purgatory

[PRmerger]

The basics of the faith, I think, are supported well enough that we can say we know them.

Yet there is not even any agreement on what the “basics of the faith” are. In fact, there are no Scripture verses that tell us what’s a “basic of the faith” and what’s secondary.

 

[PRmerger]

Hey now. I didn’t say we couldn’t know. There’s a difference between knowledge and absolute certainty. I’m really not sure how much we can be 100% certain of.

Fair enough. So, in your theological system, if you’re having a discussion with a Christian of another denomination who believes baptism is an ordinance and not required for salvation (and there are *many *out there who believe this, based on Scripture), what happens after you’ve presented your case, and he presents his case? In the end, it will be a tie, right? For there’s no authority for each of you to appeal.

 

[James_N]

Fair enough. So, in your theological system, if you’re having a discussion with a Christian of another denomination who believes baptism is an ordinance and not required for salvation (and there are *many *out there who believe this, based on Scripture), what happens after you’ve presented your case, and he presents his case? In the end, it will be a tie, right? For there’s no authority for each of you to appeal.

Nope. No way for me to convince him. Obviously, only one of us can be right (assuming our positions are contradictory), but there’s no authority outside of the text itself that we can appeal to absolutely. We can make probabilistic arguments using history or logical arguments using other things we know from Scripture or from life, but that’s about it. This, of course, is no different than when we’re interpreting regular (non-inspired) work. There’s one interpretation that accurately fits the text, but without the author around to tell us what it is, we have to do the best we can based on the text and its historical context.

It is my belief that God, in His wisdom, recognized that there is ambiguity and thus gave us enough textual support that we can be certain about things that are necessary for salvation. Of course, that doesn’t mean He needed to give us a listing of exactly what those things are. And it also doesn’t mean that people still won’t disagree with them. People come in biased, and it allows them to misinterpret even something that is clear. I don’t see evidence, however, that suggests that God gave us a way to infallibly interpret places where the Scripture is fuzzy. This is probably the biggest point of distinction between our beliefs.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nope. No way for me to convince him. Obviously, only one of us can be right (assuming our positions are contradictory), but there’s no authority outside of the text itself that we can appeal to absolutely.

This is true for you as Protestants.

However, this is not how Jesus set things up when He built His Church upon Peter the Rock and promised to remain with us to the end of the Age.

I don’t see evidence, however, that suggests that God gave us a way to infallibly interpret places where the Scripture is fuzzy. This is probably the biggest point of distinction between our beliefs.

God didn’t give “us” a way to infallibly interpret the scriptures; however, He gave that charism to His Church so that His sheep would never be led astray.

And, yes, this is a point of distinction between our beliefs…but whose choice is that?

 

[James_N]

This is true for you as Protestants.

However, this is not how Jesus set things up when He built His Church upon Peter the Rock and promised to remain with us to the end of the Age.

God didn’t give “us” a way to infallibly interpret the scriptures; however, He gave that charism to His Church so that His sheep would never be led astray.

And, yes, this is a point of distinction between our beliefs…but whose choice is that?

Yes, he did promise to be with the church until the end of the age. But that doesn’t imply that he will give the church all the answers. That’s the inference that I don’t see.

As for choice, I’m not convinced that we have a whole lot of choice as to what we believe. I’m researching and listening to arguments, or else I wouldn’t be here. But I can’t just decide to believe something. I have to be convinced. I have found evidence that the Catholic church is being guided in a way that the Protestant church isn’t. But infallible interpretation. . . not yet convinced.

 

[guanophore]

A born-again Christian does good works because he is saved, not in order to **get** saved. When we are born-again, God transforms us from the inside and makes us more Christ-like. That's when we start producing fruits of the Spirit.

It is very Catholic of you to day this!

The thing catholics seem not to understand is that Christ **DID** save us. He paid our sin debt in ** FULL**. Only His blood cleanses us completely. Otherwise why did He die on the Cross? Why not some other method?  Because only with the shedding of blood can there be remission of sin.

Well, yankee, I am sorry that, when you were Catholic, you did not seem to understand this. However, it is inappropriate for you to make generalizations of this kind. you see,t here are plenty of us Catholics that understand this quite well.

Tell me, how can you fully cooperate with and obey Jesus Christ? God said all have fallen short. There’s no one righteous, no not one.

When we are in a state of grace, it is God at work within us to will and to do His good pleasure.

Our righteous acts are like filthy rags before Him.

If you look at the context of this verse, it is clear that it is describing a person who is not in right relationship with God. Once a person is saved, by grace, through faith, one is empowered by God to do the works of righteousness that God has prepared, that we should walk in them.

Can you keep all of the 10 Commandments all the time?

Nothing is impossible with God.

Break one and you’ve broken them all. Can you always obey the decrees of your church?

Absolutely! The reason we are given the sacrament of reconciliation is because we do fall short. It is always possible to obey. God does not command us to do that which He does not enable us to do .

Catholics say: "Christ redeemed us, but man still has to expiate his sins." What does redeem mean? It means to pay off, clear by payment.

Actually, some of us don’t say that. Personally, I find that sort of language to give rise to unnecessary misunderstandings amongst our separated brethren. It seems that you do not understand the difference between the temporal and eternal consequences of sin. Jesus wants to deliver us from both.

 In Theology. it means  to deliver from sin and its consequences by means of a sacrifice offered for the sinner. Where do we read that redeem means only a partial payment?

You are misunderstanding, Yankee. It is BECAUSE He has paid our eternal consequence that we are able to participate in healing the temporal consequences of our sins.

How do you, as a catholic, reconcile your church's teaching on this with the apostle Paul who wrote in Eph. 2:8,9 that we are saved by grace through faith, its the gift of God,  and not of works lest anyone should boast?

Easy. Purgatory only applies those who are saved by grace through faith.

 He attempts to demonstrate that this type of faith is of no use at all. James does not tell us how to become a Christian, but what a genuine Christian looks like.

yes, we are in agreement on this point, except that I think James does both.

The person who claims Jesus Christ as their Savior but takes advantage of the poor, and does not show love to others, is not a true Christian and is not spiritually born-again.

I agree with what you are saying about how a Christian should behave. I think you add in that a person who is unloving is not really “born again” because you reject the Teaching of the Apostles that one who is Born Again can live in the flesh, selfishly.

. The point is you can’t have saving faith and not naturally have good works or fruits. That is what Jesus kept talking about when He would talk fruit: (Matt 7:16-17) By their fruit you will recognize them. Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. /.quote]

This is precisely why Catholics reject faith “alone”. Saving faith is NEVER alone. It is always accompanied by hope and love.
yankee_drifter;5937377:

I believe the Bible clearly tells us what it takes to obtain eternal life. (Acts 16:29-31) The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your household.”

Then what happened? What action did he take that demonstrated his faith?

 

[guanophore]

1 Cor. 3:10-15 has to do with building upon the foundation Paul laid: Jesus Christ. It’s not about all the “actions” of a person, but how a believer builds upon the foundation (the gospel) of Jesus Christ. IOW, how his WORKS conform to the gospel of God’s GRACE toward us through the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ.

We seem to be talking past each other, Moon. For the Catholic, there is no distinction between what one does in church, and out. Every action of every day is to emanate from our identity in Christ. Every action of a person, therefore, either builds upon the foundation (works out one’s salvation) or it is a “dead work”. Every action is to confrom to the gospel of His grace. I have had some of my Reformed brethren tell me this verse is a reference to “building the kingdom”, as if one’s actions in building up the Body of Christ were somehow separate from one’s actions when not in the pulpit.

The "*fire*" in this passage is *figurative* for the judgment of each believer's works, and doesn't *purify* anything, but instead *reveals* the worthiness or worthlessness of a man's WORKS for sake of REWARD or loss of it.

It is curious to me how it is that this determination of “figurative” is made. There is nothing in this passage that would indicate that the fire does not exist. I am willing to grant that it is not a tangible fire (of this world) but a spiritual one. However, what exists in reality on the supernatural plane is not, by virtue of it’s being intangible, "figurative’.

The revelation of the worth is exactly what purifcation is.

Like dross that is burned away from the pure gold by the heat.

Those conforming WORKS (with the Foundation Paul laid), that is, compatible with the gospel of Christ Paul preached, deemed “gold, silver, precious stones,” are valuable and, figuratively speaking, are noncombustible.

Yes, we are in agreement on this point, except that I do not subscribe to the notion that something that is intangible is necessarily “figurative”. That is like saying the angels are “figurative” because they don’t have physical bodies.

IOW, they will withstand Divine scrutiny and a reward is rendered for those works to the believer.

This is a very good description of Purgatory.

Those non-conforming WORKS (not compatible with the gospel Paul preached), deemed* wood, hay, straw* are, *figuratively speaking*, combustible.  And therefore under Divine scrutiny are judged worthless and the believer will receive no reward for those WORKS.  You see, guanophore, an omniscient God judges even the *motives* of a man's heart (1 Cor. 4:5).

For some reason I get the impression that you think I am saying something different than this. We are in agreement on this point.

 

[guanophore]

Nothing or no one here is being “purified” of anything. There’s no “dross” being burnt off. The fire is purely figurative for the Divine judgment, Divine scrutiny, of a believer’s WORKS for the sake of receiving reward - not cleansing.

Well, I guess you see these things as separate,but the Apostles did not . The wood, hay and straw are all combustible materials. They are all burned up in the purifiying fire. Since Purgatory is only for the saved, of course those who are thus purified will then be rewarded for their deeds.

The true believer has already been “washed,” “sanctified” and “justified” in Christ.

Yes. Catholics believe this happens in baptism.

It's Christ who made him fit for heaven.To the contrary.  We fully understand this cleansing to have occurred at the time of true faith in the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ, who Himself made purification of sins on the cross (Heb. 1:3b).

Actually, this is not contrary at all. It is just that his purification is not applied to everyone. Those who are not united in Him do not benefit from it. Purgatory is the final application of His grace to our souls. It is He, the author and finisher of our faith, that makes us fit for heaven.

We believe God's Word which now describes all true believers as "*saints*," made righteous in the risen Christ:1 Cor 6:11 *Such were some of you; **but you were washed***, but **you were sanctified**, but **you were justified** in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.".

Yes. According to the Fathers, this passage is a reference to Baptism.

No need for Catholic "Purgatory" when God Himself does the cleansing upon faith in Christ alone.

You are creating a false dichotomy, Moon. Purgatory is the expression of God Himself, doing the cleansing of the faithful.

This has to do only with the glorification of the body, not the cleansing of the soul.1 Cor 15:51-52 "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep (i.e., experience death of the body), but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we (who will not experience death) will be changed."There’s no suffering in the flames of Catholic Purgatory connected to this marvelous “mystery,” my friend. :extrahappy:

The reason we must be changed, whether in the twinkling of an eye, or in a different “time frame”, is because the perfection that is required is something we do not reach in this lifetime.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, he did promise to be with the church until the end of the age. But that doesn’t imply that he will give the church all the answers. That’s the inference that I don’t see.

Infallilbility does not mean that the Church has all the answers. It means that the Church is prevented from teaching error.

Consider a math test. Infallibility does not mean that the Church will be able to give the correct answer to every problem. She might have to leave some of them blank, but the answers she does give cannot be wrong.

As for choice, I’m not convinced that we have a whole lot of choice as to what we believe. I’m researching and listening to arguments, or else I wouldn’t be here. But I can’t just decide to believe something. I have to be convinced. I have found evidence that the Catholic church is being guided in a way that the Protestant church isn’t. But infallible interpretation. . . not yet convinced.

A fair and honest answer. May God guide your steps.

 

[moondweller]

PRmerger:

Isn’t that statement contrary to your entire paradigm about understanding the Scriptures, moon?

Don’t you proclaim that each individual can read Scripture and come to a personal interpretation of a verse, guided by the Holy Spirit?

It seems peculiar to me that anyone who promotes this view would ever call another person’s interpretation of Scripture wrong. For that is the very foundation of your theological system: the Holy Spirit guides you to an understanding of His Word.

Yes, it is true that an individual has the right to interpret the Scriptures and certainly will come up with a correct interpretation if, as you say, he is “guided by the Holy Spirit.” But being guided by the Holy Spirit doesn’t mean dismissing the basic rules of interpretation (which apply to all literature), such as taking into consideration the historical setting, the immediate and overall context, and if the interpretation contradicts what is explicitly taught elsewhere in Scripture, etc., etc.

There’s only ONE correct “interpretation” of Scripture, but Scripture can have various, secondary, “spiritual applications.” But one must first arrive at a correct interpretation before even a spiritual application should be applied. Else the spiritual application would be erroneous as well. Many have made spiritual applications even before arriving at a correct interpretation. IOW, they spiritualize the Scriptures. This is called an “allegorical” interpretation and most often completely ignores the immediate context. This is all under the category of hermeneutics. Ever hear of it?

If Scripture, in fact, has as many meanings as there are interpreters, then Scripture would be rendered meaning-less, and God a blathering idiot.

Catholicism has attempted to alleviate any interpretation problems by simply assigning infallibility to a church office (its “Magisterium”). But such an irrational move has the power to propagate and actually seal in error since its teaching authority is now beyond any challenge… Historically, true Christian doctrine was developed within the arena of controversy. Men had to diligently search the Scripture for answers. But your doctrine of “infallibility” removes any disputation.

 

[moondweller]

AmbroseSJ:

That is what St. Paul is talking about…

Col 1:24 ¶ “I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church,”

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT OUR REDEMPTION IS DEPENDENT ON OTHERS THAN JESUS CHRIST. It means that Jesus Christ, in his mercy and generosity, through the Gospel, has invited us to participate with Him in our redemption,

“Participate with Him in our redemption” translates to me as saying we participate in our redemption. Which is exactly what Adrian expressed earlier and to which I responded in the negative. Here’s his quote:

Originally Posted by adriancombe
On the contrary: not only did Paul not see Christ’s redemptive suffering as a ‘one time good deal’ - he understood his (and our) obligation to particIpate personally in Christ’s redemptive act:

Paul, in Col. 1:24, in context, is not at all stating that he, or we, participate with Christ in our redemption through our own personal suffering. In fact, he states nothing about redemption in those verses, whatsoever. To conclude that Paul was stating there that Christ’s, once for all, sacrifice was somehow insufficient and required something yet from us contradicts his overall teachings in his Epistles on one of the fundamental issues of his gospel. Paul didn’t preach a gospel stamped on it, “some assembly required.” In respect to His sacrificial work for our redemption Jesus Himself said, “it is finished,” not, “to be finished by you.” And the total efficiency of Christ’s sacrificial work, to be believed, was Paul’s gospel.

In context Paul wasn’t at all talking about redemption but reconciliation. They’re not the same. He states in the text:Col 1:21-22 "And although you (Gentiles) were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, {engaged} in evil deeds, yet He (Jesus) has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproachThe subject here being reconciliation to God, not redemption. He then goes on to say:Col 1:24-25 "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions (note: not what is lacking in His sacrifice). Of {this church} I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the {preaching of} the word of God,"Paul is not stating that Christ’s sacrificial work was lacking (insufficient) in any way either to completely redeem or reconcile the body of Christ, His church, but His afflictions.

Now what does Paul mean by this? In 2 Cor. 5 he writes concerning the believer’s reconciliation and the “ministry of the word of reconciliation” that was given to the Apostles:2 Cor 5:18-19 "Now all {these} things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself (how?) through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation."This ministry of taking the “word of reconciliation” to the world would call for great suffering on Paul’s part (see, Acts 9:16). Jesus accomplished perfectly and completely the work of reconciliation on the cross through His suffering and death. Now the “word” of that reconciliatory work to be believed would also require suffering on the part of those committed to it.

The believer’s reconciliation to God (and redemption) was accomplished completely and perfectly through the sacrifice of Christ, once for all. But the ministry of the word of reconciliation" is still going out into the world to be believed on by men for salvation, at times with great suffering. And Christ personally relates to the suffering of those members of His body, as though they were His very own (see Acts 9:14).

So, it’s not Christ’s suffering on the cross that’s the issue here, but the suffering of men like Paul, who are called by Christ to take on the task of taking to the world the word of reconciliation to God through faith in the Person and, once for all, sacrificial work of Jesus on Calvary. For Paul, especially, that entailed great suffering (2 Cor. 12:1-13).

We do not, nor can not, participate in our redemption. That work was Christ’s work through His suffering and death, ALONE. Ours is to BELIEVE it.

 

[moondweller]

Then believe Paul in these verses. We are part of the same body … each part of this body contributing through the gifts received. Christianity is not an “alone” religion.

“For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ…” (Romans 12:4).

“For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” (1 Corinthians 12:13).

If we are in same body then we function together … each part of the body responsible to each other and to the head.

Again more Paul …

“Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church (Colossians 1:24).”

The part of the Church for this discussion is the Church Suffering … those souls not on this earth but destined for heaven. Your definition of the Church does not include these souls.

“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 (Romans 8:17).”

Does not Christ desires for us to participate, not only in his resurrection but also in his Passion? Is this not truly “putting Christ on”.

This can be so only because we are part of the mystical Body of Christ.

Suffering in this world by members of the body of Christ is not the issue, my friend. But whether or not a believer’s personal suffering here in any way contributes to his/her redemption. It does not! Scripture reveals that our redemption was accomplished by Christ alone. It was His work and He accomplished it perfectly and completely. And upon personal faith in Him the believer is perfectly and completely redeemed by His precious blood (1 Pet. 1:18-19).

As for the sufferings of a true believer in “purgatory?” There’s no such teaching found in the Scriptures. It’s a man-made (synthetic) doctrine, not a Divinely revealed one. Now you may passionately believe in something, but passion doesn’t make something true. What’s separates true Christianity from all the religions of this world is that it is based entirely on Divine Revelation. Our faith is to rest only in what God Himself has revealed.

 

[moondweller]

guanophore:

Originally Posted by moondweller
Nothing or no one here is being “purified” of anything. There’s no “dross” being burnt off. The fire is purely figurative for the Divine judgment, Divine scrutiny, of a believer’s WORKS for the sake of receiving reward - not cleansing.

Well, I guess you see these things as separate,but the Apostles did not . The wood, hay and straw are all combustible materials. They are all burned up in the purifiying fire. Since Purgatory is only for the saved, of course those who are thus purified will then be rewarded for their deeds.

C’mon, gruanophore. You’re rationalizing now. Stay true to your Catechism. There’s nothing in your Catechism about Catholics receiving “rewards” in purgatory. It’s about purifying (cleansing) your soul of (some now say, the “effects of,” whatever that is) venial sins via personal pain and suffering; which somehow is suppose to make you fit for heaven. It’s believed that the cross of Christ isn’t enough.

 

[yankee_drifter]

I believe that has been shown here ad nauseum.

That’s a peculiar criterion. Why should truth be unanimous?

There are many, many verses which talk about different criteria needed for salvation. One that comes to mind right now is: unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life within you. John 6:53

Why don’t you eat his flesh and drink his blood, as commanded to you by Our Lord?

Still waiting for someone to show me where the apostles ever taught purgatory…

The Scriptures forbid the drinking of blood. (Gen 9:4; Leviticus 7:26; Leviticus 17:10-14; Acts 15:28-29). Even the Gentile Christians after the resurrection of Christ were to abstain from eating blood. If Christ was asking believers to eat His flesh and blood, He would be going against the clear teaching of scripture in numerous places.

Why should Truth be unanimous?? There is only one absolute Truth. How can we know what is truth if people are divided on what it is? Jesus said thy Word is Truth. If you quote church fathers and 3 agree with what the Scripture teaches and 3 others disagree, then what does that tell you? They all do not have the truth.

 

[moondweller]

Still waiting for someone to show me where the apostles ever taught purgatory…

Here, here! At the top of the page there was a brief advertisement for “God’s Perfect Plan. Purgatory and Indulgences Explained.” Yeah, but where are they “REVEALED?” How do you “explain” things that aren’t revealed?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Suffering in this world by members of the body of Christ is not the issue, my friend. But whether or not a believer’s personal suffering here in any way contributes to his/her redemption. It does not! Scripture reveals that our redemption was accomplished by Christ alone. It was His work and He accomplished it perfectly and completely. And upon personal faith in Him the believer is perfectly and completely redeemed by His precious blood (1 Pet. 1:18-19).

As for the sufferings of a true believer in “purgatory?” There’s no such teaching explicitly and definitively found in the Scriptures. So that doesn’t mean that It’s a man-made (synthetic) doctrine, not a Divinely revealed one. Now you may passionately believe in something, like “faith alone” but passion doesn’t make something true. -]What’s separates true Christianity from all the religions of this world is that it is based entirely on Divine Revelation./-] Ooops, that’s not true, ALL RELIGIONS claim Divine revelation. Our faith is to rest only in what God Himself has revealed.

No need to thank me for fixing your quote above.

Here’s a story for you moondweller; A very rich brother was about to give his father the King a birthday gift of unequalled value and rarity for which he toiled his entire life. But when he saw his very poor brother put to shame by the worthlessness and meaness of his own gift, which he hastily produced at the last minute, he said, come here brother, put your name on the card with me and let us give our father both gifts together, arm in arm.

When the father saw this, he was pleased and delighted with both gifts, because of the love shared between the brothers. The father thought, if my rich and industrious son loves his good for nothing brother this much, than I will love him just as much, and his gift too, for the sake of his rich brother. Because whoever my rich son honors, so too will I honor.

Maybe that’s a lame story, but it should help you understand the idea that Paul was trying to convey in Col. and what we are trying to say here in this thread.

We do participate in our own Redemption, through our suffering united to Jesus. Not that our worthless gift contributes in any substantive way, but that our gift pleases the Son, and the Father as well if united with Jesus. This is the sacrifice that we, the royal priesthood, add to the sacrifice of Jesus, our High Priest to the Eternal Father.

 

[guanophore]

Can you show me in the CCC where it states that your Purgatory is the time when Catholics “pay” for their sins? I thought it was about “cleansing,” not paying debts (cf. Col. 2: 13-14).

You have been repeatedly informed, yet refuse to accept, that Purgatory is not for the payment of sins. Our sins are paid for in full by the blood of Jesus shed upon the cross. The effects of those sins are not always set aside, and sometimes God ordains that we should pay for those as well, just as the thief on the cross next to him suffered the just punishement (temporal) for his crimes. You have also been told that Purgatory is a state of cleaning, and exists outside time and space, just like heaven and hell do. Therefore, of course it is impossible to show you that “it is the time when”…

Sin creates debt (harm) both in eternity, and here on earth. Jesus wants to cleanse us of ALL sins, the eternal and temporal penalties.

It seems important to you to persist in the misconceptions you have been given. Maybe you must do this in order to cling to your theology.

Certainly you're reading it into that verse, but what's stated there doesn't begin to describe "purgatory."   Who's your opponent at law you're to quickly make friends with on the way (on the way to where?) before he hands you over to the judge and you get thrown into prison (purgatory)?  What does it mean to make friends with him while you're with him on the way?  You're in purgatory because you didn't quickly "*make friends*" with your opponent at law?  Explain that to me, please.

It is not necessary for Catholics to “read into” scripture. We know that the NT was writen by, for, and about Catholics. Therefore, we understand it in the light of what the Apostles committed to the Church.

When we sin, we create problems in relationships. Jesus is advising us to correct these problems ASAP, because temporal consequences ensue. We can be purged now, or later. I recommend now!

 

[guanophore]

There’s nothing said about “purifying” anything or anybody in that passage.No, he loses REWARD.The believer in this passage is not laboring for the goal of being rewarded heaven.

“purify” is a Latin word which means to burn with fire to destroy the dross, or if you will, wood, hay and straw. On what basis do you assert that this believer is not laboring for the rewards of heaven? It is better to labor for the love of God only, but some do labor for rewards.

If this was a problem for Jesus, He would not have instructed us to labor for that which does not perish. Surely you don’t think that means salvation itself?!

 Heaven for the true believer is never called a reward - it's his *Home* (2 Cor. 5:8) through Divine adoption; it's where he has his *citizenship* (Phil. 3:20).

Scripture refers to the reward as eternal life.

The passage speaks nothing of “cleansing” the believer. It’s all about his WORKS and REWARDS (or loss of). “Cleansing” is found nowhere in the text or the context.

I understand you see it that way. Perhaps you have no understanding about how falling short of God’s plan for us sullies us. When it says “he will be saved, but only as through fire” it means that everything that is not of God is burned away (purified), just as gold is purified in the furnace when it is separated from anything attached to it that is not gold. The flame does not change the nature of the gold (the saved person). It was gold before the fire, and gold after.

He was already cleansed (“washed”) by the blood of Christ at the time of personal belief in Him (1 Cor. 6:11)Rejection of a doctrine that can not be Divinely supported is not “unbelief.” Such rejection falls into the category of spiritual wisdom.

Ok, so you believe you are spiritually wise because you reject this doctrine.

But you are not “divine”, Moon, and just because you cannot see the support for something does not make it untrue. As it is, we are looking at the same passage, and we understand it differently.

 

[moondweller]

No need to thank me for fixing your quote above.

Here’s a story for you moondweller; A very rich brother was about to give his father the King a birthday gift of unequalled value and rarity for which he toiled his entire life. But when he saw his very poor brother put to shame by the worthlessness and meaness of his own gift, which he hastily produced at the last minute, he said, come here brother, put your name on the card with me and let us give our father both gifts together, arm in arm.

When the father saw this, he was pleased and delighted with both gifts, because of the love shared between the brothers. The father thought, if my rich and industrious son loves his good for nothing brother this much, than I will love him just as much, and his gift too, for the sake of his rich brother. Because whoever my rich son honors, so too will I honor.

Maybe that’s a lame story, but it should help you understand the idea that Paul was trying to convey in Col. and what we are trying to say here in this thread.

We do participate in our own Redemption, through our suffering united to Jesus. Not that our worthless gift contributes in any substantive way, but that our gift pleases the Son, and the Father as well if united with Jesus. This is the sacrifice that we, the royal priesthood, add to the sacrifice of Jesus, our High Priest to the Eternal Father.

I see you’re still having to go outside of Scripture to explain your doctrine. That’s the way it is when one tries to explain something that’s never been revealed. Don’t you think something should be revealed before one attempts to explain it?

 

[guanophore]

Before salvation, the Jews believed in the efficacy of works.

This is a very interesting statement. Are you saying there was no salvation in the OT?

Are you saying that works no longer have any efficacy after Christ?

James retorts that the kind of faith that does not produce works is a spurious faith.

I agree. I think it is the quality of faith that is being referenced here. Saving faith always produces fruit.

But James **never said ** that works justify us before God;

I note that my separated brethren like to insert the words here “before men”, so that it seems to look that way. However, James simply says that one is justified by their works. He does not specify whether it is before God, or before man.

for God can see the faith without its works. Abraham had faith and it was declared righteousness. The world couldn’t see this faith, but God did. The world could see Abraham’s faith if they witnessed him raising the knife to Isaac.

This is the creative license I was thinking about. Actually, if you read this passage, Abraham took great pains to leave “the world” (every other person) at the foot fo the mountain. He was there alone with God, Isaac, the knife, and later, the ram. This was not a display before the “world” but before God (and his son, who I am sure thought he had lost his mind).

What my Reformed brethren have done here is interpolate the scripture with this notion, so that it will fit in with the Calvanistic theology.

But God already declared Abraham righteous before he ever raised that knife. So, when the world asks show me what a true christian looks like, this is what James is explaining. A true Christian bears fruit. An unsaved person (i.e. the world) cannot produce the works of the Spirit.

I agree with what you are saying here.

You say you don’t believe in a works gospel, yet you are depending on a sacramental system, are you not?

No, actualy, sacraments are gifts of grace from God through which we are perfected. If you ever defined “sacrificial system” I did not catch it. Please do so, and maybe that will help me understand what you mean by this. I cannot understand how accessing the grace of God is a “work of the flesh” as you imply.

If God says, “you will enter your heavenly reward if you stand under that waterfall I created over there”, and I refuse to stand under it, I am robbing myself of His gift. If I do stand under it, I still don’t understand how the water coming on to me is any work of mine.

You depend on your church and the rules and rituals of this church.

This is true, but not in the sense I think you mean it. The rules and rituals of the Church are the avenues of God’s grace, and since the only way we can be saved is by grace, thorugh faith, yes, we do depend upon them.

You believe membership in this church guarantees a ticket to heaven.

I am not sure who you are addressing here, so maybe this applies to a Catholic here who is misinformed. The Catholic Church does not teach this, and any well taught Catholic will know it is not true.

This is why some of you say they’re not concerned about their salvation. Catholics say they believe they are redeemed by the death of Christ, but at the other side of their mouth they say that Christ merely opened the door to heaven so that God can pour out grace to help you obey this system, and salvation is conditioned on what one does or does not do in the sacramental system.

This is a very twisted up perception of the Apostolic faith. We are redeemed by the blood of Christ, shed on the cross for our salvation. Yes, He did open the door to heaven. Yes,He does pour out grace to help us obey (not sure what you mean by “system” here). God desires that we keep his commandments. They are not a 'system". They are a way of life, a lifestyle in which we can be healthy as He created us to be.

Salvation is not conditioned upon what one does or does not “do in the sacramental system”. This is a gross distortion of the Catholic faith. Catholics, like everyone, are saved by grace, through faith, and not of works, lest any man should boast. Nothing that we “do” with regard to sacraments saves us. Only God grace saves us.