Visions of Purgatory

[agname]

I will reiterate…

The entire faith alone scenario has been going around for awhile. Basically, Luther had a trouble with verses such as “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)” This really infuriated him. He wanted to remove James along with the other seven books…but was talked out of it. In Romans 3:28 it read, “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”, etc. etc. Luther decided that “works of law” was in reference to the laws of the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments. The interesting thing is that when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered…they supported the Catholic belief that “works of law” …or in Greek “ergon nomou” refers to ceremonial law handed out in the Old Testament…not to the Ten Commandments ala Moral Law. Luther also inserted “alone” in Romans 3:28…to read, “man is justified by faith alone.” In 1525, Martin Luther no longer could tolerate the religious anarchy that aspired to private interpretation. To quote Martin Luther, “There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the sacraments; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit and he himself is a prophet.”

Remember, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Matt 7:21). Scripture shows that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus says, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matthew 24:13; cf. 25:31–46). So basically, one who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.

 

[Churchmouse]

Hello again Germys,

You said:

I’m sorry, but this point I know for a fact and it can be proven. Luther actually took out the books (James and others) for over a century until others put them back in. Even protestants have to admit this.

But isn’t this the problem? That many Catholics know so much about Luther, but what they know is always on the negative. I would only ask that you prove what you claim you know for a fact. Facts aren’t facts unless they’re substantiated or else it’s just hearsay.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Hello agname,

What you stated has very many words and it seems to jump from one thing to another. I don’t really know what you are trying to emphasize so can you break it down. In this thread we are talking about purgatory in relation to 2 Maccabees. There’s been some talk on Luther, but every other thread on this forum talks about Luther. So what is it exactly are you trying to point out? You’ve reiterated some arguments on purgatory that have already been dealt with earlier in the thread. No, not all the church fathers believed in purgatory. Augustine would be the first father to actually teach it as temporal and purgatorial. Tertullian’s Hades isn’t purgatory and Tertullian didn’t teach a purgatorial state. Regarding the Trinity, it is a logical extension of Scripture and cannot be compared to the vague Scriptures Catholics rely on to imply a purgatory. This has all been dealt with throughout this thread, so I really don’t see what your point is.

Peace,
CM

 

[agname]

Churchmouse:

Hello again Germys,

You said:

But isn’t this the problem? That many Catholics know so much about Luther, but what they know is always on the negative. I would only ask that you prove what you claim you know for a fact. Facts aren’t facts unless they’re substantiated or else it’s just hearsay.

Peace,
CM

Yes, they’re facts. 99.9% of historians will agree with me…anyone with a firm grasp on history knows this. It’s as factual as Jacob Shallus transcribing the final draft of the Constitution.

I realize my prior posts are lengthy…but, they’re definitely worth a read…if one wants to know the Truth. And yes…Purgatory was taught from the beginning…it’s also obvious from the quotes from the Apostolic Fathers. In regards to “Hades”, etc…remember…
our Apostolic Creed?

“I BELIEVE in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven…”

The Scriptures were written in Hebrew and Greek. “Purgatory” comes from the Latin word purgatorium. In Scripture, we do find references to an afterlife that is neither the hell of the damned nor heaven. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word sheol is used to describe this condition; in the New Testament, the Greek term is hades. Scripture shows very clearly that hades is not hell; it is distinct from gehenna, or the lake of fire which is the hell of the damned.

Finally, what denomination are you? Who founded it?

Name / Year / Founder(s) / Origin

Lutheran / 1524 / Martin Luther / Germany

Episcopalian / 1534 / Henry VIII / England

Presbyterian / 1560 / John Knox / Scotland

Baptist / 1600 / John Smyth / Amsterdam

Congregational / 1600 / Robert Brown / England

Methodist / 1739 / John & Charles Wesley / England

United Brethern / 1800 / Philip Otterbein & Martin Boehm / Maryland

Disciples of Christ / 1827 / Thomas & Alexander Campbell / Kentucky

Mormons / 1830 / Joseph Smith / New York

Salvation Army / 1865 / William Booth / London

Christian Science / 1879 / Mary Baker Eddy / Boston

Four-Square Gospel / 1917 / Aimee Semple McPherson / Los Angeles

Catholic / 33 / Jesus Christ / Jerusalem

 

[agname]

To clarify on the The Apostles’ Creed…

In The Apostles’ Creed, the Greek word that is mistranslated as “Hell” is katotata, it’s root simply means “down”. Katotata (down) corresponds to katoteros (lower) of Ephesians 4:9 (which is the only occurrence of this word in the NT), which many understand of Christ’s descent into Hades, or as the NAS puts it “lower parts.” Hades signifies, like the Hebrew Sheol, the unseen spirit-world, the abode of all the departed, while Hell at least in modern usage, is a much narrower conception, and signifies the state and place of eternal damnation, like the Hebrew gehenna, which occurs twelve times in the Greek Testament.

 

[agname]

I also get tickled by those who try to tell me what my Catholic Apostolic Fathers meant.

If you doubt they were Catholic…which they were…just ponder upon the following quotes…

Tertullian:
“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 A.D. 200]).

Optatus:
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 A.D. 367]).

Ignatius of Antioch:
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

 

[Churchmouse]

agname:

Yes, they’re facts. 99.9% of historians will agree with me…anyone with a firm grasp on history knows this. It’s as factual as Jacob Shallus transcribing the final draft of the Constitution.

Well, originally I asked this question of Germys considering he called it a fact, but since you claim the same, yet do not document these “facts” either, than by all means please do so. Document the 99.9% of historians who agree with you (btw, you forgot to include what it is that they are agreeing with ). I also assume that these 99.9% of historians are unbiased in their treatment of Luther. So, please, go on ahead and give me the names of the books, chapters and pages. Please do not cut and paste the info from other websites.

I realize my prior posts are lengthy…but, they’re definitely worth a read…if one wants to know the Truth. And yes…Purgatory was taught from the beginning…it’s also obvious from the quotes from the Apostolic Fathers. In regards to “Hades”, etc…remember…our Apostolic Creed?

Well, if I wanted to know the Truth, I’ll stick to Scripture. Not that I’m going to ignore the wealth of early church writings of which I do not. Neither do I ignore the wisdom of godly men and their writings throughout the ages, but to come on like gangbusters and tell me that you have “the Truth”, well, let’s just say that’s very presumptive.

“I BELIEVE in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven…”

The Scriptures were written in Hebrew and Greek. “Purgatory” comes from the Latin word purgatorium. In Scripture, we do find references to an afterlife that is neither the hell of the damned nor heaven. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word sheol is used to describe this condition; in the New Testament, the Greek term is hades. Scripture shows very clearly that hades is not hell; it is distinct from gehenna, or the lake of fire which is the hell of the damned.

I don’t know what the creed has to do with purgatory, but as to your statements about purgatory, well, you said that your posts are definitely a read and unless you are Curtis Martin, the author of the above quote (see here: The Burning Truth About Purgatory) than this is obviously a cut and paste. The problem with cutting and pasting is that there are many who put much time in defending their positions and don’t need the hassles of defending it against those that don’t. I don’t want to start a precedent where you cut and paste and I’m expected to answer every website you get your info from. Not very fair.

Finally, what denomination are you? Who founded it?

Name / Year / Founder(s) / Origin

Lutheran / 1524 / Martin Luther / Germany

Episcopalian / 1534 / Henry VIII / England

Presbyterian / 1560 / John Knox / Scotland

Baptist / 1600 / John Smyth / Amsterdam

Congregational / 1600 / Robert Brown / England

Methodist / 1739 / John & Charles Wesley / England

United Brethern / 1800 / Philip Otterbein & Martin Boehm / Maryland

Disciples of Christ / 1827 / Thomas & Alexander Campbell / Kentucky

Mormons / 1830 / Joseph Smith / New York

Salvation Army / 1865 / William Booth / London

Christian Science / 1879 / Mary Baker Eddy / Boston

Four-Square Gospel / 1917 / Aimee Semple McPherson / Los Angeles

Catholic / 33 / Jesus Christ / Jerusalem

That’s besides the point, we’re talking about purgatory and whether it’s a valid belief or not.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

agname:

To clarify on the The Apostles’ Creed…

In The Apostles’ Creed, the Greek word that is mistranslated as “Hell” is katotata, it’s root simply means “down”. Katotata (down) corresponds to katoteros (lower) of Ephesians 4:9 (which is the only occurrence of this word in the NT), which many understand of Christ’s descent into Hades, or as the NAS puts it “lower parts.” Hades signifies, like the Hebrew Sheol, the unseen spirit-world, the abode of all the departed, while Hell at least in modern usage, is a much narrower conception, and signifies the state and place of eternal damnation, like the Hebrew gehenna, which occurs twelve times in the Greek Testament.

Unless you are Mark McFall, this piece of *your lengthy read * comes from an article by him called “The Apostles Creed and the Descent of Jesus Christ Into Hell.” Again, I don’t believe I have to answer every cut and paste from the internet. If you want dialogue, be more respectful and do your own work.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

agname:

I also get tickled by those who try to tell me what my Catholic Apostolic Fathers meant.

If you doubt they were Catholic…which they were…just ponder upon the following quotes…

No need to gloat, I recognize they were Catholic, however not everyone one of them were in unity with every Roman Catholic distinctive.

Tertullian:
“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 A.D. 200]).

Optatus:
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 A.D. 367]).

Ignatius of Antioch:
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Tell me something, have you ever truly studied the Church Fathers? Or do you take, at face value, the isolated citations from selected websites along with their commentaries. I mean, you start this post by gloating that you "…get tickled by those who try to tell [you] what [your] Catholic Apostolic Fathers meant" but if you don’t read them in context and in light of all their writings, how would you know what they truly meant?

These quotations are cut and pasted as well. Don’t say that you realize that your posts are a lengthy read, when in reality they really don’t belong to you and you haven’t put the work in to merit discussion.

Peace,
CM

 

[Mothers_Boy]

This is off topic, but I’d like to ask a question. If I read “City of God” on the web or even on my laptap and then cut and paste a quote that I thought helped into a post then the viewers of this thread would’nt put any credence into it because it was cut and pasted? Same true with a quote from a theologian such as Scott Hahn? I find that disturbing and rather judgmental.

Churchmouse:

These quotations are cut and pasted as well. Don’t say that you realize that your posts are a lengthy read, when in reality they really don’t belong to you and you haven’t put the work in to merit discussion.

 

[Churchmouse]

Mothers Boy:

This is off topic, but I’d like to ask a question. If I read “City of God” on the web or even on my laptap and then cut and paste a quote that I thought helped into a post then the viewers of this thread would’nt put any credence into it because it was cut and pasted? Same true with a quote from a theologian such as Scott Hahn? I find that disturbing and rather judgmental.

MB,

I don’t know if you read all my responses or just the last one. If you read it in it’s entirety, than I’m sure you can agree concerning my gripe with cut and pasters. I can only hope you aren’t minimizing what “agname” attempted to do. He/she attempted to pass some info from other websites as his/her own. That’s not very fair considering the work some of us put into our argumentation. We cannot put ourselves in a position to answer every cut and paste one pulls off the internet. Now, the scenario you present above is valid, but to quote Augustine or Hahn would be used to bolster your argumentation. This is not the scenario here, if someone comes on with a post they claim as their own work, not giving credit where credit is due, then why should anyone be expected to answer.

Please, don’t minimize the situation by implying that I am “judgmental” or causing one anyone discomfort. I don’t think you would like if very much if you were put in the same situations.

Peace,
CM

 

[Mothers_Boy]

Churchmouse:

MB,

I don’t know if you read all my responses or just the last one. If you read it in it’s entirety, than I’m sure you can agree concerning my gripe with cut and pasters. I can only hope you aren’t minimizing what “agname” attempted to do. He/she attempted to pass some info from other websites as his/her own. That’s not very fair considering the work some of us put into our argumentation. We cannot put ourselves in a position to answer every cut and paste one pulls off the internet. Now, the scenario you present above is valid, but if someone comes on with a post they claim as their own work, not giving credit where credit is due, then why should anyone be expected to answer.

Please, don’t minimize the situation by implying that I am “judgmental” or causing one anyone discomfort. I don’t think you would like if very much if you were put in the same situations.

Peace,
CM

CM,
I’ve read most of your post’s, I believe. I wasn’t necessarilly calling you judgemental, although, now looking at what I posted it seems that way. I try to read my posts before sending them but didn’t do it well this time. I apologize if I gave offense to you. I agree that someone plagerizing should be unacceptable, but I often cut and paste from web sources that I have read previously. I just wanted to be sure that those of us who like the web as a source were taken seriously. Again I apologize for any offense given, CM. Anyway thanks for being candid. Peace to you also.

 

[Churchmouse]

Mothers Boy:

CM,
I’ve read most of your post’s, I believe. I wasn’t necessarilly calling you judgemental, although, now looking at what I posted it seems that way. I try to read my posts before sending them but didn’t do it well this time. I apologize if I gave offense to you. I agree that someone plagerizing should be unacceptable, but I often cut and paste from web sources that I have read previously. I just wanted to be sure that those of us who like the web as a source were taken seriously. Again I apologize for any offense given, CM. Anyway thanks for being candid. Peace to you also.

No harm done, MB. Thanks for clarifying

Peace,
CM

 

[germys9]

Churchmouse:

Hello again Germys,

You said:

But isn’t this the problem? That many Catholics know so much about Luther, but what they know is always on the negative. I would only ask that you prove what you claim you know for a fact. Facts aren’t facts unless they’re substantiated or else it’s just hearsay.

Peace,
CM

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t only think negative things about Luther. My only point on saying that, was to emphazise that he could have excluded the 7 old testament books for the same reason he excluded some of the New Testament books at first. While what you say might be fair, please admit that many, if not all, Protestants only know things on the “postitive” side of Luther’s life. I’m sure it goes both ways. I think Luther, himself, puts it best, though :

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519

more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses

quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356

By the way, it is not just hearsay about Luther actually excluding James and others. If you want I will find the source for you to read to prove what I said. I really would never have said it, if I didn’t know it to be a fact.​

 

[Churchmouse]

germys9:

While what you say might be fair, please admit that many, if not all, Protestants only know things on the “postitive” side of Luther’s life. I’m sure it goes both ways. I think Luther, himself, puts it best, though :

Hi Germys,

In actuality, I’ve been upfront from the very beginning. Luther had some skeletons in his closet and I haven’t painted him as a saint. Luther had his problems, but I would never demonize him. I’m not claiming that you have, but if you scan around this forum, Satan and him seem to be synonymous.

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519

more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses

quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356

By the way, it is not just hearsay about Luther actually excluding James and others. If you want I will find the source for you to read to prove what I said. I really would never have said it, if I didn’t know it to be a fact.​

Good quote! And it walks hand in hand with what I stated earlier, that Luther never wanted to leave the church; he just wanted dialogue.

You don’t have to bother with the info on Luther and James, I already have some resources on that issue :

Peace,
CM