purgatory

[moondweller]

I am continually surprised how you misunderstand and misrepresent other people’s arguments and views. I stated that: "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.” I never said I was on the fence about Purgatory.

OK then, BMW, which side of the fence are you on in regards to Catholic Purgatory? Keep in mind that all doctrines interconnect.

You seem to pick and choose bits and pieces from people’s posts and reply to what you think you have read.

Well, maybe you need to be less evasive with your posts. As for picking and choosing, that seems to be your present MO: a little works, a little grace.

Perhaps you should carefully read each post a few times and take a minute to think about what was written. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here; that your just jumping ahead without fully understanding what is being discussed. I know you SAY that you understand what we believe but you continually mis-represent.

I don’t think I mis-represent anyone’s beliefs or unbeliefs here. I’ve exposed many inconsistencies.

I also stated that I believe that Jesus did take care of ALL of our sins at Calvary in at least two post.

Then to be consistent you can be only on one side of the fence regarding Catholic Purgatory.

I also find it ironic the theological hoops you jump through to discuss the Separation of the Sheep and the Goats.

I didn’t jump through hoops.

The whole idea of different judgments is ludicrous and totally reads something into the text that is not there. This is the very thing you accuse Catholics of doing with the doctrine of Purgatory.

My interpretation is based on what God has revealed in His written Word. And what’s going on there is a separation of Gentiles living on earth based on their identity, not a final judgment. Catholic Purgatory, however, is nowhere to be found in Scripture - yet even YOU somehow claim to know certain aspects about it. How is that?

You also mentioned Pauline theology. I find this interesting as it was Paul and the Gospels that started me questioning my Evangelical beliefs. A few years ago I wrote to my Pastor consider that Paul and the Gospels seemed really different. Paul is mainly about Grace through faith, but Jesus was always about action and doing something. Jesus didn’t sound like Paul. That dichotomy troubled me. So did other things like the Book of James. I got a nice response from that pastor and was content for a while. But when I started investigating more, I found that Paul and Christ messages were very easily reconciled in Catholic theology but much more difficult to reconcile in Protestant theology. Please don’t comment on this paragraph though. This is mainly a personal story to help you understand where I am coming from, and because of such, it provides too mainly “easy” targets.

Well, it might help you in your confusion to know that Pauline theology is based on what Christ accomplished, once for all, through His sacrificial death on the cross and His subsequent bodily resurrection (Rom. 4:25 - 5:1-2). The doctrines pertaining to the cross aren’t found in the Gospel records, but in the Epistles, especially Pauline. Jesus constantly pointed to Himself as the Object of faith and the source of eternal life in the Gospels records (e.g., Jn. 3:14-18; 5:24), and that He must suffer crucifixion at the hands of men; but the doctrines of GRACE that explain what Christ accomplished, once for all, on the cross, and the eternal gifts given to those who BELIEVE in His finished, sacrificial work, are discovered only in the Epistles: Forgiveness of ALL sins, Redemption, Reconciliation, Justification, Sanctification and Glorification. These doctrines, which are rooted in the cross of Christ, are explained to us in the Epistles. They’re the doctrines of GRACE.

 

[Thing]

Moondweller:

Catholic Purgatory, however, is nowhere to be found in Scripture -

Does that mean there is a protestant purgatory in the Scriptures?

 

[paul_c]

. My interpretation is based on what God has revealed in His written Word. And what’s going on there is a separation of Gentiles living on earth based on their identity, not a final judgment. Catholic Purgatory, however, is nowhere to be found in Scripture - yet even YOU somehow claim to know certain aspects about it. How is that?

Moondweller, I’ve answered your comments on Matthew 25 in multiple posts, but you never reply. Is that because my answers are not worthy of reply or simply that you have no answer.

As for your position on Purgatory, like many doctrines (the trinity for one, Jesus being one man with two natures is another), it’s implied in scripture but not expressly stated.
In scripture, we know that not all men who are saved are perfect at their death, yet we know that nothing clean enters heaven. This requires that there be a purification process. Also, from Scripture, we know that people pray for the dead (In Corinthians, People are baptized for the dead). yet we know that this wouldn’t be possible if there were only hell (where prayer wouldn’t help) and heaven (where prayer isn’t necessary). There are other examples that have been pointed out in these pages.

.
Well, it might help you in your confusion to know that Pauline theology is based on what Christ accomplished, once for all, through His sacrificial death on the cross and His subsequent bodily resurrection (Rom. 4:25 - 5:1-2). The doctrines pertaining to the cross aren’t found in the Gospel records, but in the Epistles, especially Pauline. Jesus constantly pointed to Himself as the Object of faith and the source of eternal life in the Gospels records (e.g., Jn. 3:14-18; 5:24), and that He must suffer crucifixion at the hands of men; but the doctrines of GRACE that explain what Christ accomplished, once for all, on the cross, and the eternal gifts given to those who BELIEVE in His finished, sacrificial work, are discovered only in the Epistles: Forgiveness of ALL sins, Redemption, Reconciliation, Justification, Sanctification and Glorification. These doctrines, which are rooted in the cross of Christ, are explained to us in the Epistles. They’re the doctrines of GRACE.

St. Paul was the first Catholic theologian so he gave a lot of thought to grace and works in the economy of salvation. He takes his time to explain how these things fit together, but when you pull verses out of context, you lose that and can be deceived.
For instance, In Romans 2, he starts out by saying that we will be judged based on our works. But he wants to make it clear that works alone are insufficient and he really wants to make sure that people understand that works have to be done in the context of Faith and through Grace and not just because its the law. So he spends several chapters bringing out those points. Unfortunately, if you start in the middle (say Romans 4) without referring back to Chapter 2, you might be decieved into thinking that salvation is by grace alone or by faith alone, when that was never the intent.

Similarly, he says you get salvation through sanctification in 2Thes 2:13:
But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth.
yet you would have them separated, claiming that Paul says it is so.

Paul says love is more important than Faith, (1corinthians 13:2): if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.

and in 1Corinthians 13:13: So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love
yet you would have us believe that Paul taught that Salvation is by Faith alone.

The fact is, St Peter acknowledged this problem very early on, writing in 2Peter 3: 15-16:
15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures

Take that to heart…

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller, I’ve answered your comments on Matthew 25 in multiple posts, but you never reply. Is that because my answers are not worthy of reply or simply that you have no answer.

I gave you my interpretation, you have the right to disagree. However, if you’re saying those passage are in some way implying Purgatory then, by all means, show me.

As for your position on Purgatory, like many doctrines (the trinity for one, Jesus being one man with two natures is another), it’s implied in scripture but not expressly stated.

OK, show me. We’ve already thoroughly covered 1 Cor. 3:11-15 which speaks of works and rewards, not purifying a soul of sins. So let’s avoid that one, please.

Show me all those verses you say “imply” Purgatory. Remember, they have to actually teach it by implication. For instance, in the Scriptures the Father is called God, the Son is called God, and the H.S. is called God. They’re each referred to by the personal pronoun “He,” Hence, three distinct Persons, one Godhead. Now, show me where Purgatory is also implied on such a clearly, expressed level. So far all I’ve ever seen is you guys do is READ INTO a text your fully formed doctrine and claim implication. That won’t work!

 

[guanophore]

Yes. But this has absolutely no Divine support,

Last time I looked, Moon, you were not equivalent to the Divinity. The fact that you do not accept Purgatory does not equate to the doctrine having “no divine support”. Who appointed you God, and when?

unless you can show me where this is taught in Scripture.

It would be a mistake to limit God’s revelation of Himself to Scripture. If you wish to limit yourself in this manner, that is your perogative, but it is not consistent with the teaching of the Apostles.

True Christianity is based on Divine revelation, not man’s imagination.

AMEN!

And that Revelation is not confined to Scripture.

God “took care” of all these sins at Calvary. How is it you don’t believe this?

It is not the sins, but the effects of them that remain.

 

[moondweller]

Thing:

I believe that the reason that Evangelical Protestants cannot admit to the existence of Purgatory is because if they did they would in effect be admitting that sanctification plays a role in our entering into the eternal union in Heaven, i.e., salvation.

No, the reason we can’t accept it is because there’s nothing to support it: (1) No Divine revelation; (2) It militates against the cross of Christ.

The fundamental tenets of Evangelical theology are that justification (becoming saved) and sanctification (becoming holy) are separate and distinct, and that sanctification does not play a role in salvation

Well, justification is not sanctification. Justification is God Himself reckoning the believer righteous based on faith alone (Rom. 4:5). It’s gifted through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24). As Paul writes, “that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith” (Phil. 3:9).

Sanctification isn’t reckoning one righteous but God setting one apart for His own purposes. The true believer is eternally “set apart” in the risen Christ. Now identified a saint (holy one; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; 6:18; Col. 1:4; etc.): (1) positionally sanctified (set apart) in the risen Christ, his new identity; (2) experientially/practically being sanctified (set apart) while still in these unredeemed bodies, here on earth, as he/she walks in the Spirit; and (3) will be ultimately sanctified (set apart) when Christ transforms the body of our humble state into comformity with His own glorified body.

Both justification and sanctification pertain to the saved, but neither of them are means by which they are saved.

and that sanctification does not play a role in salvation.

As I said, both play a role in salvation but neither are the means of salvation.

But the Bible is full of examples to the contrary. Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 that salvation is through sanctification and belief.

Paul does not say in that verse that one is saved by a sanctifying process, but “through/in” (older manuscripts read “in”) sanctification; literally, “of” the Spirit and faith in the truth. But Paul’s direct teaching on salvation is: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

The religious legalist cannot tolerate such Divine GRACE. He or she demands that God recognize some merit in them. For this reason they say salvation cannot be known in this life. It’s not Divinely gifted upon faith in Christ (personal belief in what He accomplished on our behalf) but to be determined in the future by God at the end of this life. How sad. How sad, indeed. “Gospel” means “good news.”

 

[moondweller]

It is not the sins, but the effects of them that remain.

Ah-huh. Not the sins but the “effects” of them that the purgatorial flames burn off.

I was just thinking, since it’s revealed in 2 Cor. 5:21 that God made Jesus “to be sin” while on the cross, and since (according to you) we’re not to restrict Divine revelation to the Scriptures, one could believe, if he was so inclined to, that Jesus Himself had to suffer through purgatorial flames because of the “effects” of our sins imputed to Him on the cross. Such a teaching could not be disputed since God may have revealed it to that person. Who knows? Right guanophore?

 

[clmowry]

It would be a mistake to limit God’s revelation of Himself to Scripture. If you wish to limit yourself in this manner, that is your perogative, but it is not consistent with the teaching of the Apostles.

The presumed need to “prove” things from “scripture alone” is not only not consistent with the teaching of the Apostles it is not even consistent with the teachings of scripture itself.

Purgatory can be much better demonstrated from scripture alone than the unbiblical concept of “Solo Scriptura”.

Chuck

 

[Randy_Carson]

Your doctrine of Purgatory denies all of this. And for this reason it’s a doctrine rooted in unbelief.

Christians deny the doctrine of Purgatory because of their unbelief.

They do not believe the words of Jesus when He said that He would give His own authority to the Church that He would build upon Peter the rock. They do not believe that Jesus has protected that Church from error in its teaching. They do not believe that the Holy Spirit has led that Chruch into all truth. Thus, when the Church infallibly declares the existence of purgatory by virtue of its own God-given authority, they do not believe that it is true doctrine.

They also do not believe in one of two things: "1) the depth and destructiveness and dehumanization of sin in our souls (cf. 1 Jn 1:8) or 2) the perfection and purity of the soul that can endure the vision of God face to face. For the gap between these two things is enormous. That is why our God is a “consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29). If you really think that you, as you now are, can just sashay into full heaven at death, sit down at the banquet table with the saints and endure and enjoy conversation with Almighty God, the God whose own word says that no man can see His face and live, then you are either already a completed and perfected saint, or, more likely, you only think you are. In which case, you have almost no idea what a perfected saint is.

“But you’ll find out.”

Drawn from The Handbook of Catholic Apologetics, Peter Kreeft, p. 451-452.

 

[PRmerger]

Such a teaching could not be disputed since God may have revealed it to that person

Private revelation is not part of the deposit of faith, moon, and the CC does not elevate private revelation to the status of Divine Revelation.

So what about the documentation for that bizarre claim you made previously?

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
Moondweller, I’ve answered your comments on Matthew 25 in multiple posts, but you never reply. Is that because my answers are not worthy of reply or simply that you have no answer.

No, it doesn’t have anything to do with Purgatory. It is simply pointing out to you that there are different ways of interpreting the same passage. This is important for the sola scriptura crowd, who claim that scripture can be interpreted independent of authority to recognize that this is actually not true. It is clear that you can interpret scripture to say almost anything if you are willing to be selective in what you read.

Quote: Paul c
As for your position on Purgatory, like many doctrines (the trinity for one, Jesus being one man with two natures is another), it’s implied in scripture but not expressly stated.

Try this exchange: It highlights several verses from scripture that support purgatory and also addresses objections like you have expressed here:catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp. Its short, its sweet and its done better than I could do…

 

[moondweller]

No, it doesn’t have anything to do with Purgatory. It is simply pointing out to you that there are different ways of interpreting the same passage. This is important for the sola scriptura crowd, who claim that scripture can be interpreted independent of authority to recognize that this is actually not true. It is clear that you can interpret scripture to say almost anything if you are willing to be selective in what you read.

Try this exchange: It highlights several verses from scripture that support purgatory and also addresses objections like you have expressed here:catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp. Its short, its sweet and its done better than I could do…

You send me to THAT? Everything said there (and it wasn’t much) we’ve already covered. NONE of those passage even imply Catholic purgatory. Like I said, you READ INTO those few passages your fully formed doctrine. Why don’t you just admit that it’s not Biblical? You’re taking Rome’s word for it.

Oh well. Here’s for trying. :flowers: :tiphat:

 

[adriancombe]

Why don’t you just admit that it’s not Biblical? You’re taking Rome’s word for it.

Make sure and tell C. S. Lewis that too…

 

[paul_c]

You send me to THAT? Everything said there (and it wasn’t much) we’ve already covered. NONE of those passage even imply Catholic purgatory. Like I said, you READ INTO those few passages your fully formed doctrine. Why don’t you just admit that it’s not Biblical? You’re taking Rome’s word for it.

Oh well. Here’s for trying. :flowers: :tiphat:

You know, the most obvious thing is that nothing unclean will enter heaven and most of the people you think are saved are unclean when they die. That means there must be purification between death and heaven. That is purgatory. We believethat you need to be sanctified to be saved, just as Paul states in 2 thes 2: 13, hence all this fits together for us. Sorry that you just can’t see it…

 

[SteveGC]

If you really think that you, as you now are, can just sashay into full heaven at death, sit down at the banquet table with the saints and endure and enjoy conversation with Almighty God, the God whose own word says that no man can see His face and live, then you are either already a completed and perfected saint, or, more likely, you only think you are. In which case, you have almost no idea what a perfected saint is.

“But you’ll find out.”

Drawn from The Handbook of Catholic Apologetics, Peter Kreeft, p. 451-452.

Beautiful. Love it, Randy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Like I said, you READ INTO those few passages your fully formed doctrine. Why don’t you just admit that it’s not Biblical? You’re taking Rome’s word for it.

moondweller-

You could make that same argument against EVERY Catholic doctrine you disagree with: the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the perpetual virginity of Mary, confession to priests, etc.

We try to explain a doctrine to you, but you don’t want to hear it (it’s about that simple). So, you declare that the passage in question doesn’t teach the Catholic doctrine and that Catholics are “reading into” the text. We’re “taking Rome’s word for it.”

Well, duh.

“Rome” has been preaching the gospel for 2,000 years and the message has been consistent throughout that history. And I insist that you allow for development of understanding of the faith delivered once for all to the saints because that is par for the course where human knowledge is concerned.

You’re “taking Rome’s word for it”, too, on a boatload of basic Christian doctrine including the canon of the Bible that you hold so dear. You won’t admit that; I just did.

So, no, we won’t admit that Purgatory is unbiblical in view of scriptures that prove otherwise. Now, why don’t you just admit that your own theological presuppositions REQUIRE you to deny that Purgatory IS Biblical?

 

[guanophore]

We’ve already thoroughly covered 1 Cor. 3:11-15 which speaks of works and rewards, not purifying a soul of sins. So let’s avoid that one, please.

For us, it is one and the same thing. If a persons actions (works) are not glorifying to God, they need to be purged. If one’s deeds are glorifying, they are purified with fire, any dross is burned out, so they can shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their father.

Protestants believe in Purgatory too, because we are in agreement that nothing unclean can enter heaven. Protestants don’t seem to give much thought as to how it will actually happen, but think if it as instantaneous “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, we shall all be changed”.

 

[guanophore]

Ah-huh. Not the sins but the “effects” of them that the purgatorial flames burn off.

I was just thinking, since it’s revealed in 2 Cor. 5:21 that God made Jesus “to be sin” while on the cross, and since (according to you) we’re not to restrict Divine revelation to the Scriptures, one could believe, if he was so inclined to, that Jesus Himself had to suffer through purgatorial flames because of the “effects” of our sins imputed to Him on the cross.

This is a very interesting theological speculation I have not considered. However, the difference is imputation - vs - an ontological condition. We have a fallen nature, and it is the tendency in us to go against God that “every weight and sin which so easily besets” must be purged. Since Jesus did not have any “sin nature”, then He would not have attachment to sin.

    Such a teaching could not be disputed since God may have revealed it to that person.  Who knows?  Right guanophore?

Private revelation does continue, and will continue until the Church is taken up. If God reveals anything to someone, it will not contradict the public revelation given to the Church by the Apostles.

 

[JacobG]

bmw8901,

You say there are some Catholic teachings you do not agree with. Unlike protestantism, the catholic is required to believe all the teachings of his church or be guilty of mortal sin.

Unlike Protestantism, missing church on sunday for the catholic is a sin.

Unlike Protestantism, which teaches that Christ’s death on the cross was sufficient, perfect and complete, the catholic believes that Jesus did not fully redeem the sinner, but man must expiate his own sins through a process of works that extend throughout one’s life and even after death. Any hope of trusting in Christ’s atonement is nullified by what he (the sinner) must personally do to atone or expiate his own sin, such as penance, rosary, earthly suffering, gaining indulgences, many forms of prayers including those to saints and saying of masses and other good works.

Unlike Protestantism, the Catholic church curses those who believe what Paul said in Eph 2:8,9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Unlike Protestantism, the catholic church has placed many curses on those who believe differently, yet God said we are never to curse anyone.

So, for you to be a true catholic, you absolutely must believe all the teachings of your church which claims to have an infallible Magesterium and it alone can accurately interpret the Scriptures.

 

[Thing]

Unlike Protestantism, the catholic church has placed many curses on those who believe differently, yet God said we are never to curse anyone.

Do you mean Anathema?

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”