Staples White debate on Purgatory

[MarcoPolo]

It’s not a matter of disagreement. Lewis had his own reasons for believing in purgatory and his basis was logic. What I’m asking for is Lewis using Scripture to support his logic. Any sources?

I don’t know specifically where in Scripture Lewis drew this particular thought. I do think his thought process can be applied to Scripture with the same conclusion. I would say it is likely he drew much of his thoughts on sin and heaven from Scripture considering other ideas on theology he drew from Scripture. I recommend Protestant Michael J. Christensen’s book C.S. Lewis on Scripture for a treatment of how Lewis drew theology from Scripture.

1. There will be no stain or blemish when we are glorified.
2. There will be no stain or blemish when we are glorified.
3. This assumes that imperfections must be removed in the afterlife. That would be human reasoning.

Not exactly. We are told in Scripture many times that even genuine Christians still sin while on earth. Would you say you have attained perfectness? No stain or blemish?

If you believe we are stained here on earth and not in heaven, then you too recognize a transition where the former flaws are done away with… Do we agree that far?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Yes ! Also a consistent theme from the OT.

Ref: Malachi 4:1-2 “For behold, the day comes BURNING LIKE AN OVEN, when all the ARROGANT AND ALL EVILDOERS will be STUBBLE; the day that comes SHALL BURN THEM UP, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither ROOT NOR BRANCH. But, for you who fear my name the SUN of righteousness SHALL RISE, with HEALING in its wings.”

Isaiah 47:14 "Behold, they are like STUBBLE, the FIRE CONSUMES THEM; they cannot deliver themselves from the POWER OF THE FLAME. NO COAL FOR WARMING ONESELF IS THIS, NO FIRE TO SIT BEFORE! "

Purgatory … clearly taught in the above OT verses, for those that have ‘other than’ stubble.

Staples did discuss in the debate the pattern of fire in Scripture as either consuming or purifying.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Sure! The “gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw” are the works we perform to build God’s building, and are not to be taken as the people being built. If the “wood, hay, and straw” are “burned up” by God’s fire, which is surely Paul’s intended meaning, and these objects are the people we’ve ministered to, then this scenario would be demonstrating that we have destroyed God’s temple through our ministry and deserve to be destroyed ourselves. And this is exactly what Paul teaches in verses 16 and 17. But in verses 10-15, the person whose work is destroyed is saved. And this is how we know that the “gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw” must be “how we build” and not “who we build” (cf. v. 10). Our reward in heaven is not dependent upon whether the people we minister to respond to God’s grace, but only upon whether and how we minister. I think this is what Paul is teaching here.

Although, I also have to say that I see what you’re saying because the thought occurred to me before. But when all things were considered, it seemed to me that I was just having a hard time keeping up with Paul’s complex thoughts and multiple metaphors.

I hope you find this helpful and are able to return to what I wrote before to be “built up” by the word of God.

With the love of Christ,
Pete

It’s an interesting interpretation you have of the precious and profane materials, but Paul tells us in the passage that the members of the church are “God’s building”. They are the “works” of the minister.

Compare Paul’s separation of materials used in building the temple and those destined for destruction with Jesus’ description of the “Day” of judgment. Some saying “Lord, Lord” enter into the presence of God and others are sent into everlasting destruction. Paul is warning the Corinthian church of what the future may hold if they persist in their factions and sinful ways.

White makes a good point-there is no language of purification here only survival or destruction-the gold is not said to be purer, just fireproof. If this is a passage of purification, then why no purification language?

Please let’s not forget that I am not discussing the doctrine of purgatory itself, but only whether it is being discussed in this passage. I’ve enjoyed that we’ve been able to focus on this and not wander down some of the side roads that have appeared on the thread.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Ok, then the heart of your point is not whether the passage has to do with ministers, which is probably why White didn’t focus on verse 9 either. But briefly, if only ministers were called to build upon Christ’s foundation, I might agree with you. But we all are called to build on Christ’s foundation in a way that is not the same as someone ordained, but as a lay person. The ordained may build in a particular way and that is the example Paul begins with here. But to the extent this passage goes, there is no rationale why the passage’s principle of building upon Christ’s foundation wouldn’t apply to anyone’s calling, particularly when his audience included all. He gave himself as an example, and in his example, his calling is to build as a minister. In your call, you build as a lay person, and help the Church build on the same foundation—Jesus Christ.

I think **Pete Holter **has given you some good thought filled answers. If you have not read my posts already, I have also discussed the purifying nature of gold and silver going through fire. This is a metaphor of refinement, i.e. purification with the impurities burning up. See Zech 13:9 or Ez 22:22 for the same idea in the OT. Historically, this is known as smelting. To deny that the passage relates to purification, one has to reject that Paul’s very metaphor is describing the very process of purifying precious metals. White avoided this aspect of the metaphor both in the debate and on the radio last week when he made an ad hominem attack against me and the Catholics in this thread.

Now White tried to separate the person from the works, but verse 15 does say the person is saved through fire. And in Paul’s theology, the works and the person are united. Consider later in the same letter to the Corinthians when Paul says “Love is patient, love is kind…love doesn’t seek after itself.” These attributes are words of action—things a person does. The works and the person are wrapped up. When the person passes through the fire, the works that are impure are removed from him because they are not compatible. The metaphor of gold/silver, wood/straw, and fire remains consistent.

To cap it off, in verse 17, Paul goes so far to describe someone who is not saved because of his deeds—he describes a person who defiles his own body will be himself destroyed completely. The context of the verse carries through with judgment on the person himself based on what the person has done. The previous verses had persons saved, including those who are first rid of wood/straw with only their pure gold/silver self remaining. And then it finishes with a person who is entirely destroyed in verse 17 for defilement. The thought of judgment and what becomes of the individual person remains consistent in this passage.

I can see now what White meant about you missing points in his arguments-I’m feeling the same way. The fact that verse 9 refers to ministers is important in that it sets the context for what follows, but it isn’t the main point that Paul is trying to make. Paul has taken the Corinthians to task earlier in the Epistle for developing factions and putting them ahead of Christ and now he is discussing the possible end of such behaviour.

Paul shows them that as ministers they are to draw the members of the church closer to Christ-if the ministers become the focus then tribulation and judgment will follow. For this reason, the passage doesn’t lend itself to the sort of expansion that you and Pete want to force on it.

As I mentioned in my previous post, where in the passage does it talk about anything getting purer? Paul speaks of a building that is subjected to fire, with some parts surviving and others being destroyed. Do you have an example where gold and silver were made into a building before they were smelted? The smelting idea doesn’t fit with the building metaphor.

Likewise in verse 17, Paul’s telling the Corinthians that they (plural) are God’s temple, a reiteration of verse 9 shows that factions and sin bring judgment on those who partake of them.

As I’ve said, I agree that Paul does talk in other passagers about all Christians doing works and “building” but he clearly defines his metaphor in Chapter 3 and without a healthy dose of eisegesis, purgatory isn’t part of it.

 

[brb3]

Please let’s not forget that I am not discussing the doctrine of purgatory itself, but only whether it is being discussed in this passage.

.

Don’t limit our options to only a portion of S.S. 1 Cor. 3 is based on so much more.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Don’t limit our options to only a portion of S.S. 1 Cor. 3 is based on so much more.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but that was the scope of the debate-hence if we are discussing the debate, that’s what we’ll be discussing.

If you are trying to change the subject to avoid continued exposure of the weakness of the catholic position on the topic, I hope that you’ll see the discussion as a learning experience rather than an embarassing display of catholic weakness that needs to be covered up and hidden to protect the faith of the weak.

 

[brb3]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but that was the scope of the debate-hence if we are discussing the debate, that’s what we’ll be discussing.

If you are trying to change the subject to avoid continued exposure of the weakness of the catholic position on the topic, I hope that you’ll see the discussion as a learning experience rather than an embarassing display of catholic weakness that needs to be covered up and hidden to protect the faith of the weak.

Hey, it was White vs Staples … haven’t you rehashed their points enuf after 17 pages ?

Bring in some new material, lets debate ‘your premise’ that Purgatory is invalid. Except, we now understand you do see it taught in scripture, by your own admission. Just not in 1 Cor. 3

 

[cfrancis]

In deciding who “won” the debate, one has to keep firmly in mind that the debate wasn’t about purgatory, but rather it was about whether purgatory was what Paul was talking about in I Cor 3. It’s purely an exercise in exegesis, not theology.

Paul is referring to himself and fellow ministers as builders and the believers who make up the church (to whom he writes the Epistle) as the building. So if this passage is about purgatory it is only in reference to ministers.

Note that Paul says that Christ is the foundation and that the various ministers (He, Apollos and others) are building the church upon that foundation. He then goes on to state that the materials can be precious or not-that fire will determine their quality.

Thus Paul is saying that each minister will have an impact on the quality of the people in the church. One sees the same idea in the initial Chapters of Revelation, where the “angels” ( Gk ‘sent one’) or the ministers of those churches are told that the quality of their work has an impact on how their church members will be judged.

It would seem that Paul is referring to the fire of judgement, possibly through tribulation, through sickness and dissension in the body-all of these being mentioned in I Cor as punishments on the church for its sins.

It is also important to keep in mind that Paul starts I Cor by pointing out that Christ’s body is divided by those who put their loyalty to their favourite teacher ahead of their loyalty to other believers who don’t give their loyalty to the same teacher (funny how we never hear this passage with Peter’s name in it brought up by Catholics ) . In continuing this thought in chapters 2 and 3 Paul is pointing out that if a minister’s efforts have only produced church members who are contentious and prone to disunity that there will be judgment and that the teacher will suffer loss (have nothing to show for his ministry)-as anyone does whose building burns down-but will still be saved.

It seems clear that Paul is saying that he, Apollos, Cephas et al. will be saved if the Corinthians continue on in sin and disunity. This will lead to continued and eventually eternal judgment for the church members on “the Day”. Paul and the other ministers will have to stand before God without these believers and lose the “wage” they would have gotten as successful ministers and shepherds while still holding on to their individual salvation. In the hope of presenting the Corinthians to God as gold, silver and precious gems, Paul has written this corrective Epistle.

Here is the passage in full:
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.
2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,
3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?
4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?
5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.
6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.
7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.
8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.
9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.
14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

Though I don’t totally agree with your interpretation, if I give you the “us/them” segregation between Paul and ministers and the laity in vv9-10, it appears he moves out of that distinction in vv11-17.

Given that Paul an Apostle calls himself a “builder” and Apollo a “waterer”, if I follow your understanding, Paul would then be limiting the verses in question to just Apostles.

 

[Churchmouse]

Clarity? If it’s so clear why are there millions of folks who’ve read those same Scripture verses and conclude differently?

Again, that is a red herring. It isn’t about “million of folks” but about what Scripture states and, regardless of “millions of folks”, there are Scriptures which give a triune view of the Godhead. There are Scriptures which implies or calls each person “God.” Those with an agenda will sidestep or attempt a twisting, but you’d be hardpressed to compare these verses with those claimed to “support” purgatory. Let’s be honest.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

I don’t know specifically where in Scripture Lewis drew this particular thought. I do think his thought process can be applied to Scripture with the same conclusion.

You just defined eisegesis. You cannot take a “thought process” and apply it to Scripture.

I would say it is likely he drew much of his thoughts on sin and heaven from Scripture considering other ideas on theology he drew from Scripture.

Well, that’s why I asked for a primary source. We can’t second-guess Lewis. IOW, one cannot assume that he drew purgatory from Scripture just because he derived other beliefs from his theology. Lewis died a Protestant, differing with Roman Catholicism on various doctrines. Also, keep in mind that Lewis was a philosopher. His theology was strictly from a layman’s end.

I recommend Protestant Michael J. Christensen’s book C.S. Lewis on Scripture for a treatment of how Lewis drew theology from Scripture.

Thanks, but again, I would prefer to hear it from the horse’s mouth. There are quite a few books which attempt to cull the mind of Lewis; however, I am a prima facie sort of guy.

Not exactly. We are told in Scripture many times that even genuine Christians still sin while on earth. Would you say you have attained perfectness? No stain or blemish?

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said “on earth.” It is in life when we struggle with the sin nature. This doesn’t therefore demand that we will be purified in death.

If you believe we are stained here on earth and not in heaven, then you too recognize a transition where the former flaws are done away with… Do we agree that far?

I see no reason to see the type of transition you imply. One doesn’t demand the other. Why would you think so?

CM

 

[TertiumQuid]

Churchmouse,

For a mouse, you’re quite agile taking on the entire CA forums by yourself. Great to see you my friend.

 

[brb3]

Churchmouse,

For a mouse, you’re quite agile taking on the entire CA forums by yourself. Great to see you my friend.

Yeah, he’s agile. And, if he will keep in the great debates, God will make him a Churchman yet … & perhaps you as well.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, that is a red herring. It isn’t about “million of folks” but about what Scripture states and, regardless of “millions of folks”, there are Scriptures which give a triune view of the Godhead. There are Scriptures which implies or calls each person “God.” Those with an agenda will sidestep or attempt a twisting, but you’d be hardpressed to compare these verses with those claimed to “support” purgatory. Let’s be honest.

CM

I noticed you like to use “red herring” for issues you can’t address with your paradigm. “Red herring” or not–it’s unarguable that there are millions who read the Scriptures and conclude that God is not Trinitarian. Clearly, not so clear.

Still wondering if you’re going to have some integrity and answer the question:

You do believe that there have been men that have been infallible, correct, CM? (Unless you believe that the Scriptures are not inerrant?)

Oh, and I’d also be interested to see your list of essentials and where Scripture tells us what’s an essential vs secondary doctrine.

Finally, what is it you believe? Where’s your catechism?

 

[PRmerger]

You just defined eisegesis. You cannot take a “thought process” and apply it to Scripture.

Well, CM, can you provide us with a Scripture verse that tells us “you cannot take a ‘thought process’ and apply it to Scripture?” Chapter and verse, please.

If you can’t, then isn’t that. um…eisegesis?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Hey, it was White vs Staples … haven’t you rehashed their points enuf after 17 pages ?

Bring in some new material, lets debate ‘your premise’ that Purgatory is invalid. Except, we now understand you do see it taught in scripture, by your own admission. Just not in 1 Cor. 3

I haven’t said whether I see it taught anywhere else in Scripture, but simply that it isn’t taught in I Cor 3. That was the proposition of the debate. Again I find it amusing that Catholics want to “move on” to other things when their position is weak, but then chide non-catholics for not “sticking to the point” when catholics feel their position is a strong one.

Do you have any exegetical evidence to contribute to the discussion of the debated passage or do you acknowledge that Staples didn’t do proper exegesis of the passage in his zeal to promote purgatory?

Perhaps Tim could make an appearance on the forum and provide us with his mea culpa so that you could stop trying to defend him and the thread could end.

 

[cfrancis]

I haven’t said whether I see it taught anywhere else in Scripture, but simply that it isn’t taught in I Cor 3. That was the proposition of the debate. Again I find it amusing that Catholics want to “move on” to other things when their position is weak, but then chide non-catholics for not “sticking to the point” when catholics feel their position is a strong one.

Do you have any exegetical evidence to contribute to the discussion of the debated passage or do you acknowledge that Staples didn’t do proper exegesis of the passage in his zeal to promote purgatory?

Perhaps Tim could make an appearance on the forum and provide us with his mea culpa so that you could stop trying to defend him and the thread could end.

Certainly you feel your case, based upon your own exegesis, is a strong one. But that does not make it so nor does such make your position the correct one. Which means no one, Mr. Staples included, is required to post a mea culpa…unless you hold that those who disagree with you are automatically in error.

 

[PRmerger]

Again I find it amusing that Catholics want to “move on” to other things when their position is weak, but then chide non-catholics for not “sticking to the point” when catholics feel their position is a strong one.

NS, perhaps you haven’t been on the CAFs long enough to see that this is a common enough phenomenon among Non-Catholics as well.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Here is the passage in full:
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.
2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,
3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?
4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?
5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.
6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.
7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.
8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.
9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.
14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

Though I don’t totally agree with your interpretation, if I give you the “us/them” segregation between Paul and ministers and the laity in vv9-10, it appears he moves out of that distinction in vv11-17.

Given that Paul an Apostle calls himself a “builder” and Apollo a “waterer”, if I follow your understanding, Paul would then be limiting the verses in question to just Apostles.

Ok, to start, are we in agreement that vs 3-5 of chapter 3 are a reference back to this part of Chapter 1?

10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.
12 I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

If we are in agreement about that, then we see that Paul is rebuking division in the church at Corinth, division that turns believers from Christ to focus on human teachers.

Note carefully verses 6-8 of chapter 3 where Paul shows that multiple individuals “tend” the church (using an agricultural metaphor) and that God grows the church. What sort of growth-the number of believers-Paul is referring to people. In return for tending the church which results in growth, each minister will receive a reward from God.

Paul switches to a different metaphor in verse 9-that of builders and building and even interprets the metaphor for us.

9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

Paul then shows from vs 10-17 that the “building” that takes place during the tenure of each minister (comparable with the “growth” in the agricultural metaphor) will be tested by fire (persecution, tribulation, judgment) and some will be found worthy and some will be lost. In other words some in the church will be saved and some will be lost. The sheep and goats, the wheat and tares, there are numerous examples of this teaching in the New Testament.

Paul then warns the contentious members of the Corinthian church that the church is God’s temple and that their “destroying” (dividing) the church will bring destruction on themselves.

I would ask you the same question I’ve asked the others: if this is am image of smelting and purification, why is there no mention of the gold or silver being purified and why has it been made into a building before being put into the smelter?

As to your question about whether this is limited to the Apostles, while that is a possible interpretation, I tend to decide against it given Paul’s use of a number of different terms that don’t emphasize the exclusivity of the Apostolic group (servant, builder, men) but rather place them in the context of the ministry in general.

 

[MarcoPolo]

You just defined eisegesis. You cannot take a “thought process” and apply it to Scripture.

Well, that’s why I asked for a primary source. We can’t second-guess Lewis. IOW, one cannot assume that he drew purgatory from Scripture just because he derived other beliefs from his theology. Lewis died a Protestant, differing with Roman Catholicism on various doctrines. Also, keep in mind that Lewis was a philosopher. His theology was strictly from a layman’s end.

Ok, if you like, we can posit that it is possible he applied no Scriptural principles to his philosophy on Purgatory.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said “on earth.” It is in life when we struggle with the sin nature. This doesn’t therefore demand that we will be purified in death.

Why not? Unless you believe we can enter heaven impure.

 

[Churchmouse]

I noticed you like to use “red herring” for issues you can’t address with your paradigm. “Red herring” or not–it’s unarguable that there are millions who read the Scriptures and conclude that God is not Trinitarian. Clearly, not so clear.

I use “red herring” when someone is obviously throwing them, sidestepping the issues and bringing up everything under the sun to detract from them.

Again, men have agendas and what Scripture provides as perpiscuous, are, sometimes, twisted by these agendas. Are you now going to say that those who hold a non-trinitarian view have validity in their exegesis of Scripture? How? Are we now going to get into a Trinity debate with you taking the negative? Sorry, but Scripture gives scads more for the Trinity, and clearly might I add, then can EVER be said about purgatory. Again, let’s call it for what it is – red herring.

Still wondering if you’re going to have some integrity and answer the question:

You do believe that there have been men that have been infallible, correct, CM? (Unless you believe that the Scriptures are not inerrant?)

I don’t know what kind of an answer would be acceptable to you. The answer is no. God chose certain fallible men to write infallible Scripture (2 Peter 1:21). I am not saying that these men were infallible, but only in that they wrote as an infallible God moved them.

Oh, and I’d also be interested to see your list of essentials and where Scripture tells us what’s an essential vs secondary doctrine.

Finally, what is it you believe? Where’s your catechism?

It’s very indepth and would involve much, much more time then can be given here. That is why I continue to tell you to stop with the red herrings and to stick to the subject. If you are really interested, might I suggest R.C. Sproul’s* Essential Truths of the Christian Faith* (published through Tyndale House, 1992). You can find it at your nearest book store. I adhere to the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

CM