P
PRmerger
Guest
What would be an example of “divine corrective punishment”?
- Status
B
bksumm
Guest
Temporal punishment for our sins…and perhaps Purgatory. What do you think is Paul’s point in the aforementioned passages? Do you see this as a proof for Purgatory? I used to but I am not so sure anymore. Just looking for some answers.
C
Churchmouse
Guest
Actually, I think it is you who misunderstands. I tossed the same dilemma back on PRmerger, answered it the way he would, compared it to my position, to prove that the dilemma runs the gamut on both sides. Finally, I addressed human fallibilities and acknowledged that truth belongs to the unbiased seeker, via the Holy Spirit (from whence truth comes) through the only valid form of truth available, aka the Scriptures. Therefore, it is fallacious to ask “who demonstrated truth” but rather “what is the Holy Spirit saying?” If one wants to proceed than one must resolve the dilemma before asking the question. That’s the problem with many on this forum. They ask the question but fail to substantiate their position before asking the question.
CM
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ok. But I thought you said here that 1 Cor 3;13-15 was NOT about purgatory.
I listened a little to the debate. I am no Bible scholar but I have to say I might agree that 1 Cor 3:13-15 is talking about God’s judgement and not necessarily about Purgatory. It seems to me that St Paul is saying that everyone will be paid according to their works. If they build with good materials then their reward will be great. On the other hand the “saved through fire” seems to imply divine corrective punishment.
The NAB online commentary says: [15] "Will be saved: although Paul can envision very harsh divine punishment (cf 1 Cor 3:17), he appears optimistic about the success of divine corrective means both here and elsewhere (cf 1 Cor 5:5; 11:32 [discipline]). The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this."
My Navarre commentary states: “We cannot be sure St Paul is here referring to Purgatory; but it is quite in order to interpret ‘he will be saved but only as through fire’ in that sense, Catholic teaching on Purgatory is based.”
What do y’all think?
C
Churchmouse
Guest
Again, this is asked with the presumption that your position doesn’t hold the same dilemma you perceive in ours. If it’s a dilemma than you carry it as well. Therefore, rather than holding me to the dilemma (considering nothing I say will be satisfactory to you), realize that you have the same dilemma (again, the one you perceive) and tell us how you would resolve it.
CM
B
bksumm
Guest
Sorry…don’t mean to confuse…I am just saying I am not so sure. I can see that Paul is talking about judgement. For example Paul says in verse 13 “each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and fire will test what sort of work each one has done.” Now Paul is talking about “each man” not a subset of humanity that has venial sins on their souls. Sounds to me like judgement. What is your interpretation?
C
Churchmouse
Guest
Well, as you stated, that is your position. However, I don’t hold to your interpretation. Who’s right? You or me? Or would you appeal to a fallible decision on your part to accept the interpretations given by your church to claim infallibility?
I would say that God used those HE authorized (Peter, Paul, James, etc.) and led them to make HIS decisions on the matter. However, this doesn’t mean that there would be others with the same authorization, but rather, what was authorized is now inscripturated. The church upholding these truths. There is no reason for me to take their actions any further than what is now written.
CM
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I don’t see why the passage couldn’t entail both judgment and purification. Purgatory would be included in the purification of the Christian which Paul describes in 1 Cor 3. The part that suggests it also occurs after death is when the passsage states “the Day” will reveal the person’s works. I find a much better apologetic to Purgatory is from the simple testament of Scripture and Tradition that 1) even Christians still have imperfections and still have the tendency for sin; 2) you must be without any blemish or imperfection in heaven; 3) therefore you necessarily must be transformed into perfection after you die but before you go into heaven. I later found out this was the gist of C.S. Lewis’ rationale for believing a Purgatory must exist.
It’s really very simple and I’ve found many Protestants to acknowledge all these points, which are pretty easy to demonstrate.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I did hear that call in the debate. Salza brought up other examples of the Greek word for “suffer loss” as I recall. White did address that briefly in the opening, but Salza listed more passages than White did, and White didn’t keep him on the line long. White also proceeded to give the impression that this word by and large does not in the NT have anything to do with punishment, making the allusion that 1 Cor 3 must therefore follow the majority. However, White did not demonstrate that “not punishment” was the most common meaning of the word in the NT. And when he translated the word in 1 Cor 3:15, zhmiwyhsetai, he admitted you had to look at the context to determine if it meant “suffer loss but not punishment” (which is a logical fallacy based on what he gave as his definition for suffer loss) or “punishment.” He did not demonstrate that the passage excluded punishment of any kind as you can see from this thread, not to mention the host of ECFs listed herein.
M
Michael96
Guest
I have just listened to this debate.
On first listening I was rather disappointed. I found James White was trying to say more words per minute than my brain could keep up with. Less would have been more, I think - I’m not sure how many people could follow the speed he was going at. Having said that I think he was covering some important points so will go back and listen again (shame the iPod can only speed up podcasts rather than slow them down!).
I found Tim Stables arguments rather superficial, and I found they really didn’t tackle how and why the teaching of the Church has developed and changed over time (he seemed to want to brush that under the carpet but there is no doubt that the teaching from JP-II and B-16 is very different to the teaching of past Popes). He also tends to give short quotes without ever really giving us much context and so I am never sure how much I can trust Tim’s referencing. (I am always impressed with White that he’ll always ensure the context is clear - even when quoting his opponents he’ll make sure that he’s addressing their thoughts in full context).
Still, I’d love for Catholic Answers to engage more with people like James White - he’s a tough opponent who sometimes comes across as rather over-aggressive (but I’m English and we tend to debate things in a different manner in England), but I think he’s honest, smart, knowledgeable and always well-prepared.
After the debate, as a Catholic, I think I’m now having more trouble accepting that we need to be punished in purgatory and I’m much less convinced that 1 Cor 3:13-15 supports purgatory in the traditional sense of a punishment for remaining sin. However I do accept that when we see ourselves as we really are, next to our Lord, then there may well be some “pain” in that full insight.
But I will listen again and try to ensure I understand everything both were saying.
P.S. I just found my iPhone can slow down a podcast - perfect for Dr White’s opening statement!
My brain should be able to keep up with him at half speed (-:
On first listening I was rather disappointed. I found James White was trying to say more words per minute than my brain could keep up with. Less would have been more, I think - I’m not sure how many people could follow the speed he was going at. Having said that I think he was covering some important points so will go back and listen again (shame the iPod can only speed up podcasts rather than slow them down!).
I found Tim Stables arguments rather superficial, and I found they really didn’t tackle how and why the teaching of the Church has developed and changed over time (he seemed to want to brush that under the carpet but there is no doubt that the teaching from JP-II and B-16 is very different to the teaching of past Popes). He also tends to give short quotes without ever really giving us much context and so I am never sure how much I can trust Tim’s referencing. (I am always impressed with White that he’ll always ensure the context is clear - even when quoting his opponents he’ll make sure that he’s addressing their thoughts in full context).
Still, I’d love for Catholic Answers to engage more with people like James White - he’s a tough opponent who sometimes comes across as rather over-aggressive (but I’m English and we tend to debate things in a different manner in England), but I think he’s honest, smart, knowledgeable and always well-prepared.
After the debate, as a Catholic, I think I’m now having more trouble accepting that we need to be punished in purgatory and I’m much less convinced that 1 Cor 3:13-15 supports purgatory in the traditional sense of a punishment for remaining sin. However I do accept that when we see ourselves as we really are, next to our Lord, then there may well be some “pain” in that full insight.
But I will listen again and try to ensure I understand everything both were saying.
P.S. I just found my iPhone can slow down a podcast - perfect for Dr White’s opening statement!
My brain should be able to keep up with him at half speed (-:
A
Apologist78
Guest
It has been a while since I heard the debate, and I specifically remember the Bike Shop analogy. Yes, Madrid had the upper hand there. Overall however, I think White performed better, and had the stronger arguments.
A
Apologist78
Guest
I am not sure if this will help you.
- The teaching of Purgatory developed from the fact that the Church prays for here dead. The Church has always prayed for her dead, but it was not until later that the Church clarified and explicitly formulated the doctrine of Purgatory. It is clear from the evidence in the early Church that the Church believed in a Purgatorial state, though the Church did not clarify this doctrine until later on. Belief preceeds dogma.
- The reason Protestants have such difficulty with Purgatory is not necessarily becasue the Bible doesn’t teach it, but rather it is inconsistent with “The Gospel.” By “The Gospel” I mean “Justification by Faith Alone.” Everything in the Bible for the Protestant is subjugated to the principle that man is justified by Faith Alone. Becasue of Justification by Faith Alone, the Protestant has no concept of the Church participating in the sufferings of Christ, uniting our suffering with that of Christ and making atonement for sin.
- So why is there punishment? In the end our choices mean things. God holds us accountable for our choices. Christ underwent punishment for our sins, Purgatory is an extension of that punishement which the Church participates in through the souls in Purgatory. Those who are in Purgatory are participating in the punishment Christ underwent for sin, and through that suffering are being made pure.
I don’t know if this helps, but give it a read and see what you think.
M
Michael96
Guest
Thankyou A78.
I have no problem praying for the dead as I do think think praying for each other is important and people who have sinned may even be given new life through our intercession (1 Jon 5:16). I don’t see Christianity as an individual pursuit.To be honest I’m not sure what affect our prayers for the dead have, but if there is a chance they may help someone by whatever means, then I am happy to pray. I perhaps lean a little more to the Orthodox Church position here that does not try to analyze and define how they help, but simply speculates that there may be an opportunity between death and the final judgement for forgiveness of sins. This is perhaps were I depart from formal Catholic doctrine and the systematic theology of Dr White - I find both seem to have a tendency of wanting to be more precise than is really possible.
(I admit that I often find myself in a certain no-man’s land between Catholic and Protestant Christianity, feeling rather torn between the two).
I have no problem praying for the dead as I do think think praying for each other is important and people who have sinned may even be given new life through our intercession (1 Jon 5:16). I don’t see Christianity as an individual pursuit.To be honest I’m not sure what affect our prayers for the dead have, but if there is a chance they may help someone by whatever means, then I am happy to pray. I perhaps lean a little more to the Orthodox Church position here that does not try to analyze and define how they help, but simply speculates that there may be an opportunity between death and the final judgement for forgiveness of sins. This is perhaps were I depart from formal Catholic doctrine and the systematic theology of Dr White - I find both seem to have a tendency of wanting to be more precise than is really possible.
But this caused me much more trouble; that sounds like our Lord can not save us by himself, no matter how much we may repent and place ourselves at his mercy, and that we need to be saved, in part, through our own suffering. Could you talk a little bit more about that as my initial reaction is to want to grab hold of Sola Fide and Sola Gratia.
(I admit that I often find myself in a certain no-man’s land between Catholic and Protestant Christianity, feeling rather torn between the two).
D
dnar
Guest
After listening to the debate, I will say that Tim Staples did a good job. James White has no authority whatsoever to even interpret Scripture. No one left him in charge. I think I will stick to the Rock that Jesus built the Church on and his successors.
M
Michael96
Guest
But surely we have to be able to engage with people like James White rather than dismissing his thoughts on the basis that he has no authority? He does not appeal to his own authority, but rather the authority of scripture which would all accept, wouldn’t we (Sacred Tradition cannot override Sacred Scripture)?
R
Redrum
Guest
I can help you out on this one Michael96. The answer is no, not all would accept the authority of scripture.
The final and real authority for the Rome is with the church. What does scripture teach? Well, only the church can tell us. What is tradition and what does it teach? Woops, only the church can tell us.
Okay, I’m sure the replys are coming now, enjoy!
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
White’s arguments in the debate are specifically discussed in this thread if you would like to know additional ways to refute his interpretation.
D
dnar
Guest
Of course we accept the authority of Scripture. My point is this, Jesus left us with a Church to teach us what the Scripture meant…if everyone could interpret the Scripture for themselves, we would have a dividing faction of believers on every street corner…oh wait we do…they are called protestants all believing the Holy Spirit is guiding them, while fighting with every other church down the street.
James White and Tim Staples are both using the Scriptures. You have to decide which one knows what he is talking about. The one whose Church was founded on the Rock, upon the gates of hell would not prevail against, or the one who came from John Calvin and everybody stood against…
R
Redrum
Guest
It sounds nice to say that you accept the authority of scripture and tradition, but get it right. For Rome, the only real authority is the Church (which also has dividing factions and disagreements within itself). The comment about ALL Protestants is false and you know that.
We obviously would disagree on your second paragraph as well, but I only aim to correct you on your first sentence on your own doctrine, or rather your definition of authority may be what’s in question here.
V
Vincent
Guest
Just to clarify,
“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
“Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”
Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 85-87
- Status