Staples White debate on Purgatory

[po18guy]

I agree with you. There is an objective truth, and all truth is God’s truth. Does one have an exhaustive knowledge here on Earth?

My only point is to make sure when we say 40,000 different denominations we are applying the same standard to the CC. For instance what would you say if I questioned the RCC and Eastern Orthodox? How can these two both be right?

I’m guessing you would say that you both beleive in the essentials (I could be wrong here).

The Catholic and Orthodox are so close that it hurts. Main points of contention:

1. The Authority of the Bishop of Rome over the universal Church, and:
2. The Filioque (“and the Son”). Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the father through the son, in disageeement with the Catholic Nicene creed (“from the Father and the Son…”).

As a Catholic, I believe the original and ancient practice of the Church favors the primacy of the See of Peter. As well, since the concept of the Trinity is that of three Divine Persons in one God, clearly the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son. See John 20:22. Now, the Orthodox will dispute this, but they were officially separated from the Catholic Church over 1,000 years after the birth of the Church. That is not in dispute. We must all pray for unity.

 

[Vincent]

Monte, please read through the thread before commenting. As for your Scriptural prooftexts, haven’t these been dealt with at some time or another? There is nothing that you posted that we don’t already know or that has been refuted in the past. For example, the rich man and Lazarus weren’t in purgatory. Evidently, Lazarus is being “comforted” (vs.25) and the rich man is tormented (vs.23) in the hell of the damned. If you had any familiarity with the Jewish concept of Sheol, you would know this. Even Catholic sources claim that Lazarus is in limbus patrum (the limbo of the fathers/Abraham’s Bosom) and the rich man is in the hell of the damned. No offense, but let’s not get tedious and repetitive.

The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man seems to come up often in these discussions, and certainly it is too simplistic to offer it as a proof for Purgatory.

The parable does provide sufficient evidence of the Jewish notion of an intermediate state, and that’s significant. The notion was inherited by the Church and, with the development of Christology and interaction with the idea of penance and purification, the intermediate state gradually developed in the West into the doctrine of Purgatory. The East likewise inherited the notion of the intermediate state, but the development did not include the punitive aspect of purification that was found in the West.

Today the notion of the intermediate state has reached a thoroughly Christological expression. Take Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s thought, for example: Purgatory is in some sense “in” and “with” Christ. Jesus himself is the “bosom” of the Father (cf. Abraham’s bosom). To be with Jesus is to be with him in the Paradise that Christ promised to the good thief. Bringing in an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, Christ himself is the fire that reveals and tests, the fire “as through” which men are saved.

If anything, the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man show the importance of the immediate state in Judaism and early Christianity, an importance that endures in both Catholic and Orthodox Churches. So it raises the question – what happened to the intermediate state in Evangelical/Protestant Christianity? Does it still survive, at least Christologically?

 

[Byzman]

2 Maccabees 12:43-45 Praying for the dead

He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

1 Corinthians 15:29 Baptism for the dead(offering their sufferings for the dead)

Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

2 Timothy 1:16-18 St. Paul praying for the dead

May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiph’orus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains,
but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me –
may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day – and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

Daniel 12:10 Purification

Many shall purify themselves, and make themselves white, and be refined; but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand; but those who are wise shall understand.

Wisdom 3:5-6 Purification

Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good,
because God tested them and found them worthy of himself;
like gold in the furnace he tried them, and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them.

Sirach 2:3-5 Purification

Cleave to him and do not depart,
that you may be honored at the end of your life. Accept whatever is brought upon you,
and in changes that humble you be patient. For gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation.

Zechariah 13:8-9 Those who will be saved will be purged beforehand

In the whole land, says the LORD, two thirds shall be cut off and perish,
and one third shall be left alive. And I will put this third into the fire, and refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested. They will call on my name, and I will answer them. I will say, They are my people'; and they will say, The LORD is my God.’"

Baruch 3:4 Praying after death for mercy

O Lord Almighty, God of Israel, hear now the prayer of the dead of Israel and of the sons of those who sinned before thee, who did not heed the voice of the Lord their God, so that calamities have clung to us.

 

[cfrancis]

Yet, what did the councils used to formulate these creeds? And that is where we come back to** Scripture and Scripture alone**… it was Scripture and Scripture alone by which the formulas used to define the nature of God were derived.
… Again, the formula is derived FROM Scripture of which purgatory isn’t comparable.
…**it was Scripture alone **that was used to define the formula. CM

These are your statements re: the formulation of the Trinity in which you and I believe. Looking at the excerpt I provided, it is clear that your assertion that it was Scripture alone that was used to defeat the Arians and formulate this doctrine is unfounded. Your reply in #485 reveals you are seeing what you wish to see, not what is there and obvious.

Before I begin, 2 things:

1. you have rightly corrected me in that it was Eusebius’ followers who appealed to The Shepherd.
2. We both agree that Scripture was used in the councils

"The bishops convened in council being desirous of refuting the impious assertions invented by the Arians, that the Son was created out of that which was non-existent1 09, that He is a creature and created being 110 , that there was a period in which He was not111 , and that He is mutable by nature, and being all agreed in propounding the following declarations, which are in accordance with the holy Scriptures; namely, that the Son is by nature only-begotten of God, Word, Power, and sole Wisdom of the Father; that He is, as John said, the true God 112 ,' and, as Paul has written, the brightness of the glory, and the express image of the person of the Father 113 ,’ the followers of Eusebius, drawn aside by their own vile doctrine, then began to say one to another, Let us agree, for we are also of God; There is but one God, by whom are all things 114 ; Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new, and all things are of God’ 115 .’ They also dwelt particularly upon what is contained in The Shepherd 116 :' Believe above all that there is one God, who created and fashioned all things, and making them to be out of that which is not.’

"But the bishops saw through their evil design and impious artifice, and gave a clearer elucidation of the words `of God,’ and wrote, that the Son is of the substance of God; in order that while the creatures, which do not in any way derive their existence of or from themselves, are said to be of God, the Son alone is said to be of the substance of the Father; this being peculiar to the only-begotten Son, the true Word of the Father. This is the reason why the bishops wrote, that He is of the substance of the Father.

If Scripture alone was the deciding factor, the lone rule used, there was no need for the Bishops to write anything other than that which is contained in Scripture. Further, if Scripture alone was thought to be all that was needed, the Bishops would not think that what they wrote would even be considered authoritative. Why would anyone, reading the proceedings of Nicea, pay any attention to what the Bishops wrote if all the reader had to do was see what Scripture said? These Bishops knew that what they wrote - yes, based on Scripture, but not Scripture alone - was not Scripture but would carry authority.

“Such was the corrupt opinion of the Arians; but on this the bishops, having detected their deceitfulness in this matter, **collected from Scripture those passages **which say of Christ that He is the glory, the fountain, the stream, and the express image of the person; and they quoted the following words: In thy light we shall see light124 ;' and likewise, I and the Father are one125 .’ **They then, with still greater clearness, briefly declared that the Son is of one substance with the Father; for this, indeed, is the signification of the passages which have been quoted. The complaint of the Arians, that these precise words are not to be found in Scripture, is proved groundless by their own practice, for their own impious assertions are not taken from Scripture; **for it is not written that the Son is of the non-existent, and that there was a time when He was not: and yet they complain of having been condemned by expressions which, though not actually in Scripture, are in accordance with true religion. They themselves, on the other hand, as though they had found their words on a dunghill, uttered things verily of earth. **The bishops, on the contrary, did not find their expressions for themselves; but, received their testimony from the fathers, and wrote accordingly. Indeed, there were bishops of old time, nearly one hundred and thirty years ago, both of the great city of Rome and of our own city126 , who condemned those who asserted that the Son is a creature, and that He is not of one substance with the Father. **Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, was acquainted with these facts; he, at one time, favoured the Arian heresy, but he afterwards signed the confession of faith of the Council of Nicaea. He wrote to the people of his diocese, maintaining that the word consubstantial' was used by illustrious bishops and learned writers as a term for expressing the divinity of the Father and of the Son127 .’”

Again, we both agree Scripture was used, but the writing clearly reveals it was not Scripture alone, else the council would not need:

• Tradition (writings from “their fathers”, bishops’ refutes from 130 yrs ago, including the Bishops of Rome and Nicea)
• Their own formulation based on all the above ("with still greater clearness, briefly declared…, words which the Arians complained were not in Scripture)

Hopefully you will admit what is plainly written in the above account, and that it was not Scripture alone that was used.

 

[Byzman]

These are your statements re: the formulation of the Trinity in which you and I believe. Looking at the excerpt I provided, it is clear that your assertion that it was Scripture alone that was used to defeat the Arians and formulate this doctrine is unfounded. Your reply in #485 reveals you are seeing what you wish to see, not what is there and obvious.

Before I begin, 2 things:

1. you have rightly corrected me in that it was Eusebius’ followers who appealed to The Shepherd.
2. We both agree that Scripture was used in the councils

If Scripture alone was the deciding factor, the lone rule used, there was no need for the Bishops to write anything other than that which is contained in Scripture. Further, if Scripture alone was thought to be all that was needed, the Bishops would not think that what they wrote would even be considered authoritative. Why would anyone, reading the proceedings of Nicea, pay any attention to what the Bishops wrote if all the reader had to do was see what Scripture said? These Bishops knew that what they wrote - yes, based on Scripture, but not Scripture alone - was not Scripture but would carry authority.

Again, we both agree Scripture was used, but the writing clearly reveals it was not Scripture alone, else the council would not need:

• Tradition (writings from “their fathers”, bishops’ refutes from 130 yrs ago, including the Bishops of Rome and Nicea)
• Their own formulation based on all the above ("with still greater clearness, briefly declared…, words which the Arians complained were not in Scripture)

Hopefully you will admit what is plainly written in the above account, and that it was not Scripture alone that was used.

I do not know why Churchmouse is trying to claim that the Fathers at this Council used only Scripture. I do not know what he is trying to prove, given the fact that these men were Catholic and clearly believed in the Tradition of the previous Fathers.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Zechariah 13:8-9 Those who will be saved will be purged beforehandIn the whole land, says the LORD, two thirds shall be cut off and perish, and one third shall be left alive. And I will put this third into the fire, and refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested. They will call on my name, and I will answer them. I will say, They are my people'; and they will say, The LORD is my God.’"

This passage (which I mentioned earlier ) I think especially shows the purifying nature of 1 Cor 3 which uses near identical language. It is the metaphor White never confronts, the 800-lb gorilla in 1 Cor 3 he didn’t see.

 

[Byzman]

This passage (which I mentioned earlier ) I think especially shows the purifying nature of 1 Cor 3 which uses near identical language. It is the metaphor White never confronts, the 800-lb gorilla in 1 Cor 3 he didn’t see.

Not confronted because it is about purification…sounds too Catholic!

 

[Monte1945]

Monte, please read through the thread before commenting. As for your Scriptural prooftexts, haven’t these been dealt with at some time or another? There is nothing that you posted that we don’t already know or that has been refuted in the past. For example, the rich man and Lazarus weren’t in purgatory. Evidently, Lazarus is being “comforted” (vs.25) and the rich man is tormented (vs.23) in the hell of the damned. If you had any familiarity with the Jewish concept of Sheol, you would know this. Even Catholic sources claim that Lazarus is in limbus patrum (the limbo of the fathers/Abraham’s Bosom) and the rich man is in the hell of the damned. No offense, but let’s not get tedious and repetitive.
CM

I am not saying he was in purgatory… I am saying that Jesus mentions “three” places the souls are at… not just two…re-read the scriptures and notice the “third” place.
and comment on that point…

It doesn’t matter how many times the same scripture is mentioned… you need to address it as it indicates… that Jesus brings in more than just two places: Heaven and Hell…

Where is that third place?

 

[Monte1945]

I don’t believe in “venial” sins. I just believe in sin. CM

And can there be Consequence of that sin you believe in?

Or are your all your sins forgiven now?

 

[cfrancis]

CM,
This excursion into the formulation of the Trinitarian doctrine - one you and I use and believe in - by the councils is meant to reveal that you impose on this discussion of purgatory a restriction the Church fathers did not use or impose: Scripture alone. The issue isn’t whether or not Scripture was used, but whether or not it was the lone, the only norm used.

The piece I presented earlier clearly shows this. I doubt you will find an account of these councils - Nicea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon - that states, “The heretics brought forth Scriptures in support of their doctrine and the defenders of the true faith presented Scriptures in defense of the true faith; and the decision was made to believe the Scripture citations of the defenders of the true faith.”

From this work, Ch VIII:

`"According as we received from the bishops who preceded us, both in our instruction [in the knowledge of the truth], and when we were baptized; as also we have ourselves learned from the sacred Scriptures: and in accordance with what we have both believed and taught while discharging the duties of presbyter and the episcopal office itself, so now we believe and present to you the distinct avowal of our faith. It is this: [creed follows]

Again, we have Scripture ***and ***the tradition passed down being used against the Arians.

 

[po18guy]

I don’t believe in “venial” sins. I just believe in sin.

CM

John, the beloved Apostle, taught us that God makes a distinction between sins. The Church teaches and I believe that we must make distinction as well:

1** John 5:16 (King James Version)**

“If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.”

 

[PRmerger]

Have you checked that link? It brings me to a page that is entirely based on the WCE.

Red, I have never read the WCE–don’t have it on my bookshelves, didn’t get it at the library. I have never cited it. I spent 4 years at an all-girls Catholic high school, and 4 years at a Catholic women’s college, so I think I know how to give credit to my references.

In fact, if you do a word search on this thread for “encyclopedia” and PRmerger, the only thing that comes up is in an email from Gordon Conwell–it is their reference, not mine.

Incidentally, when I did that search I did find continual references by* you* to the encyclopedia. It seems like it was an attempt to bait me, but I managed not to bite!

[SIGN]In fact, when you specifically asked me if it was your source I responded that it was not. [/SIGN].

Originally Posted by Redrum
I would like to address this 40,000 thing again because I finally clicked on your link. I looks like your reference is “World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions in the modern world”.

I now ask a simple question, is this your source?

My source is this here:

[SIGN1]Your Total “Christian Denominations” Count for today is 41390
Please pray for Christian unity (John 17; Eph 4:5; Matt 16:18)[/SIGN1]

You are like a politician that gets caught when he doesn’t tell the truth. “Well I’ve been saying 40,000, but uh… hey look over here! If it’s 5,000 that’s still too many!”

I believe it’s 40,000, and have a source to back me up. My own personal opinion (without sources but based on math and logic) is that it’s way over 40,000.

However, if you want to tell me the number of Christian denominations that’s accept able to you I’d be happy to entertain it. Does Svensen give a number? I only saw a critique of original statistic, but he offered no answer to the question, “How many Christian denominations are there?”

 

[PRmerger]

PR, did you read the links I provided earlier. Catholics have a dilemma when they impose this argument (which varies with each Catholic that uses it). Catholics who use it expose themselves to the same criterions used to derive these huge numbers. To see what I mean, read Eric Svendsens articles here: ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm and here: ntrmin.org/30000denominationsrevisited.htm

CM

I did read the article.

Again, I did not see his answer the question: what’s the actual number of Christian denominations, if it’s not more than 40,000?

If you have the answer, I’d be happy to entertain. And what is your source and what methods did he use to achieve this number?

Bye ya’ll for now! Off to a RCIA retreat with DH and fellow parishioners to help some folks discern whether the CC carries the fullness of truth! Pray for them!

 

[Redrum]

Red, I have never read the WCE–don’t have it on my bookshelves, didn’t get it at the library. I have never cited it. I spent 4 years at an all-girls Catholic high school, and 4 years at a Catholic women’s college, so I think I know how to give credit to my references.

In fact, if you do a word search on this thread for “encyclopedia” and PRmerger, the only thing that comes up is in an email from Gordon Conwell–it is their reference, not mine.

Incidentally, when I did that search I did find continual references by* you* to the encyclopedia. It seems like it was an attempt to bait me, but I managed not to bite!

[SIGN]In fact, when you specifically asked me if it was your source I responded that it was not. [/SIGN].

I believe it’s 40,000, and have a source to back me up. My own personal opinion (without sources but based on math and logic) is that it’s way over 40,000.

However, if you want to tell me the number of Christian denominations that’s accept able to you I’d be happy to entertain it. Does Svensen give a number? I only saw a critique of original statistic, but he offered no answer to the question, “How many Christian denominations are there?”

PR, I want you to read what I am about to type very slowly. ** BOTH your link and the email you have referenced are based on the WCE.** Period! You don’t have to do a search, you only have to click on YOUR link that YOU use. I mean this is hilarious! I am now amazed that you are still in denial over this. You really should be a politician.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I have a very simple question. I’ve been listening to* Catholic Answers live* off and on since the purgatory debate. Have they mentioned the debate? I haven’t heard them say anything about it, but perhaps I missed it when they mentioned it.

If Mr. Staples did so well, why don’t they alert their listeners to the debate? When Staples debated Protestant Steve Gregg, they mentioned it a lot, but then again, Mr. Gregg didn’t do very well.

Perhaps they aren’t mentioning it or promoting it because it didn’t turn out like they had hoped?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I have a very simple question. I’ve been listening to* Catholic Answers live* off and on since the purgatory debate. Have they mentioned the debate? I haven’t heard them say anything about it, but perhaps I missed it when they mentioned it.

James, I’ve not heard it mentioned but I’ve only heard a couple Q&A episodes since the debate. And the rest of your post is trademark aomin polemics so I’ll file it accordingly.

I thought James White thought he heard someone mention it. During White’s Mon. Feb. 1 “post mortem” he seemed to mention some caller that for whatever reason he thought was me that called the show after the debate? I got the impression that he thought the caller mentioned the debate? Either that or Mr. White was trying to suggest I was a robotic CAL groupie since that fit the fictional caricature he painted of me. Anyway, I’d ask him if he heard anything.

 

[Churchmouse]

I did read the article.

Again, I did not see his answer the question: what’s the actual number of Christian denominations, if it’s not more than 40,000?

If you have the answer, I’d be happy to entertain. And what is your source and what methods did he use to achieve this number?

Bye ya’ll for now! Off to a RCIA retreat with DH and fellow parishioners to help some folks discern whether the CC carries the fullness of truth! Pray for them!

Wow, PR! You’re going to have to read it again because Eric uses numbers demanded by the Barrett’s research. Some Catholics were honest enough to admit that the numbers are overblown and, if the same criterions are used, it divides Catholicism as well. Again, read it again.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

John, the beloved Apostle, taught us that God makes a distinction between sins. The Church teaches and I believe that we must make distinction as well:

1** John 5:16 (King James Version)**

“If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.”

This is a matter of interpretation. There is a sin (singular) that leads to death and we shouldn’t pray about it. It sounds to me like the only sin there is no forgiveness for, namely blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I’ve also heard some who muse that this refers to one who is sins are so uncontrolled that God may take one’s life.

Yet, as you can see, the verse doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it does. Why should I believe your interpretation of the verse and do you have anything else to substantiate it?

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

CM,
This excursion into the formulation of the Trinitarian doctrine - one you and I use and believe in - by the councils is meant to reveal that you impose on this discussion of purgatory a restriction the Church fathers did not use or impose: Scripture alone. The issue isn’t whether or not Scripture was used, but whether or not it was the lone, the only norm used.

Well, you continue to assert it, but you haven’t been able to prove it. No one denies that traditions are valid, as I stated already, however, what is assumed to be “Tradition” is usually found to be nothing but Scripture itself. And when the Catholic is asked to provide evidence of extra-biblical tradition, they seem to always turn the table and ask for evidence that it is Scripture alone. Well, we both agree that Scripture was used, I continue to see that Scripture seems to be the only authority used, so I will ask you again, please substantiate your claim by detailing what past bishops passed on to these bishops. Otherwise, it seems that it is only Scripture, in the past and during the Nicene council.

The piece I presented earlier clearly shows this. I doubt you will find an account of these councils - Nicea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon - that states, “The heretics brought forth Scriptures in support of their doctrine and the defenders of the true faith presented Scriptures in defense of the true faith; and the decision was made to believe the Scripture citations of the defenders of the true faith.”

This is the same thing I mentioned above, but using different words. Okay, here goes, we both agree that Scripture was used, but I see that Scripture alone was used. I don’t need a sentence, such as you dictated above, to SEE that Scripture alone was used. Therefore, the dilemma is yours to prove the use of extra-biblical traditions being used to substantiate Scripture. Please, don’t try to pass it off on me. To do so would mean you cannot produce the evidence you assume.

From this work, Ch VIII:

Again, we have Scripture ***and ***the tradition passed down being used against the Arians.

Methinks you are reading too much into this passage. WHERE is the “tradition” that substantiated what Scripture teaches about the Trinity? If you cannot produce it then it is simply assumption on your part. The “instruction” in the passage could be nothing more than what was produced through the Scriptures themselves. “…as we have ourselves learned from the sacred Scriptures” sounds remarkably like an acknowledgement that the bishops who preceded them also found them via Scripture. Again, there is much assumption on your part, but you surely aren’t producing any tangible evidence that earlier bishops had some form of extra-biblical revelation to substantiate the Trinity. The onus is on you. If you cannot produce, then I rest my case.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

And can there be Consequence of that sin you believe in?

Yes, the wages of sin is death…

Or are your all your sins forgiven now?

…but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23).

CM