Staples White debate on Purgatory

[Non_Serviam]

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.

Perhaps, or I could interpret this as another of your multiple attempts to create tangents and distract from the debate topic.

Do you have anything to contribute to the exegesis of the passage in I Corinthians?

 

[Non_Serviam]

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.

Yes, I do believe my case is a strong one-when the writer of the Epistle interprets his metaphor for you, it is difficult to make a mistake by agreeing with him.

In previous discussions on CAF I have acknowledged mistakes in interpretation when they have been pointed out to me-that’s the typical response in a discussion or debate. If you, or Mr Staples or someone else wants to post a response to my proposed exegesis of I Cor 3 pointing out why it is incorrect I’ll certainly consider it and respond.

As I’ve pointed out, the exegesis of the verse and a debate about the validity of purgatory are two separate items. For Mr. Staples to acknowledge that his exegesis had holes in it, doesn’t disprove purgatory, it only disproves his proposed exegesis. If he can’t own up to that and either provide proof for his exegesis or acknowledge it was in error, he shouldn’t be debating. Likewise if he now considers his exegesis to have been incorrect and lets members of CAF go on defending it, I would see that as a lack of respect for your time and effort on his behalf.

 

[Churchmouse]

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?

This is the second post where you bring up attempt to make it personal, instead of dealing with the issue of purgatory. And you continue to labor under the assumption that everything I argue must be from Scripture. Pardon me for bringing up another logical fallacy you assume – the straw man. I don’t make the claim that all truth is in Scripture. Yet, this is what MP said…

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.

Shouldn’t it be that Scripture defines the thought process and not vice versa. To do otherwise would be eisegetical. It sounds to me that MP is saying that first comes the thought process and then we see what Scripture says about it.

CM

 

[MarcoPolo]

I can see now what White meant about you missing points in his arguments-I’m feeling the same way.

Do you have an example where gold and silver were made into a building before they were smelted?

Nothing you said about ministers here hasn’t already been addressed and there is no need for me to repost my own posts. cfrancis gave you an additional take on how this applies to all and I disagree with your dismissal to “decide against” his interpretation. In the same letter to the Corinthians, Paul gives other examples in 14:4-5 of other person’s gifts besides ministry involved in “building up” the Church.

Also, whether or not there is a passage besides 1 Cor 3 that links all three of gold/silver, fire, and a building doesn’t change the fact that gold & silver going through fire is consistently a figure of purification in Scripture. To demand further evidence is superfluous.

I would encourage lurkers to also review posts 40-41 for a wide list of Early Church Fathers who interpret this passage as purifying. It is further evidence that the process of purification is straightforwardly understood in 1 Cor 3.

 

[Mickey]

Shouldn’t it be that Scripture defines the thought process

Are you saying that Scripture interprets Scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

That is a totally acceptable answer, CM!! :extrahappy:

Also, I assume, although you haven’t explicitly said so, you agree that God used fallible men to infallibly determine that canon of Scripture in the 5th century “as an infallible God moved them”?

You agree with the CC, then, that God uses fallible men to write infallibly about faith and morals, as “an infallible God moved them”!

That’s all the CC says–no more, no less.

 

[cfrancis]

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.

Yes, I agree with you to this point. We can also agree that Paul is addressing all the Church at Corinth, not just those in charge.

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.

While I agree with the agricultural metaphor, I do not agree with the “numbers” sentiment; numbers are secondary to orthodoxy, so I see the “sort of growth” being the depth of the roots, much like Jesus’ parable of the Sower and the Seeds.
But that’s a secondary issue. Yes, as I said before, I give you the priestly/laity division in Paul’s agricultural metaphor to this point.

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.

Here’s where we begin to part ways. Paul use of the word “building” is a transition of note, but it’s more inclusive than a field. A building is only as strong as its weakest member, beginning with the foundation and moving up. Where a field, a crop is not dependent on any one plant and therefore sustains that priestly/laity division, a building is entirely different. It represents the union of the priestly and the lay into one body.

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.

I feel you are ignoring the language Paul carefully chose, under inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

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.

Paul, moving from his agricultural (separation) metaphor to his building (unification) metaphor removes the distinction in v10 - "each man" - with the use of "no man" in v11. He continues with no distinction b/n priestly and lay in v12 - "any man" - and beyond. I see the use of "each man’s" in v13 as informed by vv11-12. Clearly there is no distinction in vv14-15 - "any man’s".

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.

Your statement here seems to fit into the unification concept of “building” with no distinction. I know you know Paul and his emphasis on unification.

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?

While the word “purification” is not there, I certainly see it implied and applied. We most often (but not always) build with impure gold because of our sinful nature; we also build with straw, wood and hay because of our sinful nature. Sometimes, by God’s grace, we do actually add to our building with pure gold/silver.

So, in v15, we can suffer loss by having our wood, straw and hay burnt away, as well as having the impurities in our impure gold/silcer burnt away.

 

[cfrancis]

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.

To support your position, you need to provide Scripture that defines the Trinity as Three Divine Persons in One Divine Being, sharing one Divine Nature. I’m not aware of any that do this.

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.

The above are your words. How can fallible men, only “moved” by God (not protected by God) write something infallible?
Rather, the fallible men would have to be protected by God from writing infallibly; that means, when it would come to revealing God’s Truth, those fallible men would be infallible. Note, this does mean they were perfect or sinless; only that when revealing God’s Truth in writing (read: in faith and morals) they were protected from error. ie, infallible.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Nothing you said about ministers here hasn’t already been addressed and there is no need for me to repost my own posts. cfrancis gave you an additional take on how this applies to all and I disagree with your dismissal to “decide against” his interpretation. In the same letter to the Corinthians, Paul gives other examples in 14:4-5 of other person’s gifts besides ministry involved in “building up” the Church.

Also, whether or not there is a passage besides 1 Cor 3 that links all three of gold/silver, fire, and a building doesn’t change the fact that gold & silver going through fire is consistently a figure of purification in Scripture. To demand further evidence is superfluous.

I would encourage lurkers to also review posts 40-41 for a wide list of Early Church Fathers who interpret this passage as purifying. It is further evidence that the process of purification is straightforwardly understood in 1 Cor 3.

Paul learly states in Chapter 3 that there is a distinction between those who are ministering and the church. He provides two metaphors (agricultural and building) to show how this distinction affects the respective roles of the ministers and the church members. He also goes on to show that the ministers’ work (the church members) may or may not survive the fire of judgment (the most common meaning of fire in Scripture). He then warns those who are causing division that it will bring such judgment on them, a point he returns to throughout the Epistle.

If you prefer to pass over and disregard Paul’s interpretation of his own metaphors to choose an interpretation that agrees with your preconceived ideas, that is your perogative.

If you want to cite “Early” Fathers on the topic (all of whom wrote at least 250 yrs after Paul wrote the Epistle with the exception of the heretic Origen who is quoted by Catholics when it benefits them and ignored when it does not) to attempt to bolster support for your preferred interpretation, that is your perogative.

I replied to your criticisms of my exegesis as well as those of cfrancis. Neither of you has provided a suggestion as to why we should discount Paul’s interpretation of his own metaphors, you’ve simply provided alternative interpretations. But for your interpretations to be considered, you must first dispense with Paul’s.

If the building consists of people, as Paul says in verse 9, then some people are being burned up-that is not purgatory, that is judgment (“the Day” as Paul puts it). If you want the building to consist of people actions, or attitudes or appetites, you have to explain verse 9.

If you don’t want to “address” me again, then “address” Paul and what he wrote in verse 9.

 

[cfrancis]

If you prefer to pass over and disregard Paul’s interpretation of his own metaphors to choose an interpretation that agrees with your preconceived ideas, that is your perogative…

…Neither of you has provided a suggestion as to why we should discount Paul’s interpretation of his own metaphors, you’ve simply provided alternative interpretations. But for your interpretations to be considered, you must first dispense with Paul’s.

If the building consists of people, as Paul says in verse 9, then some people are being burned up-that is not purgatory, that is judgment (“the Day” as Paul puts it). If you want the building to consist of people actions, or attitudes or appetites, you have to explain verse 9.

If you don’t want to “address” me again, then “address” Paul and what he wrote in verse 9.

What we do not agree with is your interpretation of Paul’s explanation. You can’t separate a man from his works, just as you can’t separate the mortar, sand, aggregate that goes into the brick/concrete of a building. Inferior bricks/concrete can bring down a building just as inferior components of those can.
I think you are off base in your interpretation.

 

[Churchmouse]

That is a totally acceptable answer, CM!! :extrahappy:

Also, I assume, although you haven’t explicitly said so, you agree that God used fallible men to infallibly determine that canon of Scripture in the 5th century “as an infallible God moved them”?

Which fallible men? The ones who say that the Apocrypha is Scripture or the ones that say that it isn’t? Do you see the dilemma?

You agree with the CC, then, that God uses fallible men to write infallibly about faith and morals, as “an infallible God moved them”!

That’s all the CC says–no more, no less.

You’re being pragmatic. God moved fallible men to write infallible Scripture. Faith and morals are a byproduct of the infallible Scriptures. Men remain fallible in the way they interpret them, including the RCC.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

To support your position, you need to provide Scripture that defines the Trinity as Three Divine Persons in One Divine Being, sharing one Divine Nature. I’m not aware of any that do this.

They you school me. How was it done? What was used to define the Trinity in such a way?

The above are your words. How can fallible men, only “moved” by God (not protected by God) write something infallible?

Because it is God in the beginning and God at the end. The men themselves are not infallible. They are simply “moved” by God to write His words (Scripture).

Rather, the fallible men would have to be protected by God from writing infallibly; that means, when it would come to revealing God’s Truth, those fallible men would be infallible.

Why would you think so? The men don’t have to be infallible to be moved of God. This is merely presumption.

Note, this does mean they were perfect or sinless; only that when revealing God’s Truth in writing (read: in faith and morals) they were protected from error. ie, infallible.

I think you meant the word “doesn’t.” I am familiar with the impeccability factor and how this doesn’t apply to the popes. However, the issue would be one of interpretation of which one would factor in infallibility in these issues of faith and morals. That would be presumptuous as well.

CM

 

[Non_Serviam]

Yes, I agree with you to this point. We can also agree that Paul is addressing all the Church at Corinth, not just those in charge.
While I agree with the agricultural metaphor, I do not agree with the “numbers” sentiment; numbers are secondary to orthodoxy, so I see the “sort of growth” being the depth of the roots, much like Jesus’ parable of the Sower and the Seeds.
But that’s a secondary issue. Yes, as I said before, I give you the priestly/laity division in Paul’s agricultural metaphor to this point.

Some good points here. I agree with you that Paul in a number of his Epistles also stresses that spiritual growth is essential for the church. He wants all to grow in grace so that (positively) they grow closer to Christ and (negatively) they don’t end up as a castaway at the judgment.

At the same time, Scripture never demeans numerical growth. Luke points out the 3000 at Pentecost and the subsequent additions to the church.

I believe that I can make a case for Paul referring to numerical growth in this passage. If we consider chapters 1-3 we see that Paul speals of the church as being people. He then talks about how these people have fallen into factions, bringing division into the church. In Ch 1 vs 23-26 he then talks about their calling and coming into the church-again the emphasis is on people and their membership in the church.

He continues on through chapter 2 reminding them how the message that brought them nto the church came from God and was focused on God, diminishing his own role in the process (keeping with his desire to refocus them on Christ).

Coming back to the original issue he reiterates his complaint with them, that they have put human partisanship ahead of Christ, a very unspiritual action(vs 1-4).

Then he shares his two metaphors to clarify his point. Given that he spoke of the Corinthians joining the church in Ch 1-2 (being called), would it not be logical to interpret his use of “growth” and “building” in the same fashion-the adding of people to the church through the actions of Paul and Apollos?

Here’s where we begin to part ways. Paul use of the word “building” is a transition of note, but it’s more inclusive than a field. A building is only as strong as its weakest member, beginning with the foundation and moving up. Where a field, a crop is not dependent on any one plant and therefore sustains that priestly/laity division, a building is entirely different. It represents the union of the priestly and the lay into one body.

I agree that Paul often emphasizes the interconnected nature of all believers, regardless of their role in the body (Ephesians springs instantly to mind. Yet it must be pointed out that it is Paul who emphasizes distinction in his analogy. Looking at verse 9:

For we are God’s co-workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

In this instance, Paul is emphasizing the “us-you” distinction between himself and Apollos and the members of the Corinthian church. With this verse, Paul specifically places himself and Apollos outside the building and in the role of worker. Note carefully that the members of the church are specifically excluded from the role of “worker” in this verse.

(con’t)

 

[Non_Serviam]

I feel you are ignoring the language Paul carefully chose, under inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

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.

Paul, moving from his agricultural (separation) metaphor to his building (unification) metaphor removes the distinction in v10 - "each man" - with the use of "no man" in v11. He continues with no distinction b/n priestly and lay in v12 - "any man" - and beyond. I see the use of "each man’s" in v13 as informed by vv11-12. Clearly there is no distinction in vv14-15 - "any man’s".

If we recognize the distinction made by Paul in verse 9, this leads to a very different interpretation. Paul is saying no man (and I agree that he chose his language carefully-first to diminish he and Apollos and exalt Christ and secondly to show that he wasn’t limiting this distinction to just the Apostles) can build on a foundation other than Christ. That would make the individual a false minister and no co-worker with God. Having made that distinction, he then points out that each man “builds” his “work”

Having already identified himself as a builder and worker, in contrast to the Corinthians who are the “building” that was built, it becomes clear that Paul is talking about each ministers actions in adding to the church AND the quality of those in the church at the time of judgment. Some added to the church will be gold, some silver, some precious gems who will inherit heaven and be counted as reward to the minister who served them and some will be such that they are lost in the fire of judgment on “the Day”. The minister will still be saved, but the loss of church members will be a bitter loss, like on who has escaped from a fire with nothing. In 16-17 Paul is letting the church members know that pursuing a course of division will cause them to be judged and lost.

Your statement here seems to fit into the unification concept of “building” with no distinction. I know you know Paul and his emphasis on unification.
While the word “purification” is not there, I certainly see it implied and applied. We most often (but not always) build with impure gold because of our sinful nature; we also build with straw, wood and hay because of our sinful nature. Sometimes, by God’s grace, we do actually add to our building with pure gold/silver.

So, in v15, we can suffer loss by having our wood, straw and hay burnt away, as well as having the impurities in our impure gold/silcer burnt away.

I agree with your thoughts on our imperfect attempts to serve God, but if the passage is referring to people being lost in the fire of judgment on “the Day”, that isn’t purgatory and the lack of purification language makes sense. So it becomes a question of whether or not one can dismiss Paul’s interpretation given in verse 9 and replace it with an interpretation that is more amenable to a purgatorial interpretation of the passage. For the reasons listed above and elsewhere I don’t believe that is possible.

Having said that I am glad to see that we share a common appreciation for Paul and his contributions to the church’s understanding of itself.

 

[Churchmouse]

Churchmouse,

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

Hey Jim, I missed you there for a moment. Believe you me, I’m not taking on a forum by design and the mazes increase by the addition of other issues. Nice to hear from you. Hope alls well on the BeggarsAll front .

CM

 

[PRmerger]

Which fallible men? The ones who say that the Apocrypha is Scripture or the ones that say that it isn’t? Do you see the dilemma?

Firstly, are you saying that the Apocrypha were in the original canon of Scripture, defined by the Council of Rome and ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546)?

 

[Non_Serviam]

What we do not agree with is your interpretation of Paul’s explanation. You can’t separate a man from his works, just as you can’t separate the mortar, sand, aggregate that goes into the brick/concrete of a building. Inferior bricks/concrete can bring down a building just as inferior components of those can.
I think you are off base in your interpretation.

I’ve replied above, and made the case that Paul and Apollos’ works are the Corinthian believers-thus their works can be judged apart from them as individuals. I’ll trust that the more detailed explanation above makes that assertion clearer.

 

[Churchmouse]

Firstly, are you saying that the Apocrypha were in the original canon of Scripture, defined by the Council of Rome and ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546)?

Sheesh! Another red herring. I asked you a simple question: Which men were the infallible ones, the ones who included the Apocrypha in the canon or the ones that didn’t?

CM

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps, or I could interpret this as another of your multiple attempts to create tangents and distract from the debate topic.

Tangential discussions are just a natural progression of discussions on the CAFs.

Are you claiming that each and every time you post on a thread it’s been solely dedicated to the topic in the thread title?

(Actually, I can answer that and see, from your post above, that you do not.
How peculiar!)

Do you have anything to contribute to the exegesis of the passage in I Corinthians?

Not at this moment.

 

[PRmerger]

Sheesh! Another red herring. I asked you a simple question: Which men were the infallible ones, the ones who included the Apocrypha in the canon or the ones that didn’t?

CM

I’m assuming from your evasion that you are admitting that the Apocryphya were in the original canon.

That’s quite an interesting position, CM.

So, now that you’ve accepted that men can be infallible when they wrote the Scriptures, and that men can be infallible when they determined the canon of Scripture (unless you’re going to tell me that it’s possible they were w*rong *when they declared the Gospel of Thomas not inspired but the Gospel of Mark theopneustos?), why can’t you accept that God, in preserving his church from the gates of hell, would not continue this tradition?