purgatory

[ncgolf]

Couldn’t have said it better myself. This is the bride that Christ is coming back for. The unity Christ sought is found in individual believers in Him, not in one monolithic hierarchical church.

Where do you come up with this stuff … where is it written that the unity Christ sought is found in individual believers. The bride of Christ is a metaphor for the Church. Paul himself writes that the Church functions as a body … he uses the metaphor of individuals being part of the body but the body in whole is the Church.

Thanks for the support. Its a wonderful thing that Protestants, Evangelicals, those true Christians who do not affiliate with any specific denomination, can find much agreement. We are mostly united in essentials and express liberty in the non essentials.

I always find it a little sad when I see the term “true Christian” for I almost always see it written by Protesant/Evangelicals. It is a shallow, mean-spirited and pitiable attempt to “puff” oneself up. I imagine when you look in the mirror you can say to yourself “thank God I am not like one of those”. Catholics see the Protesant denominations as “seperated brethern” but still Christian. Your statement indicates that you believe we are not even Christian.

I have been on these forums awhile and this is probably one of the more ridiculous statements I have seen written on these forums. Mostly “agreeing in essentials” is a total cop-out. You don’t want to hurt Moon’s feelings do you. Your statements define the word “compromise” … it reeks of the least common denominator which is really what essential/non-essential is.

I wish the roman catholic could understand that. They claim there are thousands and thousands of denominations but fail to see that we agree on many things because Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and the Holy Scriptures is where we find God’s Truth.

Are there not differing denominations? I wonder why these “true Christians” do not agree on everything not just “many things”.

 

[PRmerger]

I have been on these forums awhile and this is probably one of the more ridiculous statements I have seen written on these forums. Mostly “agreeing in essentials” is a total cop-out.

Indeed. I have asked non-Catholics many, many times what are these “essentials” and cannot get agreement on what these “essentials” are.

Are there not differing denominations? I wonder why these “true Christians” do not agree on everything not just “many things”.

Yes, See this list (originally compiled by ProdigalSon) of just a “few” of the issues that the Christian denominations have differing views on. There is not agreement among any of these:

What is original sin and its effects on humanity
Baptism
Rapture
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Divorce
Abortion
Homosexuality
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Once saved, always saved
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Women pastors, no women pastors
Hell, or no hell
The Eucharist (Communion)
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
Ordination
Trinity vs. Unitarianism
Death/Soul Sleep
Church leadership, or no leadership
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed)
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Judge others, don’t judge others
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help
themselves)
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Predestination
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Quote from rinnie:

There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. Therefore, there can be no forgiveness without Jesus Christ having died us for and sacrificed Himself on the cross.

If I believed I could clean myself up apart from the finished work of Christ at Calvary, then I would be denying the very sacrificial work of Christ.

[SIGN]Where does God ever say in His Word, the Holy Bible, that we must clean ourselves up before he will accept us? [/SIGN]Christ died for the sinner, we are to come to Him just as we are. Many times its when a person hits rock bottom and realizes he is helpless to change, that he turns to Christ with empty hands. Its the work of God to transform us from the inside. We cannot do it ourselves. Who among us and keep all the 10 Commandments all the time?

Of course we need to confess whenever we lapse into sin because it hinders our relationship with God. Whenever I sin, the Holy Spirit convicts me of my wrong doing and there’s no peace until I confess. But I confess directly to God who is faithful to forgive.

Easy he told us through Peter.

Acts 2 For this reason the whole house of Israel can be certain that the Lord and Christ whom God has made is this Jesus who you crucified.

Hearing this they asked what must we do, You Must repent Peter answered and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin.

And what did they do? they regularly went to the temple but met for the breaking of bread.

I will ask you as I have asked many and never got a answer. Do you believe that Jesus Christ could forgive sin. Do you believe that he could give that power over to the Apostles to forgive sin, like he said. You either believe he has the power to give, or you deny he has the power to give to his Apostles, ITs as simple as that,

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Quote from rinnie:

There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. [SIGN]Therefore, there can be no forgiveness without Jesus Christ having died us for and sacrificed Himself on the [/SIGN]cross.

If I believed I could clean myself up apart from the finished work of Christ at Calvary, then I would be denying the very sacrificial work of Christ.

Where does God ever say in His Word, the Holy Bible, that we must clean ourselves up before he will accept us? Christ died for the sinner, we are to come to Him just as we are. Many times its when a person hits rock bottom and realizes he is helpless to change, that he turns to Christ with empty hands. Its the work of God to transform us from the inside. We cannot do it ourselves. Who among us and keep all the 10 Commandments all the time?

Of course we need to confess whenever we lapse into sin because it hinders our relationship with God. Whenever I sin, the Holy Spirit convicts me of my wrong doing and there’s no peace until I confess. But I confess directly to God who is faithful to forgive.

No one ever said that Jesus Christ giving his Apostles the Power to forgive sin takes away from Jesus death on the Cross. How could it. It was because of the Power of Jesus Christ and his death on the Cross that Confession is even possible for goodness sakes.

What does Jesus giving the Power to the Apostles to forgive sin take away from his death on the cross? You make no sense to me. Jesus CHrist said ALL that my Father has given to me I now give to you. If dying on the Cross meant we did not have to confess our sins and repent why did Jesus give that Power to the APostles. What was the reason for it?

 

[moondweller]

This is complete nonsense. The reason some Protestants interpret the passage that way is they have a better grasp of Greek grammar than you.

1:9 *ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, πιστός ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας, καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας

First, all the verbs in the passage are subjunctive in mood, not indicative. This means John is addressing a desired state, not one that has definitely already occured. *Young’s Literal Translation captures this well: **

1 John 1:9
if we may confess our sins, stedfast He is and righteous that He may forgive us the sins, and may cleanse us from every unrighteousness;

Secondly,*ὁμολογεω is used in the present tense in this passage. Present tense in Greek indicates durative, linear action. But αφίημι and καθαρίζω are in the aorist, which indicates punctiliar action that occurs once. So what John conveys with economy of words in Greek, owing to the elliptical style of the language, we need to expressly more verbosely, thus

If, as I hope, you are confessing your sins regularly already, and assuming you continue to do so, each time you do, God will be faithful and forgive your sins and purify you each time.*

It’s good you’re trying to get a grasp of the original Greek, but often people like you forget to take into consideration that even the Greek has a context.

 

[paul_c]

It’s good you’re trying to get a grasp of the original Greek, but often people like you forget to take into consideration that even the Greek has a context.

Yes, Moondweller, it has a context. That context is the Catholic Tradition from which it was derived.

 

[adriancombe]

It’s good you’re trying to get a grasp of the original Greek, but often people like you forget to take into consideration that even the Greek has a context.

As usual - not even an argument - just a blind jab. Nothing to refute.

 

[moondweller]

As usual - not even an argument - just a blind jab. Nothing to refute.

Context is my argument. Tell me, does 1 Jn. 1:6,8,10 describe a true believer or the one’s John is exposing in his Epistle? Can a true believer say he has not sinned? It was the conviction of sin that drove him to faith in Christ in the first place; that he would be “saved by grace through faith” in Him.

What you need to understand is that though John was writing “to” believers he wasn’t always writing “about” believers. Until you understand this even the Greek is useless. Funny thing about ALL languages, ancient or modern, they ALL communicate within a context, and its the context that determines the interpretation and the use of certain words used. In fact, in ALL languages, often the same word can have different meanings based on the context in which it is used.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Context is my argument. Tell me, does 1 Jn. 1:6,8,10 describe a true believer or the one’s John is exposing in his Epistle? Can a true believer say he has not sinned? It was the conviction of sin that drove him to faith in Christ in the first place; that he would be “saved by grace through faith” in Him.

What you need to understand is that though John was writing “to” believers he wasn’t always writing “about” believers. Until you understand this even the Greek is useless. Funny thing about ALL languages, ancient or modern, they ALL communicate within a context, and its the context that determines the interpretation and the use of certain words used. In fact, in ALL languages, often the same word can have different meanings based on the context in which it is used.

moondweller-

In your opinion, do true believers ever sin?

Thanks.

 

[bmw8901]

It’s important to remember that Purgatory is NOT a physical place. It’s a condition or process. Don’t think of it in terms of Medieval literature or art. That’s not it at all.

I was raised Catholic and currently attend a Baptist church with my wife (who is Baptist). When I first met her, I was really attracted to the Evangelical theology and threw out a lot of my Catholic beliefs (the Real Presence, Purgatory, etc). Now, I’m re-examining Catholicism and finding myself agreeing with the theology more and more. This is exactly one of those cases. So much of what Catholics believe is misunderstood and misrepresented either by Protestants or uneducated Catholics as well.

I remember talking with my wife about Purgatory once. She asked why we believe such a thing. I asked her what happens to us after we die if we have sins we didn’t ask for forgiveness for. This would be a sin maybe we committ between the time we sin and die (without confessing it), like lying, ing, etc. She said that we still would have to pay for that sin before Christ. I said, “that’s Purgatory.” The problem with the theology exposed in this thread is that it gives no credit to the idea of punishment, which is a very real concept. If I sin, I sometimes think, “I wonder if God will punish me for this.” And He does. In THIS lifetime. Is it so far removed to think we might also be held accountable for our sins in the next lifetime?

To Moondweller: When you sin, don’t you think you’ll still be held accountable to God for that sin? Christ’s on the cross is not a free pass. I know you don’t think that, but you come across as preaching that. When you say that Christ died for our sins of the past, present, and future, where does any kind of concept of punishment and accountability come into play. Forget Purgatory for a second. If you sin this life, don’t you think that God can sometime punish you for that sin? I too believe Christ died for ALL of our sins past, present, and future, but it doesn’t do away with accountability.

Also to Moondweller: Currently, I’m on the fence. There are parts of Catholic theology I agree with and parts I disagree with. The same is true for Protestantism. I can see some merit in some of its theology and disagree with other parts. I’m still looking for the “truth.” That being said, the people in this post have been very nice to you and have tried to tell you exactly what they believe. You continuously misrepresent and repeat yourself over and over. Try to see their point of view and really understand their theology. I’ve heard it once say that you can only understand another person’s argument if you can defend it. I don’t think you understand what they are saying at all.

It does no good to ignore others and dig your head in the sand. I know you have your beliefs and no one is asking you to change them. All they are asking for is you to understand them; this is a Catholic message board after all. Maybe you could articulate what the Catholic Church teaches about Purgatory. Play devil’s advocate. Then once you can state their view accurately, you can disagree with it all you want.

Thanks.

 

[paul_c]

It’s important to remember that Purgatory is NOT a physical place. It’s a condition or process. Don’t think of it in terms of Medieval literature or art. That’s not it at all.

I was raised Catholic and currently attend a Baptist church with my wife (who is Baptist). When I first met her, I was really attracted to the Evangelical theology and threw out a lot of my Catholic beliefs (the Real Presence, Purgatory, etc). Now, I’m re-examining Catholicism and finding myself agreeing with the theology more and more. This is exactly one of those cases. So much of what Catholics believe is misunderstood and misrepresented either by Protestants or uneducated Catholics as well.

I remember talking with my wife about Purgatory once. She asked why we believe such a thing. I asked her what happens to us after we die if we have sins we didn’t ask for forgiveness for. This would be a sin maybe we committ between the time we sin and die (without confessing it), like lying, ing, etc. She said that we still would have to pay for that sin before Christ. I said, “that’s Purgatory.” The problem with the theology exposed in this thread is that it gives no credit to the idea of punishment, which is a very real concept. If I sin, I sometimes think, “I wonder if God will punish me for this.” And He does. In THIS lifetime. Is it so far removed to think we might also be held accountable for our sins in the next lifetime?

To Moondweller: When you sin, don’t you think you’ll still be held accountable to God for that sin? Christ’s on the cross is not a free pass. I know you don’t think that, but you come across as preaching that. When you say that Christ died for our sins of the past, present, and future, where does any kind of concept of punishment and accountability come into play. Forget Purgatory for a second. If you sin this life, don’t you think that God can sometime punish you for that sin? I too believe Christ died for ALL of our sins past, present, and future, but it doesn’t do away with accountability.

Also to Moondweller: Currently, I’m on the fence. There are parts of Catholic theology I agree with and parts I disagree with. The same is true for Protestantism. I can see some merit in some of its theology and disagree with other parts. I’m still looking for the “truth.” That being said, the people in this post have been very nice to you and have tried to tell you exactly what they believe. You continuously misrepresent and repeat yourself over and over. Try to see their point of view and really understand their theology. I’ve heard it once say that you can only understand another person’s argument if you can defend it. I don’t think you understand what they are saying at all.

It does no good to ignore others and dig your head in the sand. I know you have your beliefs and no one is asking you to change them. All they are asking for is you to understand them; this is a Catholic message board after all. Maybe you could articulate what the Catholic Church teaches about Purgatory. Play devil’s advocate. Then once you can state their view accurately, you can disagree with it all you want.

Thanks.

This was a very good post on a number of fronts. Hopefully you will engage with us fully on the questions you still have on the Catholic faith…

 

[Thing]

Moondwellers difficulty is that he/she does sin but she has no sacrament of Confession to remedy it.

The conundrum for her is ‘what to do with the sin’ after she has already been ‘saved’.
No sin enters heaven.
She believes believers are free from sin.
Yet she knows that she sins in her life.

 

[paul_c]

Context is my argument. Tell me, does 1 Jn. 1:6,8,10 describe a true believer or the one’s John is exposing in his Epistle? Can a true believer say he has not sinned? It was the conviction of sin that drove him to faith in Christ in the first place; that he would be “saved by grace through faith” in Him.

What you need to understand is that though John was writing “to” believers he wasn’t always writing “about” believers. Until you understand this even the Greek is useless. Funny thing about ALL languages, ancient or modern, they ALL communicate within a context, and its the context that determines the interpretation and the use of certain words used. In fact, in ALL languages, often the same word can have different meanings based on the context in which it is used.

The problem, Moondweller, is that you don’t have a convincing argument that you understand the context that these scriptural passages require. We can argue very convincingly that the New testament scripture was written by catholics, compiled as a canon by catholics, for the teaching of the catholic faithful. The context of scripture is the Catholic tradition from which it was derived. Afterall, Peter, Paul, John, James, Jude, Luke and Mark wrote down a subset of what they taught verbally and they conveyed the context of what they were discussing to their Catholic audiences and particularly to those they ordained, to pass on to those they in turn taught. By separating yourself from those traditions, and trying to discern the truths of salvation from the Bible without the context that tradition provides, you fall into error.

Do you have a counter argument to this? If so, lets discuss it.

 

[bmw8901]

P.S. Although I addressed you personally Moondweller, I didn’t mean to offend you or be rude to you. I am sorry if I came across as doing that. My only reason for addressing you personally was that you have been one of the main voices of dissent to the idea of Purgatory in this post.

Thanks

 

[Des]

If I believed I could clean myself up apart from the finished work of Christ at Calvary, then I would be denying the very sacrificial work of Christ.

We aren’t cleaning ourselves up. Christ’s Salvic blood is likewise continuing to cleanse us in Purgatory, ridding us of our unconfessed venial sins along with the extended affects caused by our sins here on earth. Christ’s Blood removes every speck of sin from our souls as the Written Word attests. It’s just a matter of where and when this takes place.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. Therefore, there can be no forgiveness without Jesus Christ having died us for and sacrificed Himself on the cross.

Of course.

If I believed I could clean myself up apart from the finished work of Christ at Calvary, then I would be denying the very sacrificial work of Christ.

Agreed. And Catholics do not believe they can clean themselves up. Purgatory is no different, and I posted to this effect in post #331.

Where does God ever say in His Word, the Holy Bible, that we must clean ourselves up before he will accept us? Christ died for the sinner, we are to come to Him just as we are. Many times its when a person hits rock bottom and realizes he is helpless to change, that he turns to Christ with empty hands. Its the work of God to transform us from the inside. We cannot do it ourselves. Who among us and keep all the 10 Commandments all the time?

Agreed. Do you think Catholics believe otherwise?

Of course we need to confess whenever we lapse into sin because it hinders our relationship with God. Whenever I sin, the Holy Spirit convicts me of my wrong doing and there’s no peace until I confess. But I confess directly to God who is faithful to forgive.

Which is fine as far as it goes. One has to wonder, however, why Jesus gave the authority to forgive sins to men?

What’s your take on that?

 

[yankee_drifter]

paul c wrote:

The scripture on which you rely (and unfortunately distort) was written by Catholics for Catholics

Were the apostles roman catholic? Or were they Jews? Were all the NT writers roman catholics? Did the church begin in Jerusalem? or Rome? was James the leader of the Jerusalem church or Peter? Were they first called Christians in Antioch or catholics?

If one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacles on the altars in their churches, would one think he or she was in a “Roman Catholic” church?

Of course not. Yet, the church before 325 AD had none of these beliefs, either. While they called themselves “catholics” at that time, they would not have had any idea what “Roman Catholic” meant.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

paul c wrote:

[SIGN]Were the apostles roman catholic? [/SIGN]Or were they Jews? Were all the NT writers roman catholics? Did the church begin in Jerusalem? or Rome? was James the leader of the Jerusalem church or Peter? Were they first called Christians in Antioch or catholics?

If one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacles on the altars in their churches, would one think he or she was in a “Roman Catholic” church?

Of course not. Yet, the church before 325 AD had none of these beliefs, either. While they called themselves “catholics” at that time, they would not have had any idea what “Roman Catholic” meant.

Of course they were Its simple. The Peter was the first Pope, he was at the Church at Rome. The Pope is still in the Church in Rome. There you have it the Roman Catholic Church. Now can you deny that?

 

[yankee_drifter]

Randy Carson,

No one except God has the authority to forgive sins. Such a power is not transferable. We sin against God, and so only God can forgive sins. God’s plan of atonement for sin entailed that sins could only be forgiven through blood sacrifice. To claim such authority makes us equal to God ourselves.

Jesus told the disciples that they had the power to retain the sins of those who had wronged them, yet, they also knew that if they didn’t forgive those who had wronged them, they in turn would not be forgiven by the Father. If they freely forgave sins committed against them, so would the Father forgive the disciples’ sins committed against Himself. They had no power to forgive the sins of others not specifically committed against them, or against God. We can only forgive the trespasses of others done against us. If a man sins he is accountable to God.

"Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?" Mark 2:7

 

[paul_c]

Were the apostles roman catholic? Or were they Jews? Were all the NT writers roman catholics? Did the church begin in Jerusalem? or Rome? was James the leader of the Jerusalem church or Peter? Were they first called Christians in Antioch or catholics?

Why do you distinguish Roman Catholic from Catholic? We don’t. after all, this website is “Catholic answers forum”, not “Roman Catholic Answers forum.” all of the New testament authors were Catholic. Yes, it began in Jerusalem and they were first called christians in antioch. Why does that matter. They were still Catholic. and sure, James was the first Catholic Bishop of Jerusalum. And Mark was the first Bishop of alexandria, and Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. But he was also the head of the whole Catholic Church. This was never debated.