The-Hope-of-Eternal-Life.pdf

The link is to a recent Lutheran/Catholic dialogue document. Long, but informative.

The biggest issues for the reformers were the one I have already mentioned, but just as importantly, the issue of indulgences and what they considered abuses of the Mass that grew up around the belief.

From the document, the quote being Luther’s

As the document states, for Lutherans, the existence of Purgatory is not dogmatically denied.

Jon

But Luther does state that it is not taught in Scripture. To the contrary, Luther got rid of the books that taught it so that he can support his little agenda.

As for the indulgences, the abuse of the practice says nothing of whether Purgatory is true or false. So it is irrelevant when discussing the existence of purgatory.

Now even IF such a teaching were not clear, Luther’s foundations of his faith are illogical. He wants to believe in Scripture which is just a book if he does not believe in Tradition and the Church.

Tradition and the Church is what tells him that the book is from God to being with. He is happy to believe this little bit but wants to discard everything else the Church and Tradition says.

So in essence, without straying too far away from the topic, the reformers have a logical problem in their very foundation. If some thinkers actually got together and gave it some thought, we would not be here discussing the existence of purgatory. Instead we will be discussing how do we understand it and what we must do given its true.

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

The whole passage describes making sacrifices and offerings for the sins of those who are already DEAD.

So if there is only heaven and earth, either

(a) the dead are in heaven
(b) the dead are in hell

But if (a), they don’t need any offerings for their sins. If (b) no offering will help.

So it logically follows that the dead were neither in HEAVEN nor HELL.

God Bless

Are you convinced that Heaven and Hell work on the same timeline that Earth does? Are you convinced that God cannot take into consideration the prayers of the living for those who have died? I’m convinced of just the opposite.
Again, there is no denial on the part of Lutherans of God’s hearing our prayers for the dead, nor the cleansing of the saved by Christ at the moment of death. We question the binding of the conscience of the believer to a belief in an intermediate state/place of which we have been told nothing in scripture, including 2 Macc. Is Purgatory as an intermediate state/place possible? Of course. Is the belief in such a place necessary to salvation? Of course not.

Jon

 

[Publisher]

But in your view there is no need for satisfaction for sin. You don’t think that is error?

newadvent.org/summa/5013.htm

So I understand why you do not “see” the need for purgatory. But that is more because you have some errors in the foundations of you belief that need to be fixed.

God Bless

Christ alone paid the penalty for sin…“In Christ there is no condemnation”…“He cleanses us from ALL sin.”…

I love the song…“It Is Well With My Soul”…especially the verse…

“My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!”

 

[JonNC]

But Luther does state that it is not taught in Scripture. To the contrary, Luther got rid of the books that taught it so that he can support his little agenda.

As for the indulgences, the abuse of the practice says nothing of whether Purgatory is true or false. So it is irrelevant when discussing the existence of purgatory.

God Bless

ddarko,
Read the passage from 2 Macc which I posted. Please tell me where it states, even implicitly, the existence of an intermediate state/place. Remember also, I am not denying the possibility.

Jon

 

[ddarko]

Are you convinced that Heaven and Hell work on the same timeline that Earth does? Are you convinced that God cannot take into consideration the prayers of the living for those who have died? I’m convinced of just the opposite.
Again, there is no denial on the part of Lutherans of God’s hearing our prayers for the dead, nor the cleansing of the saved by Christ at the moment of death. We question the binding of the conscience of the believer to a belief in an intermediate state/place of which we have been told nothing in scripture, including 2 Macc. Is Purgatory as an intermediate state/place possible? Of course. Is the belief in such a place necessary to salvation? Of course not.

Jon

WHAT???

This has nothing to do with TIME. Even in your assertion that there is a difference in time between DEATH and entering HEAVEN or HELL, you have postulated the existence of an intermediate state.

How did you miss that?

As for necessary for salvation, OF COURSE IT IS. Because these people in Purgatory need our prayers. Us praying for them is also what God the father wants us to do.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

ddarko,
Read the passage from 2 Macc which I posted. Please tell me where it states, even implicitly, the existence of an intermediate state/place. Remember also, I am not denying the possibility.

Jon

It implicitly states there is a state other than heaven or hell that the dead person is now in.

What more do you want it to state?

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

=ddarko;8144797]But Luther does state that it is not taught in Scripture. To the contrary, Luther got rid of the books that taught it so that he can support his little agenda.

This polemic is a nice sound bite, but let me ask you; Other than 2 Macc., where else in the deutero-canon is something taught that didn’t fit into his “little agenda”? If there is none, then the notion that he “removed them” (not true in the first place) all - all 7 - because of doctrine just doesn’t stand. Obviously, his motivations were elsewhere, that being, the historic dispute of them.

Now even IF such a teaching were not clear, Luther’s foundations of his faith are illogical. He wants to believe in Scripture which is just a book if he does not believe in Tradition and the Church.

Tradition and the Church is what tells him that the book is from God to being with. He is happy to believe this little bit but wants to discard everything else the Church and Tradition says.

I think if one understands Lutheran teaching on Tradition, one wouldn’t say he, or we want to “discard everything else the Church and Tradition says.”

So in essence, without straying too far away from the topic, the reformers have a logical problem in their very foundation. If some thinkers actually got together and gave it some thought, we would not be here discussing the existence of purgatory. Instead we will be discussing how do we understand it and what we must do given its true.

Good point, other than the first clause. The document I posted speaks well to this point.

God Bless

And also with you,
Jon

 

[ddarko]

This polemic is a nice sound bite, but let me ask you; Other than 2 Macc., where else in the deutero-canon is something taught that didn’t fit into his “little agenda”? If there is none, then the notion that he “removed them” (not true in the first place) all - all 7 - because of doctrine just doesn’t stand. Obviously, his motivations were elsewhere, that being, the historic dispute of them.

What kind of question is this? I already posted some links and so did others. BUT, for the sake of argument let us say there were NO other references. Do you just discard a singular reference on the ABSENCE of no other scripture? What about the fact that this was TRADITION in Jewish beliefs?

I think if one understands Lutheran teaching on Tradition, one wouldn’t say he, or we want to “discard everything else the Church and Tradition says.”

YES HE DID. Sola Scriptura is not exactly TRADITION friendly is it?

Good point, other than the first clause. The document I posted speaks well to this point.

Sure it does. That is why it ends with a big blunderous statement

““This whole theory [of satisfactions] is a recent fiction fabricated without the authority of the Scriptures or the ancient writers of the church. Not even Peter Lombard speaks this way about satisfactions””

Ironically, the man saying this is the one who TOOK OUT the book of Maccabees from Scripture. Talk about fooling people.

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

WHAT???

This has nothing to do with TIME. Even in your assertion that there is a difference in time between DEATH and entering HEAVEN or HELL, you have postulated the existence of an intermediate state.

How did you miss that?

As for necessary for salvation, OF COURSE IT IS. Because these people in Purgatory need our prayers. Us praying for them is also what God the father wants us to do.

God Bless

You say that this has nothing to do with time, and yet ask how could our prayers benefit them. This implies a time frame. And it is also true that, in the Reformation era, time was part of the teaching - induglences to reduce “time” in Purgatory.

I have postulated no such thing, nor have I denied that this could be the case. I just don’t believe we have a scriptural, nor an early Church Tradition, statement on an intermediate state/place.

Jon

 

[ddarko]

You say that this has nothing to do with time, and yet ask how could our prayers benefit them. This implies a time frame. And it is also true that, in the Reformation era, time was part of the teaching - induglences to reduce “time” in Purgatory.

I have postulated no such thing, nor have I denied that this could be the case. I just don’t believe we have a scriptural, nor an early Church Tradition, statement on an intermediate state/place.

Jon

Ok Jon, my duty here is not to teach you how to reason with propositions and how to use logic. But let me make one last attempt.

By saying that between DEATH and HEAVEN/HELL one can do offerings and acts for THE DEAD PERSON’S SINS means that he is in a state of neither HEAVEN nor HELL at the time of offering.

What part of that don’t you get?

I mean that is just simple logic. Even your founding father Luther could see it.

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

=ddarko;8144912]What kind of question is this? I already posted some links and so did others. BUT, for the sake of argument let us say there were NO other references. Do you just discard a singular reference on the ABSENCE of no other scripture? What about the fact that this was TRADITION in Jewish beliefs?

Intermediate state/place.

YES HE DID. Sola Scriptura is not exactly TRADITION friendly is it?

Read the rule and norm (1st three paragraphs) I am linking. SS does not exclude Tradition, it holds Tradition accountable to scripture as the final norm.
bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php

Sure it does. That is why it ends with a big blunderous statement

““This whole theory [of satisfactions] is a recent fiction fabricated without the authority of the Scriptures or the ancient writers of the church. Not even Peter Lombard speaks this way about satisfactions””

Ironically, the man saying this is the one who TOOK OUT the book of Maccabees from Scripture. Talk about fooling people.

He certainly did not take it out of scripture. See his translation.
Blunderous statement? Which ECF of the early Church spoke of it?

God Bless

And also with you,
Jon

 

[ddarko]

Intermediate state/place.

Is this you saying “I agree now”?

Read the rule and norm (1st three paragraphs) I am linking. SS does not exclude Tradition, it holds Tradition accountable to scripture as the final norm.

AND THAT is a blunder. Scripture is merely Tradition transcribed. You can’t say Scripture is greater than Tradition because Scripture is part of Tradition. Scripture, Tradition and Church have equal authority.

He certainly did not take it out of scripture. See his translation.
Blunderous statement? Which ECF of the early Church spoke of it?

Did you read the following that I gave to you? st. Thomas makes references in some places to Church Fathers.

newadvent.org/summa/5013.htm

Btw, do me a favor, read the following

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pg.html

and then we will talk more.

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

Ok Jon, my duty here is not to teach you how to reason with propositions and how to use logic. But let me make one last attempt.

By saying that between DEATH and HEAVEN/HELL one can do offerings and acts for THE DEAD PERSON’S SINS means that he is in a state of neither HEAVEN nor HELL at the time of offering.

What part of that don’t you get?

I mean that is just simple logic. Even your founding father Luther could see it.

God Bless

And, again, I’m not denying it. It is a quite “logical” assumption, but based on no scriptural or early Church evidence.

BTW, the founder our faith is Chirst Jesus.

Jon

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Difficult to vote from the choices…“false Catholic teaching” seems to lack charity.

We are cleansed from all sin through the work of Christ…the work of the Holy Spirit continues to cleanse us from all sin…Christ saves us completly…I see no need for a state of purgation from sin outside of the cleansing/purging work of the Holy Spirit…“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to cleanse us from ALL sin”…even “temporal attachments” to sin…that’s what sanctification is…through the Holy Spirit’s work we are sanctified…made holy by His work in us…I see no need for further cleansing after death…“I baptize you with water, but one comes after me who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire”…the “cleansing fire” of the Holy Spirit’s work is complete once we leave this world and enter into the Presence…

Since Purgatory is not a physical place…praying people out of the years they spend in it makes no sense to me…“years”…“months”…“days” are This Side issues…Other Side has no such time constraints.

I don’t wish to be offensive, but this is your opinion, your interpretation of what you think the Scriptures mean. So you could be wrong. You don’t claim infallibility for your interpretation – right?

The ancient Catholic Church teaches, as she has always taught, that every sin, mortal or venial, even if forgiven, has a penalty. The purification of the soul after death is necessary to “burn away” any remaining temporal punishment that may be due and unexpiated at the time of death. Believe it or not as you wish. The early Church, taught by the Apostles, taught in turn the purification of the soul after death, and that the suffrages of the living could assist the dead, See 2 Maccabees 12:38-45, which records that a collection was taken as a sin offering on behalf of the dead.

King David’s sin was forgiven, but he was nevertheless punished for it. See 2 Samuel 12:13-14. “David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’” "And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because of this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die.”

The Church is not so silly as to speak of days or years in the hereafter. She has never defined anything with regard to the meaning of an Indulgence of so many days or years. Historically, the terminology arose out of the remissions of the canonical penances which were imposed for periods of time; i.e., for so many years and so many quarantines (Lents), in the early Church. Formal canonical penances have not been imposed for centuries; however, they are imposed privately in Confession.

Peace,

Jim Dandy

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t wish to be offensive, but this is your opinion, your interpretation of what you think the Scriptures mean. So you could be wrong. You don’t claim infallibility for your interpretation – right?

The ancient Catholic Church teaches, as she has always taught, that every sin, mortal or venial, even if forgiven, has a penalty. The purification of the soul after death is necessary to “burn away” any remaining temporal punishment that may be due and unexpiated at the time of death. Believe it or not as you wish. The early Church, taught by the Apostles, taught in turn the purification of the soul after death, and that the suffrages of the living could assist the dead, See 2 Maccabees 12:38-45, which records that a collection was taken as a sin offering on behalf of the dead.

King David’s sin was forgiven, but he was nevertheless punished for it. See 2 Samuel 12:13-14. “David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’” "And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because of this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die.”

The Church is not so silly as to speak of days or years in the hereafter. She has never defined anything with regard to the meaning of an Indulgence of so many days or years. Historically, the terminology arose out of the remissions of the canonical penances which were imposed for periods of time; i.e., for so many years and so many quarantines (Lents), in the early Church. Formal canonical penances have not been imposed for centuries; however, they are imposed privately in Confession.

Peace,

Jim Dandy

Likewise, Orthodox Jews to this day believe in the final purification, and for eleven months after the death of a loved one, they pray a prayer called the Mourner’s Kaddish for their loved one’s purification.

In fact their is a movie featuring Demi Moore called the 7th Sign and in a scene of the movie, Demi Moore is told by man in the synagogue:

Lady,we do not want to disturb Kaddish. Demi replies: Kaddish? The man responses: Yes…prayers for the dead.

 

[ddarko]

And, again, I’m not denying it. It is a quite “logical” assumption, but based on no scriptural or early Church evidence.

What do you mean no Scriptural evidence? When something logically follows, it means that the conclusion is contained within the collection of propositions. To say it logically follows but its not there is … well doesn’t make logical sense.

So don’t misunderstand. What Maccabees gives you is not a logical assumption. It gives you a logical conclusion by deduction. So the conclusion is contained within the set of propositions. Hence, it is contained in Scripture.

As for early Church evidence, the practice of praying for the dead was present then just as today. Jewish tradition held it and so did Christians and was never condemned.

Therefore, the intermediate state/place between death and entering Heaven/Hell was obviously held implicitly or explicitly.

Btw, have you read the links I provided to you before?

Here is some more that show satisfaction in early times.

St. Augustine: “Man is forced to suffer even after his sins are forgiven, though it was sin that brought down on him this penalty. For the punishment outlasts the guilt, lest the guilt should be thought slight if with its forgiveness the punishment also came to an end” (Tractate 124 on the Gospel of John, no. 5);

St. Ambrose: “So efficacious is the medicine of penance that [in view of it] God seems to revoke His sentence” (On Penance II.6.48);

Caesarius of Arles: “If in tribulation we give not thanks to God nor redeem our faults by good works, we shall be detained in the fire of purgatory until our slightest sins are burned away like wood or straw” (Sermo civ, n. 4).

BTW, the founder our faith is Chirst Jesus.

Exactly. It’s not Luther. It’s not Scripture.

So you have to go back to Christ, and trace things forward. You can’t start with Scripture and try to go backward. Then you have a pretty narrow picture.

If you start from Christ and move forward using Tradition, then you will realize why Tradition (which is how you know Christ existed in the first place) has equal authority as Scripture and why the CHURCH has equal authority as well.

God Bless

 

[Jim_Dandy]

You say that this has nothing to do with time, and yet ask how could our prayers benefit them. This implies a time frame. And it is also true that, in the Reformation era, time was part of the teaching - induglences to reduce “time” in Purgatory.

I have postulated no such thing, nor have I denied that this could be the case. **I just don’t believe we have a scriptural, nor an early Church Tradition, statement on an intermediate state/place.**Jon

Hi, Jon, How about Augustine? Does he count?

americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/augustinecatholic.htm

QUOTE:

The Mass, The Eucharist and Purgatory:

“But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself [part of the Mass mentions the Saints who have “gone before us”]; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death.” (St. Augustine, Sermons 172:2)

“There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended” (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

“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” (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).

“The prayer either of the Church herself or of pious individuals is heard on behalf of certain of the dead, but it is heard for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not for the rest of their life in the body do such wickedness that they might be judged unworthy of such mercy [as prayer], nor who yet lived so well that it might be supposed they have no need of such mercy [as prayer]” (ibid., 21:24:2).

“That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain PURGATORIAL FIRE” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).

“The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death” (ibid., 29:109).

END QUOTE

Regards, Jim Dandy

 

[JonNC]

Hi, Jon, How about Augustine? Does he count?

QUOTE:

The Mass, The Eucharist and Purgatory:

“But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself [part of the Mass mentions the Saints who have “gone before us”]; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death.” (St. Augustine, Sermons 172:2)

“There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended” (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

“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” (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).

“The prayer either of the Church herself or of pious individuals is heard on behalf of certain of the dead, but it is heard for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not for the rest of their life in the body do such wickedness that they might be judged unworthy of such mercy [as prayer], nor who yet lived so well that it might be supposed they have no need of such mercy [as prayer]” (ibid., 21:24:2).

“That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain PURGATORIAL FIRE” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).

“The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death” (ibid., 29:109).

END QUOTE

Regards, Jim Dandy

Sure he counts, and Luther makes reference to him, but as with all teachers, we hold firm the expectation that what they say be confirmed by scripture, and to a lesser extent, Tradition. Jim, maybe you can help me here: Neither scripture nor the great early Councils of the undivided Church speak to the issue. Purgatory, as Rome defines it, is not
a teaching of the universal early Church. Neither are indulgences. Whom do I believe (not you, I know your reasoning and belief)?

Jon

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Sure he counts, and Luther makes reference to him, but as with all teachers, we hold firm the expectation that what they say be confirmed by scripture, and to a lesser extent, Tradition. Jim, maybe you can help me here: Neither scripture nor the great early Councils of the undivided Church speak to the issue. Purgatory, as Rome defines it, is not
a teaching of the universal early Church. Neither are indulgences. Whom do I believe (not you, I know your reasoning and belief)?

Jon

Several issues, and I am not on the attack I am honestly asking/saying:

1. How early of a council would it have to be before any declaration would cease to be Universal?
2. Does it require that a thing be dogmatically (i.e. solemnly proclaimed with anathemas) proclaimed for a non-Catholic to accept that the Church teaches something?
3. The fact that it was discussed without being roundly rejected as heresy by the early church would lead me to the (admittedly weak) conclusion that it was accepted and the finer points had yet to be ironed out (like Augustine’s assertion of suffering infants after death without baptism *)
4. Will you at least concede the point that, like the trinity, despite not being explicitly spelled out in scripture it DOES logically follow the many references given above that there is an “alternate” or third place to which some people go after death?
5. Even today the Catholic Church does not have a GOOD explanation for what/where purgatory is. IIRC Pope Benedict recently stated his opinion that perhaps purgation is merely approaching Christ and having His love burn away the impurities within.

FSC

P.S. Thanks for your patience. I find it appalling sometimes the lack of charity shown in these discussions you consistently get into by some of the Catholic members. Sometimes we can be a bit excessive in our fervor for the faith and forget that not everyone sees things the way we do and fail in our attempts to calmly and rationally explain ourselves.*

 

[ddarko]

Sure he counts, and Luther makes reference to him, but as with all teachers, we hold firm the expectation that what they say be confirmed by scripture, and to a lesser extent, Tradition. Jim, maybe you can help me here: Neither scripture nor the great early Councils of the undivided Church speak to the issue. Purgatory, as Rome defines it, is not
a teaching of the universal early Church. Neither are indulgences. Whom do I believe (not you, I know your reasoning and belief)?

Jon

The bolded part above is what lacks any basis. The whole reformation has started off on a foundation that makes no sense.

Your founder is Christ. Not Luther, Not Scripture. You start from Christ, and then follow along Tradition which gives you Scripture as authoritative and Church as authoritative. By starting from Scripture, your arrival at faith is not much different from Islam. You have simply picked a book to believe in. But that is not what Christianity is about. You choose Christ. Then from Tradition, you choose Scripture.

But enough on this topic. To the topic of this thread:-

Also, as I said before, there is evidence in Scripture. But what you think is that since it has to be deduced, it must not be there and merely an assumption. That is more of a misunderstanding of deductive logic.

As the poster above said, the Holy Trinity while has no mention in Scrtipture, it is a deductive result of some things that have been said in Scripture and therefore is held true. You don’t discard it as an assumption, right?

Btw, have you had the chance to look through the links I provided?

God Bless