Romans bible study

[mikeledes]

Mike you said this in response to me saying

could you now touch on this a little more and how this relates to my question earlier? thanks .

Sure. Justification means an ontological change in the person, not merely a forensic declaration. And I think this verse, as Catholic Dude pointed out, emphasizes this point:

7for he who has died is freed from sin.

The Greek word translated “freed” or “absolved” is dikaioo, and that means justified. Calvinst Brian Schwertly says the following regarding this verse:

Verse 7 is better translated: “For he who has died has been justified from sin.” Stott writes: "True, there is some slight evidence from early Jewish literature that dikaioo could mean to ‘make free or pure’ (BAGD). But there is a perfectly good word in Greek for to ‘set free’, namely elevtheroo, which in fact Paul uses in verses 18 and 22, whereas dikaioo comes fifteen times in Romans, and twenty-five times in the New Testament, in all of which occurrences the natural meaning is to ‘justify.’"

reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/Definitive%20Sanctification%20and%20Romans%206.htm

The clear context of this verse inidcates that the word “justified” is being used in an ontological sense, not in a forensic/legal sense. A legal declaration means that God drops the charges against you, but it does not mean that the power of sin in one’s life has been broken. That must come from an internal spiritual change or transformation and it is clear that the word “justified” is being used in this sense.

So justification is not merely that God drops the charges against you, but it also means the interior sanctification/ renovation of the person - breaking the power of sin - and thus enabling the person to properly serve God.

I’m currently reading Wulfstan Mork’s Transformed by Grace: Scripture, Sacraments, and the Sonship of Christ. He makes the point that the redemptive act of Christ on the Cross is not the end, but the necessary condition for an end. And that end is that we be conformed into the image of Christ and be truly a son or daughter of God. This could not be accomplished without Christ first making reparation for our sins. Note the purpose clauses of the following verses:

**4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; **

In other words, Christ did not die on the Cross so that we did not have to work. Christ died so that we can work in the proper sense. Our works are an essential element in God’s plan of salvation. This does not mean that Christ died on the Cross and now it’s up to us to finish the salvific work he began on our own. On the contrary, Christ’s work continues in us when we bear fruit for the greater glory of God. We are united to Christ so that we can bear fruit for God, as it will be stated later in Romans.

Although Calvinists believe in Sola Fide, that justification is a one time forensic act, and that sanctification is not the meritorious cause of salvation, they say the following regarding sanctification and works:

Sanctification is both a privilege and a duty. In the one view it is the work of God, and in the other it is the work of man, assisted by supernatural grace. As a privilege, it is graciously promised in the gospel. - Ezek. xxxvi. 27. As a duty, it is required by the law; hence we are called to “make” to ourselves a “new heart,” and to “cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” - Ezek. xviii. 31; 2 Cor. vii. 1.

reformed.org/documents/shaw/index.html?mainframe=/documents/shaw/shaw_13.html

**In sanctification our own works are of vast importance and God bids us fight, and watch, and pray, and strive, and take pains, and labour **

As Romans 6 clearly demonstrates, works play an (name removed by moderator)ortant work in our sanctification, in our being conformed to the image of Christ:

19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.

And without sanctification, no one will see the Lord. Verse 22 even states that eternal life is the “outcome” or “end” of sanctification. However, if sanctification is an essential element of salvation and sanctification involves works, then clearly sanctification is not by faith alone.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Pax]

Well done Michael.

 

[D_M]

Hi,

After describing something of the new life we receive in Jesus, and how it related to the trespass that caused the sacrifice to be given, Paul then turns to addressing how we are no longer under sin in this new life and must refrain from sinning in ordre to keep it.

Firstly, he rhetorically asks an accusation which is sometimes levied against Christianity, ‘should we do evil, in order so that greater good should come?’ and Paul strikes it down by asserting that we who were once sinners have died with Christ Jesus in our baptism… what does this mean and why does this relate to Paul’s rhetorical question?

The key to how it relates to his first rhetorical question is in Paul’s counter rhetorical question ‘how can we who died to sin still live in it?’, in that he is rightly asserting that even though sin produces a greater good by way of abounding grace, no one is going to have that abounding grace if they are continuing in sin. That is to say in one sense, killing Jesus may have opened the way to heaven to all mankind, but unless we first repent of killing Him and stop sinning (so as to become ‘dead’ to it) we are not going to go there.

Dieing to sin, implies the grace we have received that, with our cooperation, has put to death our past lives of sin… it is likely that neither Paul nor anyone he was writing to here was baptized as an infant as many of us today would have been…

I love the language the Paul employs ‘becoming dead to sin’, ‘buried with Him’, ‘united with Him in death’, ‘crucified with Him’… I think it invokes an important meaning in not only how to understand our baptism, but also in how we understand His death. For when we are baptized we are not physically killed as Christ was, but in our baptism we are called dead just as He was dead, and in order to do so we perhaps then need to consider that Christ’s death here is not meant His physical demise merely, but He also ‘died to sin’, and achieved victory over it by His resurrection.

Dying to sin, here then means that conquest, overcoming or invulnerability to the dominion of sin, that Christ had on the cross and to which a person who remains in God’s grace shall also have with Him.

To this death of sin and victory over sin of His, we are ourselves joined in our new life, and should even consider ourselves in such a way as to be dead to sin and alive to God through Jesus.

Therefore, as Paul writes, we must not sin, or yield ourselves to sin… which we are now freed from by living in God’s grace, and which victory we cannot participate in if we do not persevere in grace.

When Paul writes, ‘we are not under law, but under grace’… he is referring to the jewish law, and does not mean the commandments of Christ which we are indeed under and obliged to follow in order to continue in grace.

He is also does not mean that there was no grace prior to Jesus’ incarnation, but he does mean that that those under the jewish law all likewise lived in the original mortal sin of the human race and while possessing some graces, there was no one who was not in a state of mortal sin, while a state of grace that we have come to with Jesus is distinct in that we have become freed from the state of sin.

His talk on slaves of sin and slaves of grace, exemplifies Christ’s teaching on the two masters. No one can be a slave of sin and a slave of grace, one can be either one or the other, but no one can be both. You cannot continue in grace if you will not cooperate with that grace by continuing to sin, and you cannot continue in sin if you repent of that sin and accept God’s grace. They are mutually exclusive.

as a final note, he talks about sin producing death, and that the wages of sin is death, which very much echoes certain old covenant themes about sin producing punishment and suffering, but which is now contrasted with something new in the free gift of life through Jesus’ death to all sin.

Verses of potential interest:

Slaves of sin:

Matthew 6:24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

John 8:34 Jesus answered them "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin.

Die to sin:

1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

Christ will never die again and death has no dominion over Him:

Revelations 1:18 and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades

He who has died is freed from sin:

1 Peter 4:1 Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same thought, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,

All who were baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death:

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

God Bless,

 

[SyCarl]

I agree with Pax, this is a cool chapter!

Notice how salvation took place you “died to sin,” which doesn’t fit with the Protestant imputation view.

This is an awsome quote, it is all about Baptism and its amazing transformation of our soul! How can you read this and call Baptism symbolic?
These comments fit nicely with Paul’s theme of our souls “dying to sin” and “rising to new life” which is a theme in all Paul’s writing (eg Phil 3:9-11).

What is very important here is verse 7 because the Greek word for “jusitfy” which Paul uses elsewhere (eg Rom 4) is used in verse 7. The term here appears as “absolved” but most translations say “freed from,” or more literally “justified from sin.” This is solid evidence that “justify” can mean (and in this case clearly does mean) “to make righteous.”

More of the same “dying to sin” and “rising to new life.”

Paul clearly is talking about sanctification here, yet he constantly uses the term “righteousness” which undermines the Protestant notion that “righteousness” of the last few chapters was an imputed one. And Paul is clearly not teaching OSAS here because he warns not to become slaves to sin again.

Unfortunately you still fail to accept that Protestants do recognize that there is an infusion of righteousness, just not perfect righteousness, and we view it as happening during regeneration. While you may not agree with dividing salvation into different parts, you cannot deny that infusion is recognized simply because we place it in regeneration rather than justification. In regeneration we are born again with the infusion of a new nature by which we are freed from the slavery of sin and given the desire and ability to pursue righteousness.

As this is not really the place for this discussion, I will be starting a new thread on it shortly.

 

[Odell]

Unfortunately you still fail to accept that Protestants do recognize that there is an infusion of righteousness, just not perfect righteousness, and we view it as happening during regeneration. While you may not agree with dividing salvation into different parts, you cannot deny that infusion is recognized simply because we place it in regeneration rather than justification. In regeneration we are born again with the infusion of a new nature by which we are freed from the slavery of sin and given the desire and ability to pursue righteousness.

As this is not really the place for this discussion, I will be starting a new thread on it shortly.

Thanks Sycarl

If you would link it here

And again thanks for joining the study I only wish we had more protestants to join in

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Sure. Justification means an ontological change in the person, not merely a forensic declaration. And I think this verse, as Catholic Dude pointed out, emphasizes this point:

7for he who has died is freed from sin.

The Greek word translated “freed” or “absolved” is dikaioo, and that means justified. Calvinst Brian Schwertly says the following regarding this verse:

Verse 7 is better translated: "For he who has died has been justified from sin." Stott writes: “True, there is some slight evidence from early Jewish literature that dikaioo could mean to ‘make free or pure’ (BAGD). But there is a perfectly good word in Greek for to ‘set free’, namely elevtheroo, which in fact Paul uses in verses 18 and 22, whereas dikaioo comes fifteen times in Romans, and twenty-five times in the New Testament, in all of which occurrences the natural meaning is to ‘justify.’”

reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/Definitive%20Sanctification%20and%20Romans%206.htm

The clear context of this verse inidcates that the word “justified” is being used in an ontological sense, not in a forensic/legal sense. A legal declaration means that God drops the charges against you, but it does not mean that the power of sin in one’s life has been broken. That must come from an internal spiritual change or transformation and it is clear that the word “justified” is being used in this sense.

So justification is not merely that God drops the charges against you, but it also means the interior sanctification/ renovation of the person - breaking the power of sin - and thus enabling the person to properly serve God.

I’m currently reading Wulfstan Mork’s Transformed by Grace: Scripture, Sacraments, and the Sonship of Christ. He makes the point that the redemptive act of Christ on the Cross is not the end, but the necessary condition for an end. And that end is that we be conformed into the image of Christ and be truly a son or daughter of God. This could not be accomplished without Christ first making reparation for our sins. Note the purpose clauses of the following verses:

4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

In other words, Christ did not die on the Cross so that we did not have to work. Christ died so that we can work in the proper sense. Our works are an essential element in God’s plan of salvation. This does not mean that Christ died on the Cross and now it’s up to us to finish the salvific work he began on our own. On the contrary, Christ’s work continues in us when we bear fruit for the greater glory of God. We are united to Christ so that we can bear fruit for God, as it will be stated later in Romans.

Although Calvinists believe in Sola Fide, that justification is a one time forensic act, and that sanctification is not the meritorious cause of salvation, they say the following regarding sanctification and works:

Sanctification is both a privilege and a duty. In the one view it is the work of God, and in the other it is the work of man, assisted by supernatural grace. As a privilege, it is graciously promised in the gospel. - Ezek. xxxvi. 27. As a duty, it is required by the law; hence we are called to “make” to ourselves a “new heart,” and to “cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” - Ezek. xviii. 31; 2 Cor. vii. 1.

reformed.org/documents/shaw/index.html?mainframe=/documents/shaw/shaw_13.html

**In sanctification our own works are of vast importance **and God bids us fight, and watch, and pray, and strive, and take pains, and labour

As Romans 6 clearly demonstrates, works play an (name removed by moderator)ortant work in our sanctification, in our being conformed to the image of Christ:

19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.

And without sanctification, no one will see the Lord. Verse 22 even states that eternal life is the “outcome” or “end” of sanctification. However, if sanctification is an essential element of salvation and sanctification involves works, then clearly sanctification is not by faith alone.

God Bless,
Michael

A huge to that!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Unfortunately you still fail to accept that Protestants do recognize that there is an infusion of righteousness, just not perfect righteousness, and we view it as happening during regeneration. While you may not agree with dividing salvation into different parts, you cannot deny that infusion is recognized simply because we place it in regeneration rather than justification. In regeneration we are born again with the infusion of a new nature by which we are freed from the slavery of sin and given the desire and ability to pursue righteousness.

As this is not really the place for this discussion, I will be starting a new thread on it shortly.

I don’t deny such a thing. All I point out every time you bring this up is that your claim obliterates the need for an imputed righteousness. If there is a stain in the carpet and it is removed to any degree (by infused grace of regeneration) then there is no need to cover the stain with a beautiful oriental rug (impute the perfect alien righteousness of Christ).

On top of that, it demolishes the Protestant claim insisting that God does not base his declaration of righteous on anything in us, but that would be false because regeneration would certainly be pleasing in His sight. Further, it would mean “faith reckoned as righteousness” means the regenerated act of faith itself is actually a righteous act.

This is PRECISELY why some groups of Lutherans say regeneration comes AFTER justification.

In the end the famous “simul iustus et peccator” (Luther’s phrase meaning “simultaneously just/righteous and sinner”) makes no sense and puts the sinner on the damnable road of salvation insecurity (something only Luther, not Paul, suffered from, by the way) which is Papism.

The infused grace of Catholicism, which comes at justification, is a 100% perfect righteousness because the ground/souce is the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit and thus it cannot be anything less.

 

[SyCarl]

The infused grace of Catholicism, which comes at justification, is a 100% perfect righteousness because the ground/souce is the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit and thus it cannot be anything less.

Do you deny that concupiscence remains? If so how is it perfect righteousness?

 

[Pax]

Perhaps the following discussion will help.

Credit for this goes to Ghosty on this forum.

Yetzer hara and yetzer tov:

Actually, the Catholic concept of Original Sin is almost identical with yetzer hara. In Catholicism, yetzer hara is called “concupiscence”, and in Thomistic tradition it is an integral part to humanity, part of our very being, and was in Adam and Eve as well as everyone else.

In the Aish article, what is being described is the Lutheran conception of Original Sin and concupiscence, which is considered heretical by the Catholic Church. In Thomistic tradition, concupiscence/yetzer hara is not something that was added by the Sin of Adam and Eve, but a natural trait of all living things; Paul the Apostle calls it “the flesh”. In both Judaism and Catholicism it’s properly understood as the “animal drive”. This is the drive to eat, sleep, be comfortable, sexually procreate, etc. Again, in both Judaism and Catholicism, these things are not evil in and of themselves, but they become evil when they overcome yetzer tov, or in Thomistic terminology the “rational part of the soul”.

When the yetzer hara/concupiscence overcomes yetzer tov/rational mind, the natural drives become the foundation for sin. If you’re familiar with the “Seven Deadly Sins”, it becomes easy to see this. Gluttony is the drive to eat, Lust is the sexual drive, Sloth is the desire to sleep or be comfortable, ect. We need concupiscence in order to function, but in a rightly ordered soul, concupiscence is subject to the higher power of the soul, the rationality or yetzer tov.

The main difference between Catholics and Jews is that Catholics believe that God gifted Adam and Eve with Grace, or what St. Thomas Aquinas calls Original Justice, which perfectly balanced yetzer tov and yetzer hara, ensuring that the animal drive was always subject to the rational, or Divine, drive. Adam and Eve rejected Original Justice through their Sin (the Original Sin), however, and yetzer hara became “unchecked”. This too is actually a part of Jewish tradition, and was written about quite extensively around the time before and after Jesus, seperate from the growing Christian tradition. Catholics believe that this Original Justice is restored through the Sacraments, and that we are responsible for maintaining it ourselves. Basically, the only real difference is that Catholics believe in Sacramental reality, or the “kisses of God” that aid humanity in re-balancing yetzer hara and yetzer tov, whereas Jews tend to believe that no Divine aid is given aside from the guidance of the Torah.

As a convert to Catholicism through Orthodox Judaism, the yetzer hara/yetzer tov connection to concupiscence/rationality is one of my favorite similarities. It’s made for wonderful discussions with my Jewish friends, because they are too often only exposed to the heretical Protestant notion of Original Sin, and they’re quite suprised to learn that Catholicism holds to a completely different understanding than that put forth by Martin Luther, namely that people are inherently evil due to the sin of Adam and Eve. What divides us so greatly from Protestantism is actually one of the things that unites us so strongly with Judaism.

For some traditional Catholic expositions on concupiscence and Original Sin, I recommend St. Thomas Aquinas. His language can be difficult for us in modern times to understand, but it’s well worth it, IMO. He perfectly describes the proper relationship between concupiscence/yetzer hara, and rationality/yetzer tov. Also worth checking out is the article on concupiscence at the Old Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Do you deny that concupiscence remains? If so how is it perfect righteousness?

Because concupiscence is not sin itself, it is merely the inclination to sin due to the fact our carnal appetites (eg eating, sex, etc) are no longer in perfect harmony with our spiritual appetites, with the former often dominating the latter. James 1:12 or something make it clear temptation is not sin, only giving into temptation is a sin. One actually GROWS in holiness when they suffer temptation and dont give in.

The Protestant understanding of “concupiscence” is very different and virtually heretical (Manichaeanism) because it suggests an evil substance existing and adhering in the soul

 

[SyCarl]

Because concupiscence is not sin itself, it is merely the inclination to sin due to the fact our carnal appetites (eg eating, sex, etc) are no longer in perfect harmony with our spiritual appetites, with the former often dominating the latter. James 1:12 or something make it clear temptation is not sin, only giving into temptation is a sin. One actually GROWS in holiness when they suffer temptation and dont give in.

The Protestant understanding of “concupiscence” is very different and virtually heretical (Manichaeanism) because it suggests an evil substance existing and adhering in the soul

I believe that Hebrews 10:1-2 tells us what perfection would require.

For the law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshippers,having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?

While this passage deals with the Old Testament sacrifices, it does indicate that if we are perfectly cleansed we would not be conscious of sins. Sins we still are conscious of them and still can sin, our righteousness cannot be perfect.

I would refer you to the quotes in my posts [POST=4283507]148[/POST] and [POST=4283517]149[/POST] of this thread.

 

[Pax]

This almost sounds defeatist. Scripture tells me that the belief in Christ gives us hope. The Father’s plan is to “conform us to the image of His Son”[Rom 8:29]. Ultimately, nothing unclean enters heaven[Rev 21:27], yet we see in heaven “the souls of just men made perfect” per Heb 12:23.

 

[SyCarl]

This almost sounds defeatist. Scripture tells me that the belief in Christ gives us hope. The Father’s plan is to “conform us to the image of His Son”[Rom 8:29]. Ultimately, nothing unclean enters heaven[Rev 21:27], yet we see in heaven “the souls of just men made perfect” per Heb 12:23.

We will become perfect at death and enter heaven. It is not defeatist. We know that if we persevere we will have eternal life in heaven. (I do not accept OSAS) Until then we must struggle against sin, knowing that when we slip we can confess that we are still sinners, we will be forgiven.

 

[Pax]

At just what point does the perfection come and precisely how does this take place. I assume that you do not accept the possibility of someone becoming holy to the extent that they are completely prepared for heaven prior to death, and I assume that you do not accept purgatory.

I make the assumptions only because you are not Catholic and I do not know exactly where you will land on this.

Thanks SyCarl…you are always thoughtful and operate in an obvious spirit of charity.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I believe that Hebrews 10:1-2 tells us what perfection would require.

While this passage deals with the Old Testament sacrifices, it does indicate that if we are perfectly cleansed we would not be conscious of sins. Sins we still are conscious of them and still can sin, our righteousness cannot be perfect.

I would refer you to the quotes in my posts [post=4283507]148[/post] and [post=4283517]149[/post] of this thread.

All that is talking with is the temporary nature of OT sacrifices in light of the Ultimate Sacrifice. Places like 1 Jn 1:9 say if we repent His Blood will “cleanse us of all unrighteousness,” which would be totally defeated if salvation occurred the way you propose.

The ability to sin is not synonymous with sin or unrighteousness, this is an issue which Protestants have a hard time grasping. Sure it can be said that the present defects hold us back, but that is not to say they are themselves sinful.

As for your post 148, the first part is talking about someone who doesn’t have time to do outward works (“who dies immediately after baptism”), not building a case for imputation. The second part is not talking about an alien righteousness imputed, but rather the pure gratuitousness of justification, which the grace at work in us is where the real credit is due and not strictly to ourselves (read the parts before those you highlight).

Your own quote later on even makes the distinction between concupiscience as an effect but not sin itself that remains. Concupiscience is not sin or unrighteousness but a defect, similar to how losing a limb is not evil but hinders your mobility.

As for your comments about the “completion of righteousness”, and “an inferior righteousness in this life” see Pax’s Heb 12:23 quote of “righteous men made perfect” (which would be impossible under the understanding you are imposing).

It is also worth noting that neither of the quotes you gave find a “solution” in the imputing of a perfect alien righteousness.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

We will become perfect at death and enter heaven. It is not defeatist. We know that if we persevere we will have eternal life in heaven. (I do not accept OSAS) Until then we must struggle against sin, knowing that when we slip we can confess that we are still sinners, we will be forgiven.

Yes, and only in that limited sense have we not reached perfection, because we are left on this earth to be more fully conformed to His Image. That is in no way saying we cannot be righteous in this life, on that there is temptation keeping us from reaching a more perfect degree (eg our present bodies versus our Resurrected and Glorified Bodies).

 

[SyCarl]

At just what point does the perfection come and precisely how does this take place. I assume that you do not accept the possibility of someone becoming holy to the extent that they are completely prepared for heaven prior to death, and I assume that you do not accept purgatory.

I make the assumptions only because you are not Catholic and I do not know exactly where you will land on this.

Thanks SyCarl…you are always thoughtful and operate in an obvious spirit of charity.

If purgatory is an instantaneous cleansing, as I have seen some Catholics suggest, and does not involve temporal punishment, I would have little problem with it.

 

[SyCarl]

It is also worth noting that neither of the quotes you gave find a “solution” in the imputing of a perfect alien righteousness.

But I think that they indicate that our righteousness in this life is not complete, particularly the one from Augustine. I believe language of imputation is not used because it really wasn’t thought of any significance at the time to make a distinction about it.

My purpose here is not to show that anyone is wrong. I want us to realize that we are closer to agreement than we think and that much is a matter of semantics.

I think that rather in the matter of infusion versus imputation, there is greater differences between at least some Protestants and Catholics as to whether faith precedes or follows regeneration.

 

[Pax]

If purgatory is an instantaneous cleansing, as I have seen some Catholics suggest, and does not involve temporal punishment, I would have little problem with it.

I fail to see why an instantaneous cleansing vs. one with duration would be a game breaker. Likewise, I see no reason why the purgation’s character(i.e. painless vs. one with discomfort) would be a game breaker. Our sanctification takes time and is often filled with difficulties as we proceed in our Christian walk. I see no reason why purgatory would necessarily have to be different since it is essentially our final sanctification.

 

[SyCarl]

I fail to see why an instantaneous cleansing vs. one with duration would be a game breaker. Likewise, I see no reason why the purgation’s character(i.e. painless vs. one with discomfort) would be a game breaker. Our sanctification takes time and is often filled with difficulties as we proceed in our Christian walk. I see no reason why purgatory would necessarily have to be different since it is essentially our final sanctification.

Because what we experience here is discipline to correct us, not punishment. When we are told that we are forgiven and that our sins will not be remembered, I believe that is truly the case. If there is temporal punishment then they have not been truly forgotten.

And thank you for the complement. I may not always agree with you but you are always reasonable and pleasant to discuss things with.