E
E.E.N.S
Guest
I prefer Jergens personally. What reference to you use/recommend? I will check it out (if I don’t already have it, lol.)
- Status
C
Churchmouse
Guest
E.E.N.S.:
Peace,
CM
BTW, what you stated above is, in essence, what “some” early Christians asked for and not that it was an established belief in the Church.
Peace,
CM
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
You are just misunderstanding me, CM, I realize what you are saying isn’t purgatory, nor am I trying to read it as such, I was simply wanting to know the reason why a person in heaven would need any sort of “refreshing.”
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
E.E.N.S.:
Just incase you missed it…
C
Churchmouse
Guest
E.E.N.S.:
Peace,
CM
This is the one I use most because it is unadulterated. It’s a hefty download, but well worth it: zeitun-eg.org/ecfidx.htm
Peace,
CM
C
Churchmouse
Guest
E.E.N.S.:
Well, as it stands my pasta’s stuck and my chicken’s burnt and it’s my turn to cook. I’ll check in later.
Peace,
CM
I hope that’s been answered.
Well, as it stands my pasta’s stuck and my chicken’s burnt and it’s my turn to cook. I’ll check in later.
Peace,
CM
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Will do when I get home (probably tomorrow however - plans for tonight!)
U
uther
Guest
Well, I think you were focussed in on that other discussion and perhaps missed what I initially threw out for consideration. Believe me, I am not offended. Heat of discussion and all that. I also have no doubt you are much more well versed in the works of the gentlemen Keating cited. My own claim to knowledge in this area is sitting in front of a Baptist preacher 3 times a week and at home for the first 18 years of my life. Believe me, I’ve heard the evangelical side of this discussion.
John McArthur’s quote does not back purgatory per se, in the full blown Catholic sense. The reason originates in the doctrinal difference regarding justification. He is basically saying in the same context as what I was taught, that, salvation depends on the acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour, but beyond that, what we do, what we accomplish as Christians, after being saved, will be tested. Those things that are “hay, wood, straw” willl be burned away as per Paul in I Corinthians 3.
J.P. Moreland is clearly speaking in the context of the question of where the disembodied soul goes or what state it is in,until the final judgement and we see the “new heaven and new earth” from Revelation, and he is allowing some limited speculation.
J. Vernon McGee is clearly talking about meeting Jesus. The context is lacking here, so we don’t know whether he means initial judgement or final judgement or even if he draws that distinction. The point of the quote, it seems to me, is that he is thinking of the possibility that the snow might not quite cover the dung heap. He seems a little concerned, perhaps only a little, with the total depravity theology. But again, that goes back to justification.
In fact, I would suggest to you that most of this discussion of purgatory becomes less urgent, oddly enough, when you have the Catholic view of justification and sanctification. I don’t know of any Catholic, from a practical standpoint, that wants to mess around and depend on purgatory, if they are serious about their salvation at all. I’ve never heard of anyone that wants to go to purgatory, in other words. But that is a side issue.
In short, how one deals with 1 Corinthians 3:15 depends entirely on how one views justification, so there will never be an agreement on purgatory prior to an agreement on justification first.
F
fulloftruth
Guest
“Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny” (Matt. 5:25-26).
“Each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:13-15).
“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey . . .” (1 Peter 3:18-20).
“But nothing unclean shall enter it [heaven] . . .” (Rev. 21:27).
“Each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:13-15).
“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey . . .” (1 Peter 3:18-20).
“But nothing unclean shall enter it [heaven] . . .” (Rev. 21:27).
C
Churchmouse
Guest
fulloftruth said:
Yep! We all know that these are some of the verses which Catholics claim “imply” a purgatory. They are posted on almost every Catholic apologetic page on the WWW. The trouble is that the Catholics who post them don’t always comment on why they, themselves, believe these verses imply what is claimed. And the ones that do usually don’t make a convincing argument to believe otherwise.
I have always wondered why is it left to “implications.” Considering that this is the state most Christians must endure before entering the kingdom, why is it is left to “implications.” Surely, if it were a true belief of the Apostolic faith, Jesus and/or the Apostles would have been clear and prepared the church, but no, we are asked to believe that it is implied in Holy Scripture even if there is no clear teaching. I’ve also wondered why is it that there is no real clear “afterlife purification” taught until Clement of Alexandria and Origen rendered the seeds of the doctrine almost 2 centuries later. That would be the equivalent of not writing about heaven or hell for almost 2 centuries. Then there is the Eastern Church who claims no such thing as purgatory and claims the same pedigree as Roman Catholicism. Why do they decry it as well?
So, I’m to believe that these verses imply purgatory, correct? That is why they are quoted so often in support of this doctrine. Yet, why is it that when I read them I see no such thing? Why is it that when I exegete them, I come away feeling, all the more, that the verses have absolutely nothing to do with a purgatory? Why is that??
Peace,
CM
U
uther
Guest
Only you know why that is, Churchmouse. However, I am interested to know when you think it is that the Roman Catholic Church really got off the rails. Various professional anti-Catholics peg the time at different points. My own father thought it was around the year 1000. Are you suggesting around the time of Clement or Origen?
I would suggest that the seeds were there before Origen and Clement. You will say prove it. I will say I cannot from the standards of proof that you require, ie. written documentation, Biblical or otherwise.
My standard of proof on this specific issue is Tradition, not all of which was written down, or fully developed (truth deriving from truth = doctrinal development). On this specific issue, segmented off from the rest, that is not enough for you, understandibly. However, from the perspective of one that is thoroughly convinced that the teaching authority from Christ to the apostles and their successors is still active, which requires another whole series of discussions, then the implications become sufficient in reference to purgatory.
And, as I said in another post, it hinges at least partly on the doctrines of justification and sanctification, predestination, eternal security and so forth.
It is not worth this amount of heat on its own. It is a following doctrine that I believe was there all along. But that is because I believe the other, more critical part of the package.
C
Churchmouse
Guest
Well, I believe I stated why that is. What I am asking is why you and those like you believe that is.
I don’t know what this has to do with the subject. I mentioned Clement of Alexandria and Origen because this is where you find the “seeds” of purgatory and not before. I’m not interested in when the church “got off the rails.” If I obliged you then this this subject gets off the rails. I like dealing with things directly and do not like to detract. Also, I dislike the term “anti-Catholics.” Just because someone disagrees with Catholic distinctives doesn’t make them an “anti-Catholic.” This tag is tossed around too loosely and is very misleading.
Well, you cannot because there isn’t and you really have no basis in which to prove that the earliest church believed in a purgatory or “afterlife purification.” It makes me wonder why you would accept it at all.
Then how do you know that such a “Tradition” exists? Especially in light of its absence until the times of Clement and Origen? Why is it that the East denies it if this “Tradition” was there? How could you expect anyone else to accept it?
It hinges on nothing because there is no evidence that the earliest church taught it, that Jesus taught it, or the Apostles taught it.
Well, you presume it to be so and I don’t. What does it for me is that purgatory wasn’t taught early on and that is evident from the reasons I stated in my prior post.
Peace,
CM
U
uther
Guest
I only mention it because I notice this line of discussion normally leads to that. Put directly, you are saying that the doctrine of purgatory is non-existent before Origen and Clement of Alexandria, ie., it is not the faith of the early Church. Perhaps I went to fast. What does that mean to you? What are you suggesting from that? Does that mean for you that only this doctrine is erroneous or does that lead you to other conclusions about the Catholic Church? If you don’t want to discuss it, fine. I am only asking.
I wasn’t using the term to describe you. If that is what you thought, my apologies. Specifically I was emphasizing a class of people who make it their profession to attack the Catholic Church, and who are used as a standard or reference by many who simply disagree, without the vitriol. Loraine Boettner would be a classic example of the heavily relied upon professional anti-Catholic. Like the term or not, there are such people and have been since the 16th Century.
This is the point I was trying to make. I can’t prove it to your satisfaction. I accept the Church’s teaching on it, because I accept the other teachings of the Church without which the doctrine of purgatory either doesn’t make sense from the inferences of prayers for the dead, or at best is unnecessary. What are those teachings? As I mentioned, the doctrine of purgatory only makes any sense at all in the context of Catholic justification and sanctification. We could go into that, but you would rather maintain the narrower focus. This is a thread on Purgatory, so I can’t disagree with that.
Not everything was written down in the first 150-200 years. Some doctrines and practices were only hinted at in writing but were there from the beginning. The reason they weren’t written down in most cases was because there was no issue over them. In this case I trust that the Church is telling me the truth on this doctrine without direct hard-copy. But the whole question of Tradition is another discussion beyond the scope of this thread.
Again, it only becomes a critical issue for a non-Catholic when placed alongside such doctrines as OSAS, justification by faith alone, predestination, the role of free will, the assurance of salvation and so on. In that context it doesn’t fit. That is why I mentioned earlier the way that Protestants view 1 Cor. 3 as referring to works after justification and not in any way related to justification, whereas, while in effect the result is the same, in Catholic doctrine, because we believe in the possibility of losing salvation of our own volition, and that sanctification actually can take place in the human heart through grace, the purifying fire burns away that stain of sin that still remains, even though we are saved.
If you believe in the Calvinist doctrine that our sins are covered and we get to heaven while still in a state of total depravity, then of course, purgatory makes no sense.
Likewise.
C
Churchmouse
Guest
I can assure you* I * won’t lead to that. All too often, dialogues get snagged by going from one subject to another. Purgatory leads into canon issues, which lead to authority issues, etc. If the Church went “off the rails”, it becomes evident when discussing things like purgatory and staying on topic. After all, if the Church erred with purgatory, then it brings up questions about their other distinctives. That is why I prefer to stick with the subject and not detract.
I understand, but there are those who weigh heavily on the Catholic Church, not because they have something against the church per se, but because they feel the CC preaches a different gospel. Would I classify these folks as “anti-Catholics” because they follow the mandate of Galatians 1:8-9 and feel Catholicism is guilty of it? Of course not! By the same token, I wouldn’t call a Roman Catholic “anti-Protestant” if they feel they are following the same mandate. This is why accepting what a church states to be the gospel truth, without the evidence which supports it, is dangerous.
I can’t see any realism in the Church’s teaching on it. “Prayers for the dead” is a good point because some in the early church prayed for the dead. That’s a fact! Yet, it is reasoned: Why pray for the dead if they are in heaven already? Well, praying for the dead doesn’t necessarily mean they prayed for their alleviation from an assumed purgatory. It is assumed that prayer for the dead and purgatory walk hand-in-hand, but when one realizes the nature of the “refrigerium” it takes away from any purgatorial relevance. Again, “some” in the early church prayed for a “refreshing” (refrigerii) of those understood to be in heaven. No one knows why they did, but yet “some” did. Personally, I believe it did more for those praying then those they prayed for, but nonetheless the prayers do not reflect a “purgatorial” understanding. Thus, praying for the dead does not prove or support “purgatory.” BTW, just because other distinctives (as Catholic justification and sanctification) don’t make sense without a purgatory doesn’t make a purgatory exist; neither does it mean that the distinctives are sound.
<<cont’d>>
C
Churchmouse
Guest
I don’t buy this reasoning. Again, we are talking of a state or place where the majority of Christians go and we are to believe that they were only “hinted” or “implied.” Jesus spoke plainly about heaven and hell, yet “hinted” to purgatory? The Apostles were of the same mindset and yet couldn’t muster a “By the way, there’s an intermediate place most of you in the Church will go to…” I just don’t buy it at all.
No, not at all. Purgatory isn’t negated solely due to our views of justification, etc. It is negated because we cannot find this teaching in Scripture or the earliest church history; neither do we have any reason to believe that it was taught. Again, the Eastern Church is evidence of this. They have the same pedigree as the Roman church and pretty much the same theology, yet do not believe in purgatory. Again, I don’t see 1 Cor. 3 as purgatorial in any sense of the word and, contextually, it takes away from this Roman Catholic distinctive.
Peace,
CM
U
uther
Guest
That is not what I said, or at least not what I intended to say. Perhaps I can re-phrase it. Purgatory is a doctrine that only makes sense in the context of the totality of Catholic Doctrine. But that totality does not depend on the doctrine of Purgatory. That totality of Catholic Doctrine is that which was given from Christ to the apostles, which are Biblical though sometimes not explicitly, which are part of the Tradition handed down in writing and orally (see Jn 21:25. 2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim. 2:2)
(New Testament Scripture is really only one part of the Tradition, the Faith, given from Christ to the apostles. It was later assembled and given the official Church approval as Holy Spirit inspired and elevated to the status of Holy Scripture and we have adhered to that since. The chronology is important.)
However, if you embark on the radical innovations of the 16th century Reformers, the doctrine of purgatory becomes a stumbling block.
C
Churchmouse
Guest
Again, I don’t know what it is, but it sounds like you are saying that Purgatory makes sense regardless if it exists or not and it is assumed to be “handed down” by the Apostles via Christ, albeit not recorded. Again, it bears repeating, considering its absence from Scripture, its absence from the teachings of the earliest church, and its denial by the Eastern Church (who claims the same pedigree as Rome) who holds these “Traditions” as well, I don’t see how it can be assumed to be handed down. Thus, if this teaching makes sense in light of Catholic soteriology, that’s all it can do, but it doesn’t prove that such a state or place exists.
John 21:25 speaks of things Christ “did” and not things he taught or said.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 doesn’t lend credence that purgatory was taught, but only that the Apostles were teaching by word and letter. It still doesn’t mean that purgatory was being taught in light of what I’ve told you.
2 Timothy 2:2 doesn’t lend to purgatory as well. Paul is telling Timothy that everything he’s learned teach it to faithful men—those who will be able to teach others.
None of these verses add to whether or not purgatory was being taught by Christ, Paul, or the rest of the Apostles, only that they were teaching men orally and through their writings. Again, there is no reason to believe purgatory was ever taught in light of its absence from the earliest church.
I have yet to see an extra-biblical Tradition which can be traced to an Apostle, and “which” Apostle at that. Again, I see a movement towards other issues which have no bearing on this subject. Again, I hate to be the stickler, but you know my story.
Again, I repeat, purgatory doesn’t stand or fall on what the Reformers taught, but on whether or not it was taught by Christ to the Apostles and onward to the church. The Reformers didn’t question it because it conflicted with their views on sola fide, but because it was a teaching with no basis in Scripture or the earliest church. Luther, Calvin, etc. they all analyzed the doctrine from Scripture and from ancient writings and found it lacking, so, no, it wasn’t based on what you call “radical innovations”, but on whether or not it was truly taught. I guess it is purgatory which should be termed a “radical innovation”
.Peace,
CM
U
uther
Guest
C
Churchmouse
Guest
100%. Instead of going to a RC page on this, go to the source:
The Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory (a place of purging), that is, the inter-mediate state after death in which the souls of the saved (those who have not received temporal punishment for their sins) are purified of all taint preparatory to entering into Heaven, where every soul is perfect and fit to see God. Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in indulgences as remissions from purgatoral punishment. Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church, and when they were enforced and applied they brought about evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church. If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner, it is unknown to the Church of Christ. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory.
goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7076.asp
Peace,
CM
C
CanoeCamper55
Guest
A couple of comments:
Is there room for discussion about personal prayer experience? I believe in my heart that the RCC is teaching the truth about purgatory, because I know that my prayers for my dead friends and relatives are being heard by God. I have never ever thought that my prayers were “wasted”. I trust that God always listens to every word and thought, especially our prayers for the dead at Mass.
What kind of faith would we have if everything that we did had to be “proved” by evidence? To me, that kind of faith denies any mystery of God and the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church. I would suggest that, in regards purgatory, trust in and obedience to the Church is required. The Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth”, and has interpreted Scripture to MEAN that purgatory exists and so it has prayed for the dead for 2000 years.
That’s good enough for me.
Is there room for discussion about personal prayer experience? I believe in my heart that the RCC is teaching the truth about purgatory, because I know that my prayers for my dead friends and relatives are being heard by God. I have never ever thought that my prayers were “wasted”. I trust that God always listens to every word and thought, especially our prayers for the dead at Mass.
What kind of faith would we have if everything that we did had to be “proved” by evidence? To me, that kind of faith denies any mystery of God and the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church. I would suggest that, in regards purgatory, trust in and obedience to the Church is required. The Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth”, and has interpreted Scripture to MEAN that purgatory exists and so it has prayed for the dead for 2000 years.
That’s good enough for me.
- Status