purgatory

[PRmerger]

Nope. No way for me to convince him. Obviously, only one of us can be right (assuming our positions are contradictory)

Yes. One of you is right. One of you is wrong.

but there’s no authority outside of the text itself that we can appeal to absolutely.

But this text does indeed claim that there is an outside authority that we can appeal to absolutely. 1 Tim 3:15

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.

Again, in your theological system you are lost in a tie. Not so Catholics. We do not have to be tossed to a fro by every wind of doctrine.

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.

Ack!! Given the over 40,000 Christian denominations in existence today, the above statement is most certainly false. IF there were enough textual support to be certain about things “necessary for salvation” that would be clearly demonstrated by a universal understanding of Scripture. There’s not even 1 letter from Paul that has a universally understood doctrine.

40,000 demoninations. That’s obscene.

 

[guanophore]

What did Christ say in Matt 7 to those who had put their faith in something other than in Him alone, such as religion and works of that religion? “Depart from me! I never knew you!” Some were already calling Him Lord. but would later refuse to accept the completed work of the cross. What then is the will of the Father mentioned in Matt 7:21? Jesus isn’t speaking of works. He is speaking of ‘will.’

I agree. It seems that you have some erroneous perception that practicing sacraments and rituals is something “other than Christ” and this is not the case. The ultimate sacrament is Eucharist, during which He gave Himself to us in the form of bread and wine.

In another place, Jesus said, "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:40) See the connection. It is possible to speak of Jesus as Lord, but never actually receive Him to yourself as the **completer** of your salvation. But the people kept saying: but look at all the good works we did in your name! Jesus cast them all out!

I will concede that there are many Catholics who go through the motions without having a personal relationship, or not being in right relationship. This is easy to see by comparing communion lines to confession lines.

We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. No where in the Scriptures are we told that our salvation depends on our works. Any works, whether it be all those traditions of the church or whatever. The works we are given to do, are works assigned to us by the Holy Spirit. **But these are not salvation works**. They are works that glorify our Father.

Yankee, what you are saying here is Catholic. You don’t seem to recognize it as such because you have been given so much misinformation about the Catholic Teaching. Purgatory is not a “work” of man, but the state in which we are made fit for heaven.

Please show me where Jesus ever gave us a sacramental system? Where did He ever say that a priest, with a victim (Him) and sacrifices was to be repeated until the end of the world.

That seems to be grist for another thread.

His sacrifice,however, was a one time event, and can never be repeated.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Amen!

So when you claim someone else’s interpretation of Scripture is incorrect, are you assigning to yourself the gift of infallibility? How is it that this person, who has read the same verse and prayerfully considered its meaning, is wrong and you are right?

It would seem that you, as a man who does not claim infallibility, ought to acknowledge that fallibility means: you will be wrong. Will. Be. Wrong.

You have no assurance that your interpretation is the correct interpretation. For the 40,000 different Christian denominations who come to contrary interpretations of Scripture each claim guidance by the Holy Spirit. Which one is correct? In your paradigm, you simply cannot know.

In our paradigm, we have certainty.

 

[James_N]

Ack!! Given the over 40,000 Christian denominations in existence today, the above statement is most certainly false. IF there were enough textual support to be certain about things “necessary for salvation” that would be clearly demonstrated by a universal understanding of Scripture. There’s not even 1 letter from Paul that has a universally understood doctrine.

40,000 demoninations. That’s obscene.

You’re right, that is obscene. But that doesn’t mean that Scripture is insufficient; it means that people are twisting it to fit their preconceived notions.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re right, that is obscene. But that doesn’t mean that Scripture is insufficient; it means that people are twisting it to fit their preconceived notions.

What it proves, James, is that your statement:

Originally posted by James_N: 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

is clearly false. There is not enough textual support to be certain about things that are necessary for salvation. Heck, there’s not even enough textual support to say what IS necessary for salvation. There’s 40,000 different opinions about *that *as well!

 

[kamalayka9]

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?

Sola Scriptura is a false teaching. The fundamental things of the church, such as the sacraments and apostolic succession, are not explicitly mentioned in the Scripture (you know, the “basic doctrines” referred to in Hebrews). It is not necessary for the NT authors to talk about things that everybody already knows.
They knew that the tradition (the church itself) would remain unaltered until the end of time (end of the world). Because they knew this, they did not worry about writing every detail down (although, we DO have the Didache).

 

[moondweller]

You have been repeatedly informed, yet refuse to accept, that Purgatory is not for the payment of sins.

You’re barking at the wrong boy here, guanophore. It’s rinnie who keeps referring to Matt. 5:25 and thereby stating that Purgatory is a time for paying up the last cent through pain and suffering.

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.

The thief was on the cross as a CONSEQUENCE for his sins. He broke Roman law and had to pay his debt according to Roman law. However, that’s not the way it works with God on behalf of true believers.Col 2:13-14 "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."Neither of your doctrines of “purgatory” or “temporal punishment” are revealed and taught in Scripture. Why do you think that is? Perhaps because God dealt with sin, once for all, not with “purifying fires,” but with “precious blood?” So it is written. So should it not be believed?

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”…

Heaven and Hell are still places to where one goes. Transcending time doesn’t make them nonexistent places.

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

Debt is not “harm.” Dept requires a payment. Christ paid it in full. “Jesus wants to cleans us of all sins” is true for unbelievers, but for the true believer, the good news is that He already HAS (Col. 2:13-14). That’s why it’s called the “gospel” of Jesus Christ. The “good news” of Jesus Christ. How is you don’t believe it?

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.

I have misconceived nothing. I have yet to perceive of your doctrines based on Scriptural revelation.

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!

Have you read 1 Cor. 6:11? I believe God’s Word concerning my sin and the, once for all, sacrificial work of Jesus Christ on my behalf. So, “now” and “once for all,” applies to me, in full. As it does to all who believe His Word concerning Christ.

 

[yankee_drifter]

The only thing I am going to give you to think about is this;

The Church that Jesus Christ founded on Rock which can not be destroyed has taught Purgatory for 2000 years.

I guess you couldn’t answer my questions…

You offer nothing to substantiate that for 2,000 years the majority of Christians believed in purgatory. I find nothing of this in Christian history. Nor do I find it in the Scriptures.

 

[yankee_drifter]

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?

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

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.

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.

I agree with what you are saying here.

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.

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.

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 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.

Oh, but Christ did so much more than open the door to heaven. He gave His life for you and bore the punishment that you and I deserve on His own body. His blood atonement was sufficient, perfect and complete, thus making “purgatory” totally unnecessary.

The apostles had assurance of going straight to heaven, why don’t you?

 

[PRmerger]

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

sigh. Yankee, you are like the black dwarves in CS Lewis’ “The Last Battle”. In the chapter, “How the Dwarves Refused to be Taken In” they, with their arms folded and eyes closed, continually rebuff the Narnians’ attempts to show them the truth. The dwarves are, in reality, standing in paradise, yet continue to claim they’re in a “poky old stable.” The Narnians show them flowers–see! you’re NOT stuck in a stinky old barn! The dwarves sourly respond: Blech! You’ve just given us manure!

Nothing the Narnians can do, despite their very best efforts, can convince these silly sour dwarves that they’re not being shown stable litter, but rather flowers and sun and sky.

(Note: I am *not *comparing purgatory to paradise.)

 

[paul_c]

Lets get back to Purgatory for a second. It seems to me that the major arguments against Purgatory put forward by Yankee Drifter and Moondweller relate to their understanding of scripture. They seem to see man as incapable of achieving holiness on earth and for that reason, the only way that Man could ever get to heaven would be a free pass from God. They believe this free pass comes through belief in the saving power of the Cross.

Catholics agree with them that man is incapable of achieving holiness without the grace of God. But Catholics believe that man must actually become holy, not just have imputed holiness to enter heaven. Now we Catholics believe we should strive toward holiness on earth and we follow the church’s teachings to help us achieve that. The closer we get to this idea, the less purification that is required.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Yes. Of course. No Catholic here is claiming anything to the contrary.

To the degree the the ECFs disagree with the apostolic teaching is the degree that they are wrong.

 

[moondweller]

Scripture refers to the reward as eternal life.

Scripture does not refer to eternal life as a reward, but rather a “free gift” through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 6:23). Death, was a wage which came into this world through the sin of one man, Adam. And being our federal head, when he sinned, “all sinned,” and so death spread to all men in him (Rom. 5:12). But the “free gift” (not reward which is based on merit) is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 6:23; cf Jn. 3:14-18; 5;24; 1 Jn. 5:10-13). The risen Christ now being the believer’s new federal head (the “Last Adam”), in Whom he is made righteous (Rom. 5:19) and gifted eternal life - His resurrected LIFE.

 

[James_N]

There is not enough textual support to be certain about things that are necessary for salvation. Heck, there’s not even enough textual support to say what IS necessary for salvation. There’s 40,000 different opinions about *that *as well!

I’m going to continue to disagree on this point. Differing opinions, even numerous ones, regarding an interpretation does not mean that the text is insufficiently clear. It is possible (and in this case, I think likely) that people are doing more reading their own opinions into the text than actually figuring out what it says.

I know there are people who deny it, but there are some central points that are so well supported that they are very hard to deny:

God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth
God has set a standard for man to follow
Man has fallen short of that standard, and deserves the eternal death penalty
God made it possible for man to receive salvation anyway
This was accomplished by God sending His son to become man
His son had a virgin birth, lived a sinless life, was unjustly crucified, and resurrected after three days
This pays the penalty for the sinfulness of man

Yeah, there are lots of things that aren’t so clear. And some of these have been denied, but I don’t think they’ve been denied by any responsible biblical interpreters. They’re still clearly there, no matter how many idiots have started their own denomination.

 

[guanophore]

my friend, the problem is you cannot prove all of these “unwritten” teachings came directly from the apostles. There’s no way to check it. There is also no such thing as unanimous consent among church Fathers. Over the years, different fathers, popes and councils said different things.

This is true. For Catholics, the faith committed to the Church by the Apsotles is received by faith. It is not a mater of “proofs” and is not subject to scientific proofs. It is a divine mystery that has been protected by the HS.

You have not way to “check it” because you have rejected the authorities appointed by Christ to preserve it. We don’t have that problem.

"Baptism used to be given by placing the person to be baptized completely in the water: it was done in this way in the Catholic Church for 1200 years." (Adult Catechism, pp. 56-57).

No, Yankee, Randy is right. the Church has always baptized infants. Did you think it was not possible to dunk an infant?

“Ecclesiastical custom with regard to the administration of Baptism has undergone a change in the course of history. Whereas the early Church baptized adults only, the baptism of children soon became the usual practice.” (Pastoral Medicine, pp. 32-33).

This statement also does not preclude infants. On the contrary, it clearly states otherwise. The gospel was first preached to adults, so the record in the NT relates to those adults. The Apostles taught that baptism replaced circumcision as the entrance rite into the New Covenant. When the baptized adults began to produce babies, of course they brought them for baptism.

"The church at one time practiced immersion. This was up to the thirteenth century. The Council of Ravenna, in 1311, changed the form from immersion to pouring." (Our Faith and the Facts, p. 399).

This does not preclude infant baptism either, Yankee. Do you think you cannot pour water on an infant?

The following Catholic official openly acknowledges that the Catholic Church changed immersion to pouring simply because it was more convenient. "The present mode of pouring arose from the many inconveniences connected with immersion, frequent mention of which are made in the writings of the early Church Fathers." (Question Box, p. 366).

If you read the Didache, produced around the same time as the gospel of John, you can see that this was the apostolic teaching. When you live in the desert, sometimes there is not sufficient water for immersion.

In any case, this does not preclude infant baptism either.

The wicked king Jereboam made things convenient for the people

So, which arguement are you having here? Are you arguing that the Church did not baptize infants from the beginniing, or that immersion was replaced by pouring?

Two of the priests under the Mosiacal system thought they would do what was convenient and "offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not" (Lev. 10:1).

It seems like what youa re saying is that pouring baptisms are not valid. HOwever, God never gave any specifice directives about this. In fact, we do not know that the Lord Himself was immersed, since the area where John the Baptist preached was often only four inches deep.

The very next verse says, "And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord" (Lev. 10:2).

Do you think that pouring water at baptism rather than immersing will result in fire devouring catholics?

**To please God we must do exactly as He commanded and not that which might be more suitable to us. No one man or group of men have a right to change the law of God. God commanded a burial in water, and this is what must be done.**

I agree that immersion is the fullest sign. However, the burial is spiritual as much as physcial, and since the Apostles allowed pouring it is valid. I would be happy if every Cahtolic Church had a font, and practiced immersion. However, I fail to see what any of this has to do with purgatory.

 Catholic officials readily admit that infant baptism cannot be proven by the Bible.

Indeed, this is true. Catholics know that the Bible is not a “proof text” and is not to be used this way. It is a reflection of the faith of the Church, committed to it by the Apostles. It was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith and practice for disciples.

 Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit **unwritten** tradition.

This is an absurd statement. Salvation is from the Jews,and so is the Sacred Traditition. the entire NT reflects the unwritten tradition. It did not disappear just because some of it was written down. You make it sound like Sacred Tradition did not precede the NT!

 Like many other doctrines of the Catholic Church, the baptism of infants slowly and gradually developed.

I don’t know how “slow” that was. The first Christian family that had an infant brought the baby for baptism, and this has continued to the present day.

 

[PRmerger]

40,000 demoninations. That’s obscene.

LOL! I just noticed my typo.

It speaks volumes, huh?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m going to continue to disagree on this point. Differing opinions, even numerous ones, regarding an interpretation does not mean that the text is insufficiently clear.

With all due respect, that is an absurd statement.

 

[James_N]

With all due respect, that is an absurd statement.

Looks like we’re just going to disagree on this point. I’ve seen way too many people grossly misread texts to think that it implies that the text is not clear enough. As an example, in my Aesthetics anthology, the editor summarized each piece before presenting it. His summary of Hegel’s thesis directly contradicted what Hegel actually said. I know Hegel is usually unclear, but everyone in my undergraduate philosophy class noticed it. It wasn’t hard. Yet the editor of the volume somehow got an interpretation that was entirely unsupported by the text. This doesn’t mean the text was unclear; it means the editor did not responsibly interpret it.

 

[PRmerger]

God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth
God has set a standard for man to follow
Man has fallen short of that standard, and deserves the eternal death penalty
God made it possible for man to receive salvation anyway
This was accomplished by God sending His son to become man
His son had a virgin birth, lived a sinless life, was unjustly crucified, and resurrected after three days
This pays the penalty for the sinfulness of man

If the above are examples you’re providing of what is necessary to believe for salvation, are these your own conclusions? If so, how do you know that these are the “essentials”? There are about 20 other doctrines that I’ve seen floating around these forums, in numerous matrices, of what’s an “essential” doctrine.

 

[PRmerger]

Looks like we’re just going to disagree on this point. I’ve seen way too many people grossly misread texts to think that it implies that the text is not clear enough. As an example, in my Aesthetics anthology, the editor summarized each piece before presenting it. His summary of Hegel’s thesis directly contradicted what Hegel actually said. I know Hegel is usually unclear, but everyone in my undergraduate philosophy class noticed it. It wasn’t hard. Yet the editor of the volume somehow got an interpretation that was entirely unsupported by the text. This doesn’t mean the text was unclear; it means the editor did not responsibly interpret it.

One editor–his misinterpretation.

40,000 editors each coming to different interpretations, well…