is this just an excuse for some Catholics to sin without guilt? Where did they even get the idea?

The idea came supposedly from one of the apocryphal books which they have in their New American Bible. However, the verse is very vague and doesn't really insinuate such a thing. There is a heaven, and there is a hell. For now, that is it. Someday, hell will be no more and IT will be thrown into the lake of fire which burneth forever.

The teaching of a purgatory is definately not scriptural.

The only thing I have ever been able to come up with, as to where they could have got anything like this, is "Abraham's Bosom."
(Read Luke 16:19-31).

All those before Jesus, who put their faith in God, and in the coming Messiah, went to "Abraham's Bosom."

Since they went there to await the prophesied Messiah, you could say it was a kind of waiting place. This is the only thing in scripture that comes anywhere near what they say purgatory is. But all those in Abraham's bosom went to heaven with Jesus when He ascended to heaven.

As I said today in another post, the catholic religious system is part Christian; part Judaism; and part pagan. Purgatory seems to fit into the pagan part more than anything else.

God bless you...........Roy.

Purgatory is a Roman Catholic concept and belongs in World Religions. It has been moved. Please continue the discussion.

is this just an excuse for some Catholics to sin without guilt? Where did they even get the idea?

Actually it is the Catholic answer to the OSAS/NOSAS debate.

Effectively they are saying OSAS, but that sins committed after being saved must still be punished.

The unsaved go to hell, the saved go to purgatory and then (after a rather long stay to purify them) to heaven.

Protestants OSASers basically say that you can sin all you want after being saved without consequences.

;)

Actually it is the Catholic answer to the OSAS/NOSAS debate.

Effectively they are saying OSAS, but that sins committed after being saved must still be punished.

The unsaved go to hell, the saved go to purgatory and then (after a rather long stay to purify them) to heaven.

Protestants OSASers basically say that you can sin all you want after being saved without consequences.

;)Punk, if some who preach eternal security also preached no consequences for sinning, they are ignoring the scriptures. Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Are there any threads here where someone has taught that? If so, let me know... I'd like to reason with them.

Punk, if some who preach eternal security also preached no consequences for sinning, they are ignoring the scriptures. Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Are there any threads here where someone has taught that? If so, let me know... I'd like to reason with them.

Okay, then let us suppose (for the sake of argument) that OSAS is correct.

What happens to a saved person that sins?

I'm not going to buy into the argument that saved persons do not sin, since simple observation would show that either very very very few people are saved or saved people do in fact sin. Since I doubt protestants want to limit salvation to a very very very few saints (i.e. 99.999% of membership of protestant churches are damned), they must agree that the saved do in fact sin.

We can create another thread if you like.

Start one punk and I'll catch up with you. Be more than happy. One thing though, lets take it unlike the rest of those types of threads. Lets delve into how, why, what, where, and when the saved person sins and who is doin the sinning...

is this just an excuse for some Catholics to sin without guilt? Where did they even get the idea?

They get the idea from their doctrinal teaching on grace. Grace is dispensed in different degrees in Catholic theology. It is the same doctrine used for their "immaculate conception" views on Mary.

It's all about 'grace' and how that is understood by them (RC). It's also relative of natural theologies.

Which is why the eastern Christians didn't agree with them (RC). In the eastern Christian churches, grace is an uncreated energy of God we participate in, not something we dispense in quantity.:saint:

is this just an excuse for some Catholics to sin without guilt? Where did they even get the idea?

Although I am no expert, I do know that purgatory is no where stated in any of my Bibles (i have about 3 different translations), and have found no proof of it. I do know that the doctrine of purgatory was instituted by pope Gregory I in 593.

"Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions." Basically, purgatory is purification after death for those who are already assured of their salvation. Or so it is discribed when I looked it up on the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I hope this helps. Now it's getting me confused.

If there was such a thing as purgatory then Jesus wouldn't have needed to die on the cross.

Jeanne

If there was such a thing as purgatory then Jesus wouldn't have needed to die on the cross.

Jeanne

Well, no.

The idea is that the only people that can make it into Purgatory (rather than Hell) get there because Jesus died on the cross.

So Jesus died on the cross, so that you can go to Purgatory, get purified, and then move on to Heaven.

The concept of purgatory actually disagrees on several points made by the Apostles in the scriptures and for this reason was rejected as not actually being cannon. The main verse being: 2nd Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

The concept of purgatory dates to the paganism of Greece where Plato, spoke of the future judgment of the dead in Hades, that it holds out the hope of final deliverance for all, and dictates that, before some are judged they must go to "a subterranean place of judgment, where they shall sustain the punishment they have deserved." In pagan Rome, purgatory was also pushed as a way for the pagan preists to control the masses. The poet Virgil said:


"Nor can the groveling mind, in the dark dungeon of the limbs confined, assert the native skies, or own its heavenly kind. Nor death itself can wholly wash their stains; but long-contacted filth, even in the soul, remains the relics of inveterate vice they wear and spots of sin obscene in every face appear. For this are various penances enjoined; and some are hung to bleach upon the wind, some plunged in water, others purged in fires, till all the dregs are drained, and all the rust expires. All have their Manes, and those Manes bear. The few so cleansed to these abodes repair, and breathe in ample fields the soft Elysian air. Then are they happy, when by length of time the scurf is worn away of each committed crime, no speck is left of their habitual stains, but the pure ether of the soul remains."It was even practiced in ancient Egypt, where it was said that in order to reach the underworld, some souls families had to pay a toll or payment for prayers to be offered up to the gods for that soul.

Just thought of this.......unless time in Purgatory would be very short, I don't think the criminal right next to Jesus would be in paradise that night.

Okay, then let us suppose (for the sake of argument) that OSAS is correct.

What happens to a saved person that sins?

I'm not going to buy into the argument that saved persons do not sin, since simple observation would show that either very very very few people are saved or saved people do in fact sin. Since I doubt protestants want to limit salvation to a very very very few saints (i.e. 99.999% of membership of protestant churches are damned), they must agree that the saved do in fact sin.

We can create another thread if you like.

Here is where I see those who have sinned after being saved are dealt with. Though they are still saved, as this scripture shows.
[1 Cor. 3:11-15].....
"For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." "Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw," "each one's work will become manifest; for the day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is." "If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward." "If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire."

From this scripture, I see the "gold, silver, precious stones," as that which will endure the fire, and are our works of obedience. The "wood, hay, straw," will not endure the fire, and are our acts of disobedience. (sin).
For these we will "suffer loss," but we will "be saved, yet so as through fire."

Paul says in 1 Cor. 13:12, "...Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." When we go to be with Him, we will know, as we are known. So to me the "suffer loss" part means that when we see as He sees, He will allow us, for a moment, to see how we sinned against Him. And, since we see as He sees, this will cause us to suffer loss.
I could be wrong, this "suffer loss" could be far worse. But when I asked Him about it, this is what I feel He showed me.

God bless us all........Roy.

is this just an excuse for some Catholics to sin without guilt? Where did they even get the idea?

I Corinthians 3:15, "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

This word 'fire' in the greek is the word 'pur', which is where the word 'purgatory' came from.

The question is raised:

Do Old Catholics, Traditionalist Catholics, and "mainstream" Roman Catholics necessarily teach the same thing about the concept of Purgatory? I wouldn't just assume they do.

Non of these passages have anything to do with purging off venial sins in a post-death holding tank area known as Purgatory.

All they are saying is that if anyone has put their faith in Christ, that faith cannot save them and is filthy rags.

Non of these passages have anything to do with purging off venial sins in a post-death holding tank area known as Purgatory.

All they are saying is that if anyone has put their faith in Christ, that faith cannot save them and is filthy rags.

Run that one by me again...?

The question is raised:

Do Old Catholics, Traditionalist Catholics, and "mainstream" Roman Catholics necessarily teach the same thing about the concept of Purgatory? I wouldn't just assume they do.

I don't know about Old Catholics because they are not a part of the Church. Traditionalist and non Traditionalist Catholics (not mainstream, all Catholics are Catholics who follow Rome) have the same beliefs regarding purgatory.


1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:



As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1030

Run that one by me again...?

I forgot to include the quote of what I was referring to.


Here is where I see those who have sinned after being saved are dealt with. Though they are still saved, as this scripture shows.
[1 Cor. 3:11-15].....
"For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." "Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw," "each one's work will become manifest; for the day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is." "If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward." "If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire."

From this scripture, I see the "gold, silver, precious stones," as that which will endure the fire, and are our works of obedience. The "wood, hay, straw," will not endure the fire, and are our acts of disobedience. (sin).
For these we will "suffer loss," but we will "be saved, yet so as through fire."

Paul says in 1 Cor. 13:12, "...Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." When we go to be with Him, we will know, as we are known. So to me the "suffer loss" part means that when we see as He sees, He will allow us, for a moment, to see how we sinned against Him. And, since we see as He sees, this will cause us to suffer loss.
I could be wrong, this "suffer loss" could be far worse. But when I asked Him about it, this is what I feel He showed me.

God bless us all........Roy.


Non of these passages have anything to do with individual human beings purging off their own venial sins on by their own works in a post-death holding tank area known as Purgatory.

All those verses are saying is that if anyone has put their faith in Christ, that faith cannot save them and is filthy rags.

Let's consider the question a bit differently.

If one has accepted Christ, yet then lives a life full of serious sin, are we to suppose that the matter of facing the Lord at the day of judgment will be one which is altogether easy and pleasant?

First, the Scriptures seem to indicate otherwise. II Peter 3:10-14 instructs us that

the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.
It seems to me that Peter is indicating that we ought to seek to be without spot or blemish -- ought to live out our faith in holiness and purity -- because at Christ's coming it would be far better for us for our conduct as Christians to be found without fault, holy and righteous.

In Romans 14:7-12 Paul tells us not to judge others because it is not ours to judge other Christians, because they are Christ's servants, God's servants, not ours. We are merely their fellow servants. But the implication is that Christ will indeed judge His followers.


For none of us lives to himself, and none dies just to himself. For whether we live, we live for the Lord; and whether we die, we die as God's. So whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why do you judge your brother? or why do you set at nought your brother?

For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. When Paul states that each of us must give an account of himself to God, it does not seem to be implied that the experience of giving an account of ourselves to God will be just the same regardless of how we have lived. Rather, the implication is that we stand with fear and trembling before a righteous God, knowing our faults, and chastened, sorrowful, for what we have done that is wrong.

Again, Paul says in II Cor. 5:8-11 that

we labour, that, ... we may be accepted of him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he has done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men Paul seems to be saying that there are consequences for things which we -- we Christians -- do right and wrong.

In I Cor. 4 Paul says

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing against myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judges me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. Paul seems here to be saying that he himself, and other apostles and evangelists, who are stewards of God's household and mysteries, will yet be judged by God. When the Lord comes, Paul seems to say, the hidden things of his own life will be revealed, and he may have to face up to wrong in his life, even though he is not really aware of his wrongdoing now. Thus he does not even judge himself!

But to me this seems to presuppose that Paul considers that we will receive praise or reprimand from God, even though we are Christians who ultimately are saved, when we must give account of ourselves to God, and when He shows us wrong in our own lives -- even wrong that we did not suspect.

Surely, we cannot imagine that the process of facing up to our wrongdoings before God -- whether things we know we have done wrong, or things we did wrong without fully being cognizant of our wrongdoing -- will be one which is altogether calm and pleasant. Rather, he seems to be saying that it is a fearful thing to have to face up to what we have done wrong, in God's presence.

Likewise, Peter says (I Pet. 4:16-17) to be righteous in our conduct

Because the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? And "If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?" As I read it, Peter says that we will all be judged, held accountable for our deeds, by God. Of course, it is those who are found in Christ who are finally saved, for the eternal destruction sin brings about is taken away by the work and person of Jesus Christ alone. But Peter certainly also seems to be saying that we will have some very tough facing up to because of what we have done wrong.

In I Cor. 3:11-17 Paul tells us that the foundation upon which our life is secure in God is Jesus Christ alone. But Paul makes it clear that it makes a difference what we do with our lives, even if they are built upon that foundation.

No other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Now if any one builds on the foundation -- with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw -- each one's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.

If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.

If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and that temple you are. As I read it, Paul is saying that some who are saved will be saved "as through fire" -- that is, painfully. Those who have not used their lives to good effect -- have built upon the foundation of Christ in a shoddy, or partly worthless way -- will find what they have done not worthy to survive. They themselves will be rescued, saved, but as they find their lives to have been bad "they themselves will suffer loss" There is something very destructive, Paul is saying, upon misusing our bodies, which are temples of the Holy Spirit, and God will make that clear to us on the day of judgment.

All these texts of Scripture seem to me to be entirely consistent with what we know of God, and of Christ's teaching. It is God who is our great reward, and our salvation: our life comes from our relationship with God our maker and Father and Savior. But if what we do in our lives is appalling to God, wrong and bad in His sight, when we clearly see that we will, of course, be ashamed, and dismayed. It will be very terrible to know that much of what we have done is unrighteous in his sights -- as it will be pleasant if we know that God is pleased with how we have lived.

Thus, it seems to me logical, as well as in accord with Scriptures such as those I have given here, that at the day of judgment those who are saved, "as through fire", having been found in Christ but lived lives that are not in accord with God's commands and ways, will indeed find it very difficult, very painful, to come into God's presence, and very hard to adjust to live in God's presence, to holy life.

Let's consider the question a bit differently.

If one has accepted Christ, yet then lives a life full of serious sin, are we to suppose that the matter of facing the Lord at the day of judgment will be one which is altogether easy and pleasant?



If someone lives a life full of serious sin, they never accepted Christ.

Scripture tells us that when we truly repent and become born again, that Christ not only forgives us of our sins, but changes our nature; from a fleshly, selfish, wicked nature, to one conformed by the Holy Spirit to good works and to righteousness. We are a new Creature. The old man is cast away, we are a new man in Christ.

I seriously doubt this would be a surprise to anyone who is and has lived a life full of serious sin, that they never new Christ, and only played a surface-level lip game one long moment ago, bu chose to serve Mammon more than to serve Christ.

If someone lives a life full of serious sin, they never accepted Christ.

Scripture tells us that when we truly repent and become born again, that Christ not only forgives us of our sins, but changes our nature; from a fleshly, selfish, wicked nature, to one conformed by the Holy Spirit to good works and to righteousness. We are a new Creature. The old man is cast away, we are a new man in Christ.

I seriously doubt this would be a surprise to anyone who is and has lived a life full of serious sin, that they never new Christ, and only played a surface-level lip game one long moment ago, bu chose to serve Mammon more than to serve Christ.

The more like Christ someone becomes the more they understand and realize they are a sinner and a great one. St Paul called himself the worst sinner (1 Tim 1:15). If St Paul is the worst of all sinners I know I am no where as holy as Paul was in his life. We can be Christians and still suffer under the weight of sin. We can be true Christians and be living in serious sin. There is not a day that goes by that I do not sin in minor or serious ways. It is not like the moment I became a Christian I was able to cast all my sins off myself, I still fight my sin everyday and I loose a lot of battles, but I win a lot more than I did before I was a Christian. Santification is a process and many do not finish it in their own life time on earth.

Purgatory is a place to finish the santification process, even a non-Romish doctrine of purgatory is a place to finish this work that Christ began in us. If sin is such a serious problem and curse on the world and us that the God had to come to earth and die to redeem it, how can we say that it only effects our bodies and that once we are no longer in the flesh we are sinful, that is Gnosticism. Sin effects our whole personhood, body and spirit. We may not have to worry about the bodly sin once we die but we still have to deal with the spiritual sin we have, the sin that penerates us so deeply, the root of sin in our person. Christ has started this work in us on earth and finishes it in us when we see him.

Take C.S. Lewis' Great Divorce, where the spiritual people even have to go through the process of moving further up and further into the mountian country. We in this life love God so disfunctionally we must learn to love him correctly, now does this take an instance or do it take a lot of time, who can say. I hope it only takes an instance, I pray that when we get to heaven one look into the eyes of Christ and we will be purged of all selfish love and sin in our spirits but I do not know.

I think Scruffy has made a great point and has shown the Scriptures that I would have. I have tried to lay our a practical non-Roman idea of purgatory.

Another catholic myth.

The more like Christ someone becomes the more they understand and realize they are a sinner and a great one. St Paul called himself the worst sinner (1 Tim 1:15). If St Paul is the worst of all sinners I know I am no where as holy as Paul was in his life. We can be Christians and still suffer under the weight of sin. We can be true Christians and be living in serious sin. There is not a day that goes by that I do not sin in minor or serious ways. It is not like the moment I became a Christian I was able to cast all my sins off myself, I still fight my sin everyday and I loose a lot of battles, but I win a lot more than I did before I was a Christian.

Sound instruction. I would believe that everyone on the board would agree with this you have stated so far.




Santification is a process and many do not finish it in their own life time on earth.

Unsound instruction. Here is where most all Christians who reject the idea of Pergatory will disagree with you.

During this life is the time period for our santification process to be completed; not continuing on after death.

As Jesus told us in Luke, after death it is too late. Had there been an opportunity for anything after death, the rich man wouldn't have had a desire to need to go tell his brothers to amend their ways while they were still living; AND Abraham wouldn't have told the rich man that they had Moses and the prophets, let them listen to them....which effectively said, during the land of the living, everyone gets their opportunity.





Purgatory is a place to finish the santification process, even a non-Romish doctrine of purgatory is a place to finish this work that Christ began in us.

No it's not. Another unsound teaching.

There is no after-death work to finish. There is no after-death place to do works.
Once we die, the work is done.

If we belong to Christ and are one of His, then glory and joy forevermore.
If we do not belong to Christ, and He does not know us, then suffering and torment forevermore.

There is no post-death place of working or earning or any of that type stuff.



If sin is such a serious problem and curse on the world and us that the God had to come to earth and die to redeem it, how can we say that it only effects our bodies and that once we are no longer in the flesh we are sinful, that is Gnosticism. Sin effects our whole personhood, body and spirit. We may not have to worry about the bodly sin once we die but we still have to deal with the spiritual sin we have, the sin that penerates us so deeply, the root of sin in our person. Christ has started this work in us on earth and finishes it in us when we see him.

This is another unsound teaching.

Nowhere in the bible does it teach that people sin after death, but then after that get admitted to Heaven anyway.
Sin stops at mortal death. Nowhere does it teach that the spirit separated from the body at death, continues to sin.

The deeply rooted sin that penetrates us so deeply, that is in our person, you forget and trivialize the Jesus Christ on the Cross aspect regarding it. Jesus took those sins away. We don't work after death to clean up the parts that Jesus couldn't purge, nor do we continue to sin in spirit form, and in a way that Jesus again, on the cross didn't cover and redeem us from.

Christ didn't say while hanging on the cross, "It is started"....as you seem to think. He said "It is finished", for the debt of sin's price for each of us was paid in full. (not a partial payment of only mortal sins).

Hebrews 1:3 "he had by himself purged our sins"

Notice that Paul didn't expect to die and go to purgatory to work out some continued sins and to continue any supposed after-death process of personal sactification....

Philippians 1:21 "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better"

No, Paul had no expectation whatsoever to go to Purgatory....Paul expected to die and to depart and being with Christ....the same expectation every other Christian, yourself included, should have.

This is sound teaching.



Take C.S. Lewis' Great Divorce, where the spiritual people even have to go through the process of moving further up and further into the mountian country. We in this life love God so disfunctionally we must learn to love him correctly, now does this take an instance or do it take a lot of time, who can say. I hope it only takes an instance, I pray that when we get to heaven one look into the eyes of Christ and we will be purged of all selfish love and sin in our spirits but I do not know.

I think Scruffy has made a great point and has shown the Scriptures that I would have. I have tried to lay our a practical non-Roman idea of purgatory.

There is no Purgatory regardless of whether you want to mate it with Rome, or attempt to distance it from Rome. If it weren't for Rome inventing the idea of purgatory in the first place, it would be a complete non-issue.

The Mormons also used to teach that there were people living on the moon and Jupiter....another example of a completely fabricated teaching that is not true. Islam teaches there is a place in Heaven with 72 virgins for the jihadist who murders Christians in the name of Allah. Another completely fabricated teaching.

Punt the idea of Purgatory, put the responsibility upon Christ Himself at Calvary to sufficiently handle and purge all of our sins, and realize that the duration of our sinfulness is during our mortal lives; and then you'll be back to sound doctrine to share with others. ;)

David, from your reply, I surmise that I didn't make my point clear.

You say:


Let's consider the question a bit differently.

If one has accepted Christ, yet then lives a life full of serious sin, are we to suppose that the matter of facing the Lord at the day of judgment will be one which is altogether easy and pleasant?
If someone lives a life full of serious sin, they never accepted Christ. ... And you even seem to be saying that "anyone who ... has lived a life full of serious sin" probably "never knew Christ, and only played a surface-level lip game."

Let me try again.

Let's think about a fellow -- call him Fred -- who has some serious moral faults and struggles. Fred was brought up in a Christian home, but his dad abandoned the family when Fred was 4. Fred has struggled with anger and unforgiveness toward his dad ever since. Fred is a couple years out of college, and a serious Christian. He goes to church, reads the Bible, contributes generously not just at church but to people in need, with time and money. But he flares up easily, and easily gets angry. When all Fred's classmates were sleeping around, Fred was not. But he did have some struggles with lust, porn, and masturbation, as a teenager and in college, and even now after he is married to a wonderful Christian girl, he struggles with lust and masturbation. And he also spends too much money, sometimes, buying things he doesn't really need, as a way of comforting himself when he gets tense. He sometimes drinks a bit too much. He had a somewhat abusive older sibling, and his mom died when he was 22, which was very hard for him.

Fred has worked hard to try to bring his thinking and his life patterns into line with God's will. But not wholly successfully. He talks honestly with Pastor Bob about these things, and Bob who sees great potential in Fred recently went on a two-day camping/fishing trip with Fred. But the real purpose, both of them knew, was to help Fred with his struggles. Fred talked with Bob a lot about difficult things, and Bob prayed for him. Two other elders, Ben and Frank, who know Fred pretty well from their Church men's group, were in a nearby cabin, and also prayed with Bob for Fred. As Fred talked more deeply about some of his faults, sins, and problems with Pastor Bob, he found this incredibly painful. At one point he was physically sick, as they started going into some of the pain from Fred's past which leads him to do some of the bad stuff Fred sometimes finds himself doing. At other times, Fred was so ashamed -- partly of some ways he behaved as a teen, as he discussed these in great detail for the first time in his life, partly about current struggles, and the details of ways he'd hurt others at times -- that he could scarcely go on talking. The pain of those conversations was partly Fred's own reaction to messed-up stuff in himself, and partly his shame, even a kind of terror, in going into all these things with Pastor Bob, who he looks up to, and reveres. But of course, painful as it was at points, Fred is really glad that he went, and really glad even to go through the suffering, to start to get his outlook and inner dispositions worked through and cleaned up.

If our facing up to our problems can be difficult, long-term, and painful, here on earth, as we consider our faults and struggles even in the presence of a godly and loving man like Pastor Bob, I don't see why it might not be -- for some people -- when they meed the Lord, a rather difficult and painful process to learn to adjust their inner attitudes, their wrong habits, their patterns of thinking, and to face up to the full extent of wrongs they've committed in their life. It could be difficult for several reasons, which include (1) because of having to look squarely at some ugly parts of life we hide from ourselves, (2) because of the pain of working through and changing in various areas, (3) because of being known by God, by the Lord, with our various serious faults.

This seems to me to be very closely in alignment with the various scriptures I posted. These Scriptures seem to indicate that, for many, many who are saved, giving account of our lives to God, and entering into the eternal life that is His, might be a rather difficult and painful thing. "The righteous" Peter says, can "only barely be saved" as "judgement begins with the household of God." There will be those who are saved, Paul writes, whose work, or parts of whose work -- whose lived lives -- will be "burned up" and the man himself in that case will "suffer loss" and "though he himself will be saved" it will be "only as through fire." Paul also says that "it is the Lord who will judges me" and that He "will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts." This process is one in which everyone must "give account of himself" to God. In that process "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive" a recompense for what "he has done, whether it be good or bad" and this strikes a certain "terror of the Lord" through which and because of which we pursuade people now -- especially those under our care as pastors -- to live Godly lives, Paul says.

This picture seems quite similar to what we experience, here and now, confronting our sins and failures, by ourselves, or with pastors or friends who help us do so. It is painful, but helps us get free, get clean, face the truth, and be more fully reconciled to God. God, in His mercy, by the redemptive power of Christ alone, takes us through difficult times -- difficult times of facing our sins and faults, in particular -- as part of the process of making us more the kind of people He aims for us to be. And the verses just quoted (given at more length, with references, in my previous post) suggest that something like this may happen when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

There is no after-death work to finish. There is no after-death place to do works.
Once we die, the work is done.

If we belong to Christ and are one of His, then glory and joy forevermore.
If we do not belong to Christ, and He does not know us, then suffering and torment forevermore.

There is no post-death place of working or earning or any of that type stuff.


This is another unsound teaching.

Nowhere in the bible does it teach that people sin after death, but then after that get admitted to Heaven anyway.
Sin stops at mortal death. Nowhere does it teach that the spirit separated from the body at death, continues to sin.

The deeply rooted sin that penetrates us so deeply, that is in our person, you forget and trivialize the Jesus Christ on the Cross aspect regarding it. Jesus took those sins away. We don't work after death to clean up the parts that Jesus couldn't purge, nor do we continue to sin in spirit form, and in a way that Jesus again, on the cross didn't cover and redeem us from.

Christ didn't say while hanging on the cross, "It is started"....as you seem to think. He said "It is finished", for the debt of sin's price for each of us was paid in full. (not a partial payment of only mortal sins).

Hebrews 1:3 "he had by himself purged our sins"

Notice that Paul didn't expect to die and go to purgatory to work out some continued sins and to continue any supposed after-death process of personal sactification....

Philippians 1:21 "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better"

No, Paul had no expectation whatsoever to go to Purgatory....Paul expected to die and to depart and being with Christ....the same expectation every other Christian, yourself included, should have.

This is sound teaching.



There is no Purgatory regardless of whether you want to mate it with Rome, or attempt to distance it from Rome. If it weren't for Rome inventing the idea of purgatory in the first place, it would be a complete non-issue.

The Mormons also used to teach that there were people living on the moon and Jupiter....another example of a completely fabricated teaching that is not true. Islam teaches there is a place in Heaven with 72 virgins for the jihadist who murders Christians in the name of Allah. Another completely fabricated teaching.

Punt the idea of Purgatory, put the responsibility upon Christ Himself at Calvary to sufficiently handle and purge all of our sins, and realize that the duration of our sinfulness is during our mortal lives; and then you'll be back to sound doctrine to share with others. ;)

I agree David,

Especially with your conclusion..."..sound doctrine to share with others."

The teaching of men, and the doctrines (not found in scripture) may seem good or at least harmless on the surface. The problem is that scripture is in it's self the doctrine we are to teach and hold to.

Anything else is shifting sand... no matter how much it appeals to us. :)

David, I very much appreciate your trying to maintain sound doctrine, as best you understand it.

However at certain points the way you present your views doesn't seem to help those who might wish to listen carefully to what you have to say -- people who are open in principle to learning from you -- but don't necessarily agree with it in advance
Sound instruction. I would believe that everyone on the board would agree with this ...

Unsound instruction. Here is where most all Christians ... will disagree with you.

... No it's not. Another unsound teaching.

... This is another unsound teaching.

... This is sound teaching.
... The Mormons also used to teach that there were people living on the moon and Jupiter....another example of a completely fabricated teaching that is not true. Islam teaches ... Another completely fabricated teaching.

Punt [your ideas and agree with my reading of scripture] ... and then you'll be back to sound doctrine to share with others.

Sometimes your argument seems to be phrased as if you have great authority from which you speak

In quotes like those I just gave from your post. It is if you are the theological arbiter, pronouncing what is sound and unsound. I think it might be more helpful to take others' arguments seriously, and then offer your reasons for thinking differently. Suggesting that those who disagree with you are like Muslims or Mormons really doesn't move the discussion forward.

Lots of reasoning, and lots of Scripture, has been given which makes sense of the idea that the work of purification that God does in our lives might involve some painful facing up to the errors of our lives when we appear before His judgment seat. Acknowledging that there are some serious scriptures which seem to many to read that way, and then helping us to understand how you read those Scriptures, would be more helpful than just conclusions about what is sound and what is unsound, or comparisons (which to me seem irrelevent and a bit off-putting) of people who read the Scriptures differently than you to non-Christian religions.

Sometimes your post seems to attribute to others views they don't actually hold, and then attack those not-held views.

You seem to me to be addressing not what Barnabas says, but a different set of ideas that you implicitly attribute to him. I may be missing something, but that is how it seems to me.

Thus, for instance, you say

"There is no after-death work to finish. There is no after-death place to do works.
Once we die, the work is done. ...

There is no post-death place of working or earning or any of that type stuff." But the idea of "earning" is not, so far as I understand, what Barnabas thinks; and certainly not what I think. You have introduced (and very properly repudiated) that view, but I don't see what it has to do with the things we are discssing. Of course, the idea that we "earn" redemption by "works" done after death is an unscriptural one. But stating that as if Barnabas were putting forth that idea, when (so far as I can tell) he is not, doesn't really address his position. By reading what he said as "working or earning" you are setting up a doctrine which, certainly, you can attack. I would attack that idea too, and declare it unsound, and I suppose Barnabas also would. But as I read it, that's not what Barnabas was saying.

How should we deal with the following Scriptures?

The Scriptures clearly state -- do they not -- that some will be saved "as through fire" and will "suffer loss" at judgment, and that we must all "give account to God" for what we have done, and that in that process we receive recompense for what we have done, "whether good or bad" and that "judgment begins with the household of God" in a process through which even "the righteous are barely saved." [These Scriptures are given, with more context, and with the verse references, in my previous two posts.]

I don't see how those Scriptures can be read to mean something other than that some of those who are saved will find the transition from this life to God's kingdom difficult and painful, because they have to face up to their wrongdoings.

All that of course doesn't mean that we do "work" -- much less "earn" something in the process: it would just mean that God, bringing us into His eternal life and kingdom, is doing in our lives -- through the person and finished work of Jesus -- an application of the salvation He has (already) wrought for us in Christ, and that we (though glad He is doing that, and grateful to Him for doing what He alone can do) find that process painful: that process of His applying Christ's salvation to our lives and changing our unrighteousness into the righteousness He by His grace is bringing us into.

I said "I don't see how those Scriptures can be read to mean something other than that some of those who are saved will find the transition from this life to God's kingdom difficult and painful, because they have to face up to their wrongdoings." But that doesn't mean that my reading of the Scriptures must be right: there are lots of things I make mistakes about. If you agree that those Scriptures mean more or less what I understand them to mean, then say so, and we can go from there. But if you disagree with my understanding of what they mean, then it will be helpful for you to explain how you read those Scriptures, and why.

Thanks!

Scruff

I'm afraid, David, that the way you present your case isn't very helpful to those who might wish to listen carefully to what you have to say, but don't necessarily agree with it in advance....

...
Another thing that I find somewhat unhelpful in your post, as I try to understand your point of view fully and sympathetically, is that you seem to be addressing not what Barnabas says, but a different set of ideas that you implicitly attribute to him....

While I am not David, I would like to submit that when one aligns with a construct they accept the flaws inherent to that construct. For instance, one might say 'the earth is flat'... they did not specifically address the issue of vanishing perspective, or the apparent rotation of the sun but those issues are flaws in the chosen construct.

Dear Amos,
Thanks for all your work on the board, and your friendship here.

But I don't quite see the purport of what you just wrote.

I agree David ...

The teaching of men, and the doctrines (not found in scripture) may seem good or at least harmless on the surface. The problem is that scripture is in it's self the doctrine we are to teach and hold to.

Anything else is shifting sand... no matter how much it appeals to us. Yes, of course, we all agree that we should hold to Scriptural doctrine. But people differ about what that is.

I have given a lot of Scripture -- I usually do (always, unless I make mistakes) try to ground and develop my views from the Scripture -- which at least seems to support a reading which David doesn't agree with. He and you, in response, are saying that "we must hold with the Scriptures" or words to that effect. Sure. By all means. But I'm not really getting much traction from those who are dead set because of their doctrine against what those verses seem to say. I'm trying to look at relevant Scriptures. If you think I'm reading it wrong, let me know why, and how you would read those Scriptures. But just saying "the Scriptures, the Scriptures" doesn't help me much when I have been posting Scriptures and others disagree with what they seem to say clearly. It doesn't help me much because I have been trying to proceed from Scripture, and have posted quite a few, and no one has really helped me or others see why those Scriptures aren't relevant, if they aren't.

Specifically addressing me, you write:
... when one aligns with a construct they accept the flaws inherent to that construct. For instance, one might say 'the earth is flat'... they did not specifically address the issue of vanishing perspective, or the apparent rotation of the sun but those issues are flaws in the chosen construct. Thanks for speaking to my post, but I don't quite understand what is is that you are saying here, in regard to the present discussion. I see the Scriptures as presenting a view that, when we stand before God, some of those who are God's redeemed, will have to painfully face up to lacks and sins in their earthly life. I gave those Scriptures. One major concern I have about David's posts -- and your applause for them -- is that rather than addressing the Scriptures those who disagree -- David, and I suppose you -- seem to be saying something like "that just can't be true because it conflicts with doctrinal opinions I hold". Sorry if that sounds rough. I don't mean to mischaracterize what you guys are saying, but that is how it strikes me. I'm open to correction on this point, of course. I'd really like to know what you guys make of the Scriptures I posted.


Thanks, though, for your emphasis on the Scriptures.

....I have given a lot of Scripture -- I usually do (always, unless I make mistakes) try to ground and develop my views from the Scripture....

I too respect and value your contribution. Views can be supported from scripture, that do not exist in scripture. Much of 'Churchanity' is built on such a foundation... and it is shifting sand.

I DO see your case, but it is what I consider 'derived' doctrine and since it is not clearly presented in scripture I do not accept it. Purgatory is an idea... if someone said 'hey, I think this is possible' they might well be decried as nuts... but many accept the idea and then look for scripture to support it. I do not find this to be the way we are to approach scripture at all... but to let scripture teach doctrine... not the other way around.

Crazy ideas.. UFO's reality based on angel mateing.. can be supported by scripture. They remain as crazy ideas, and would be no less so if proposed by the RCC, or a simple herdsmen on this forum. :)

One might propose sanctified lying, and justify it based on Rahab's actions.. even finding great scriptural basis for such... :hmm:

Much of the message of scripture is that our decisions must be made in this life.. the idea of purgatory has a component that might refute that. I see danger in that, but even where I do not see the danger I trust that the Lord has placed His wisdom in the clear teaching of His word... the doctrines of men (no matter how harmless, or accepted) will forever be second best and even dangerous.

I've been curious: Do Roman Catholics believe that anyone just goes straight to Heaven without going to Purgatory first?

I've been curious: Do Roman Catholics believe that anyone just goes straight to Heaven without going to Purgatory first?

I'm sure for the right monetary contribution anything is possible.

Well, Amos, thank you for your gracious reply.

However, I fear I don't find the reply particularly cogent.

I have not been arguing for "Purgatory" -- for many reasons. I have been arguing that the Scriptures -- many of the Scriptures -- which talk about judgment, and refer to the judgment of believers seem to indicate that we will have to give account to God for how we have lived our lives. Those same Scriptures indicate that that process will be painful and even terrifying for us, if our lives have not been lived rightly in God's sight.

Do you disagree about that? If not, we can proceed from there.

If so (that is, if you do disagree), then I would appreciate hearing how those Scriptures should, in your view, or Mr. Taylor's view, be read. It seems to me that I'm starting with relevant scriptures about judgment, and just trying to see what they say. Certainly, that does make sense to me in human terms, also, as I've indicated. It seems to me to fit well with the whole logical structure of Christian faith.

Of course I could be wrong -- and I'm very open to trying to learn from others. Feel free to point out where there's a better way to think about things.

But I do not see presenting a half-dozen key Scriptures dealing God's judging our lives, and noting that they seem to indicate that the redeemed, like everyone else, will have to answer to God for what they have done, as similar to weird ideas about UFOs, or justifying lying.

I get the impression that you have doctrinal objections to the mere fact that having lived our lives amiss will be something we will regret at judgment. I can't imagine why the idea that we suffer if we go astray from God's ways seems to you "dangerous" or likely to undermine the idea that God judges us -- mercifully, but justly -- in light of decisions we have made in this life. In fact, I am saying that God will indeed do that.

General remarks about "churchianity" or about reading allegedly pre-existing views into the Scripture are things that anyone can make about any view, or any reading of the Scripture, that that person disagrees with. It would be more helpful in getting me to understand your perspective if you could explain exactly where I have gone wrong.

Is there another set of Scriptures that you want me to look at? Are there clearly formulated general principles or doctrines which you think I'm falling afoul of? Do you want to offer a different interpretation of the Scriptures I did present? I don't really understand what is seems so odd and off-base about looking a the passages I cited about God's judgments, or about the way I read them.


But thanks for your concern and seriousness!

Sound instruction. I would believe that everyone on the board would agree with this you have stated so far.



Unsound instruction. Here is where most all Christians who reject the idea of Pergatory will disagree with you.

During this life is the time period for our santification process to be completed; not continuing on after death.

As Jesus told us in Luke, after death it is too late. Had there been an opportunity for anything after death, the rich man wouldn't have had a desire to need to go tell his brothers to amend their ways while they were still living; AND Abraham wouldn't have told the rich man that they had Moses and the prophets, let them listen to them....which effectively said, during the land of the living, everyone gets their opportunity.



That would mean that only those who are perfect would go on to heaven, if only finish the process of santification in this life. I don't think any orthodox Christians believe that. Most of us will die with the taint of sin still clinging to us. The Luke example you provide has no baring on what I was saying. My suggestion is not that those who have not made a descision in this life can make a descision after they die. Rather that all believers when they die pass through a time when their sin is purged from them as Scruffy has pointed out with the being saved through fire. Now if this happens in a special place or the moment we die and gaze on the Lord I cannot say. Once the sin is purged from our person ie body and spirit we are entirely santificied and perfect. Death deals with the body but the Lord must deal with spirit he starts this work in us when we accept him and for most finishes it when the sin is purged from us.



No it's not. Another unsound teaching.

There is no after-death work to finish. There is no after-death place to do works.
Once we die, the work is done.

If we belong to Christ and are one of His, then glory and joy forevermore.
If we do not belong to Christ, and He does not know us, then suffering and torment forevermore.

There is no post-death place of working or earning or any of that type stuff.


How is it unsound. We are not doing the work the Lord is doing the work to us. He is purging sin from us. He is making us perfect just as he tries to do each and every day. The problem is while we are in the flesh we can reject him and reject his process of santification. We choose to sin we choose to walk away or ignore the problems with sin that we have. When looking on the perfect light of Christ we cannot turn away we cannot run from the Lord, as he makes us holy. Here on earth we quinch the Spirit, we ignore our conscience, we turn a deaf ear to the Scriptures and the direction of spiritual directors. But there will come a time when we can no longer do this, when we will not want to do this. When we want to come to the Lord, we will have to be perfect. Only whose entirely scantified can do that. Those who are not entirely scantified must become such before they embrace the Lord.



This is another unsound teaching.

Nowhere in the bible does it teach that people sin after death, but then after that get admitted to Heaven anyway.
Sin stops at mortal death. Nowhere does it teach that the spirit separated from the body at death, continues to sin.

The deeply rooted sin that penetrates us so deeply, that is in our person, you forget and trivialize the Jesus Christ on the Cross aspect regarding it. Jesus took those sins away. We don't work after death to clean up the parts that Jesus couldn't purge, nor do we continue to sin in spirit form, and in a way that Jesus again, on the cross didn't cover and redeem us from.

Christ didn't say while hanging on the cross, "It is started"....as you seem to think. He said "It is finished", for the debt of sin's price for each of us was paid in full. (not a partial payment of only mortal sins).

Hebrews 1:3 "he had by himself purged our sins"

Notice that Paul didn't expect to die and go to purgatory to work out some continued sins and to continue any supposed after-death process of personal sactification....

Philippians 1:21 "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better"

No, Paul had no expectation whatsoever to go to Purgatory....Paul expected to die and to depart and being with Christ....the same expectation every other Christian, yourself included, should have.

This is sound teaching.



I did not say that the spirit continues to sin. I said sin effects our whole person body and spirit. Once we die we no longer sin but we still have a sinful spirit, but it does not committ sins. It is unclean, tainted with sin. Some might beable to obey the Lord so perfectly that they have dealt with or had dealt with all sin in their person, both body and spirit. The idea that body is bad and sinful and the spirit is good and pure is Gnosticism. A Christian understanding is that a person is sinful in all aspects of their person. But again we do not do the work of scantification after death only Christ does that. We do not work off our sin, we cannot, that is what Paul continuly preaches against. Jesus as you stated dealt with the debt of sin. He paid the price for us, but he did not make it so that we no longer sin or that we are without sin. Rather he paid the price and gave us grace, because there is no way that we could not work off our sins. I have never suggested that we could work off our sins. Instead I have said that Jesus purges our sin from us. He makes us white as snow.

It seems that you are taking what you believe purgatory to be and super imposing that on what I have expressed and stated, rather than looking at what I have expressed your responses address things I never said or expressed.

Comparing it to other religions beliefs does not help the arguement or discussion at all. I expressed Purgatory from a Protestant view not the Roman Catholic doctrine that you are trying so hard to fight against.

I'm sorry to have to speak plainly, but I cannot let this kind of talk pass, even when the poster is a fine person who often has much to offer, as is the case here.


I'm sure for the right monetary contribution anything is possible. That is, the post is saying, Catholics or the Catholic church will do anything for money.

Jude 1:9 says

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Making gratuitously insulting remarks about other Christians you disagree with theologically is a practice which is contrary to Scripture.
Taking a group which is unpopular -- Catholics are unpopular here at Bibleforums and many places -- and accusing them of dishonest love of money, or other crimes, also is not in accord with Scripture. The common word for such an approach is "bullying".

These ways of talking are also contrary to normal rules of politeness.
They are not funny. They are self-righteous. They are not fair or honest.
They do not demonstrate that the speaker is particularly thoughtful.
They divide Christians in a time when Christianity is under attack.
They tend to convince non-believers -- and even those weak in the faith -- that Christians are quarrelsome, judgmental hypocrits.
They are mean spirited.

Perhaps it would be just as well if we could avoid talking in that way.

Well, Amos, thank you for your gracious reply.

However, I fear I don't find the reply particularly cogent.

I have not been arguing for "Purgatory" -- for many reasons.....

....I don't really understand what is seems so odd and off-base about looking a the passages I cited about God's judgments, or about the way I read them.


But thanks for your concern and seriousness!

I certainly have no objection the the scriptures, just the (apparently erroneous) belief that your desire was to use them to shore up the doctrine of purgatory.

It is good to look, explore, and to discuss together. :) Blessings to you Scruffy Kid, what ever the agreement (or disagreement) may be it is good to discuss and fellowship in a manner devoid of strife.

One day the discussion will be over and the different understandings will be past.. but the fellowship will continue! Oh for THAT day! :pp

Blessings,

The more like Christ someone becomes the more they understand and realize they are a sinner and a great one. St Paul called himself the worst sinner (1 Tim 1:15).

Look at 1 Corinthians 15:9 - he was undeniably referencing before he was saved, when he was persecutor of the Body of Christ.


If St Paul is the worst of all sinners I know I am no where as holy as Paul was in his life. We can be Christians and still suffer under the weight of sin. We can be true Christians and be living in serious sin. There is not a day that goes by that I do not sin in minor or serious ways. It is not like the moment I became a Christian I was able to cast all my sins off myself, I still fight my sin everyday and I loose a lot of battles, but I win a lot more than I did before I was a Christian. Santification is a process and many do not finish it in their own life time on earth.

Purgatory is a place to finish the santification process, even a non-Romish doctrine of purgatory is a place to finish this work that Christ began in us.

"we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Hebrews 10:10)


If sin is such a serious problem and curse on the world and us that the God had to come to earth and die to redeem it, how can we say that it only effects our bodies and that once we are no longer in the flesh we are sinful, that is Gnosticism.

No, Gnosticism means secret knowledge, as in knowledge that's imparted apart from recorded Revelation which anyone can reference.

You're rationalizing against the demonstrable meaning of the text, and anyone can show from the text how you're mistaken.

That's not Gnosticism, but pretence of an ability to rationalize the truth despite the text very much is Gnosticism, considering "“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD" (Isaiah 55:8)


Sin effects our whole personhood, body and spirit.

"Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrews 9:26).

You are "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9), here since the text clearly states the opposite of what you assert.


We may not have to worry about the bodly sin once we die but we still have to deal with the spiritual sin we have, the sin that penerates us so deeply, the root of sin in our person.

No, this is totally fiction that contradicts the scripture:

"So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other" (Galatians 5: 16-17).

This theme developed in Romans where Paul talks about the law taking occasion of the flesh to war against the spirit.

"as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us" (Psalm 103:12).


Christ has started this work in us on earth and finishes it in us when we see him.

No, the Bible undeniably states that He died "once for all."

Corinthians says that its the works that are burned off, refining the golden crowns to lay at His feet as seen in Revelation 4:9-11.

It's not part of the redemptive process, because being saved by the skin of your teeth is all that's at stake according to 1 Corinthians, not punishment as though there was something that we could possibly do to pay the debt of sin, seen in the same epistle (1 Corinthians) just a little further in: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" (1 Cor. 5:17).


Take C.S. Lewis' Great Divorce, where the spiritual people even have to go through the process of moving further up and further into the mountian country. We in this life love God so disfunctionally we must learn to love him correctly, now does this take an instance or do it take a lot of time, who can say. I hope it only takes an instance, I pray that when we get to heaven one look into the eyes of Christ and we will be purged of all selfish love and sin in our spirits but I do not know.

Lewis was not making any reference to purgatory.

You haven't presented anything here except counter-Biblical fiction.

By the way, I strongly suggest you change your name to Ba. Baracus if you want to speak with any kind of authority.

I'm sorry to have to speak plainly, but I cannot let this kind of talk pass, even when the poster is a fine person who often has much to offer, as is the case here.

That is, the post is saying, Catholics or the Catholic church will do anything for money.

Jude 1:9 says

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Making gratuitously insulting remarks about other Christians you disagree with theologically is a practice which is contrary to Scripture.
Taking a group which is unpopular -- Catholics are unpopular here at Bibleforums and many places -- and accusing them of dishonest love of money, or other crimes, also is not in accord with Scripture. The common word for such an approach is "bullying".

These ways of talking are also contrary to normal rules of politeness.
They are not funny. They are self-righteous. They are not fair or honest.
They do not demonstrate that the speaker is particularly thoughtful.
They divide Christians in a time when Christianity is under attack.
They tend to convince non-believers -- and even those weak in the faith -- that Christians are quarrelsome, judgmental hypocrits.
They are mean spirited.

Perhaps it would be just as well if we could avoid talking in that way.

You cannot let it pass??? That's good!!! But the truth does hurt and if the shoe fits then by all means wear it, and you won't decide what bullying is.

I expressed Purgatory from a Protestant view not the Roman Catholic doctrine that you are trying so hard to fight against.

There can't be any such thing, since the concept was invented by the RCC for the purpose of collecting indulgences.

If a 'Protestant' advocates the notion, they are championing an RCC doctrine.

Gnosticism believes there is a secret knowledge, yes. But it also believe that the body is evil and of no use and the spirit is the only thing that matters. That is why Gnostics would either punish their bodies by taking asceticism as far as they could or they would indulge their body and take part in any sin they wanted to because they had the secret knowledge and could do whatever they wanted with the body because it did not matter the spirit was going straight up.

Lewis states in his book that for those who leave the Gray Town for the Great Country, the Gray Town will have been purgatory and those who stay there it will be hell. The whole process of becoming more solid is an idea of scantification and the moving further up and further is as well.

That is, the post is saying, Catholics or the Catholic church will do anything for money.

Jude 1:9 says

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Hey Scruffy,

I think it's been demonstrated in the past that it's better if you and I don't start arguing with each other, if only because both parties can't produce exponentially increasingly long essays in response to one another, but I just though you might appreciate me pointing out... are you really communicating your intended point when you're essentially comparing the RCC with the devil?

There is an idea of it in the Bible as Scruffy has been pointing out and St Augustine developed that idea. St Gregory the Great developed it further the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages corrupted it with the idea of indulgences. Its roots are pure; it has been sullied throughout history by greedy men.

There is an idea of it in the Bible as Scruffy has been pointing out and St Augustine developed that idea. St Gregory the Great developed it further the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages corrupted it with the idea of indulgences. Its roots are pure; it has been sullied throughout history by greedy men.

Testify brother.............

Gnosticism believes there is a secret knowledge, yes. But it also believe that the body is evil and of no use and the spirit is the only thing that matters.- I PITY THE FOOL!

Very true and since that's not in the least what anyone here supports then it's totally irrelevant.


That is why Gnostics would either punish their bodies by taking asceticism as far as they could or they would indulge their body and take part in any sin they wanted to because they had the secret knowledge and could do whatever they wanted with the body because it did not matter the spirit was going straight up..- I PITY THE FOOL!

I know.

But again, no one here supports any extention of such idea, so your comparison failed.

Talking about what's true apart from scripture still classified, though.


Lewis states in his book that for those who leave the Gray Town for the Great Country, the Gray Town will have been purgatory and those who stay there it will be hell. The whole process of becoming more solid is an idea of scantification and the moving further up and further is as well..- I PITY THE FOOL!

I disagree that such was his point, but if that's what he was saying, then he was championing a counter-Biblical point too (see above).

Ryan,
My apologies for misunderstanding your post!
Scruff

There is an idea of it in the Bible as Scruffy has been pointing out and St Augustine developed that idea. St Gregory the Great developed it further the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages corrupted it with the idea of indulgences. Its roots are pure; it has been sullied throughout history by greedy men.

Instead of shifting onus to anonymous "greedy men" in history, or putting the burden on Scruffy who has already presented his case, or those long dead who presented theirs, show me how any of the above challenges the scripture I quoted.

Was this meant as to indicate that Bro Barnabus was "BaBaracus". What does that mean, please? It seems to be intended as a personal insult toward another member of the board? Is that correct?

No, it's a joke but not an insult.

Br. Barnabus just looks alot like B.A. Baracus, the name of the character played by Mr. T in the A-Team. It was just meant to be playful.

Who has more authority than Mr. T?

You cannot let it pass??? That's good!!! But the truth does hurt and if the shoe fits then by all means wear it, and you won't decide what bullying is. Did I misunderstand your post? If so I must apologize. I thought you were taking the thread off course by making an insult toward the Catholic Church, or Catholics generally, saying that they would do anything for money. Is that what you were saying?

If not I misunderstood, apologize, and will withdraw or revise my post.
But if not what were you saying? Please help me out!

Were you saying or implying, in that post, that the Catholic Church, or Catholics generally, saying that they would do anything for money?.

Yes or no, please, would be helpful answers.

David, I very much appreciate your trying to maintain sound doctrine, as best you understand it.

However at certain points the way you present your views doesn't seem to help those who might wish to listen carefully to what you have to say -- people who are open in principle to learning from you -- but don't necessarily agree with it in advance

Sometimes your argument seems to be phrased as if you have great authority from which you speak

In quotes like those I just gave from your post. It is if you are the theological arbiter, pronouncing what is sound and unsound. I think it might be more helpful to take others' arguments seriously, and then offer your reasons for thinking differently. Suggesting that those who disagree with you are like Muslims or Mormons really doesn't move the discussion forward.

Those are great quotes, and they are very firm and bold....why? It isn't really me talking, and that's why it's so bold. Because Protestants don't accept alot of the extra-biblical traditions and doctrines and stuff that the RCC teaches as truth, we can often stand firmly and speak boldly.

When I say that it is unsound, I am reverberating what the Holy Scriptures have to say. (In this case, are absent from saying, for they do not teach the doctrine of pergatory, or the concepts above you referred to involving pergatory).

It's not that I am the theological arbiter pronouncing what is sound and unsound....the Bible is that arbiter, and I am only the repeater. In the case of Pergatory, the Bible is very clear....so there's no need to reply in an acquiesent way, as if the bible might allow for purgatory, or the bible could allow for purgatory. It flatly doesn't from many angles and perspectives.

See the difference? Whereas from the RCC perspective on pergatory, a strong and firm stance from scripture can't be derived, therefore a backup plan to revert and rely on tradition or other RCC-generated reasons for purgatory must be relied on. Protestants say baloney to all that. As Paul said, "What saith the Scripture"? As Jesus said, "Ye err not knowing the Scriptures..." So the age-old RCC vs nonRCC schism of where does authority come from re-arises.




Lots of reasoning, and lots of Scripture, has been given which makes sense of the idea that the work of purification that God does in our lives might involve some painful facing up to the errors of our lives when we appear before His judgment seat. Acknowledging that there are some serious scriptures which seem to many to read that way, and then helping us to understand how you read those Scriptures, would be more helpful than just conclusions about what is sound and what is unsound, or comparisons (which to me seem irrelevent and a bit off-putting) of people who read the Scriptures differently than you to non-Christian religions.

The entire idea of purgatory though, must do two things. 1) be delicately read into scripture and speculated into scripture where it isn't plainly or clearly presented 2) and most importantly, it stands against the full and finished work of Christ on the cross for each human being during his lifetime. If post-death personal sanctification were a viable option, then we should all turn to Universalism. Every human being who has ever lived can be saved, because after death, when standing at the final judgment seat; noone's gonna willingly choose the door to hellfire and damnation. If purgatory were true, then everyone gets saved, because once they die, everyone will do everything they can do to save their hide as the stand before the throne...if the Lord tells them they have a second chance to work-off their venial sins.

But what do the scriptures tell us? A second chance after death? I think not.

Luke 12:16 "The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee"

God didn't say, OK....I'm gonna let you in, you just gotta work-off your sin debt for a while; then I'll let you in....I'll let everyone in!

Likewise here:

Matthew 25:6 "And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not."

God didn't say the door will be temporarily shut while you hangout in purgatory and finish your sancfitication process, and when you get all those sins purged off, I'll re-open the door and welcome you in.




Sometimes your post seems to attribute to others views they don't actually hold, and then attack those not-held views.

You seem to me to be addressing not what Barnabas says, but a different set of ideas that you implicitly attribute to him. I may be missing something, but that is how it seems to me.

Thus, for instance, you say

"There is no after-death work to finish. There is no after-death place to do works.
Once we die, the work is done. ...

There is no post-death place of working or earning or any of that type stuff." But the idea of "earning" is not, so far as I understand, what Barnabas thinks; and certainly not what I think. You have introduced (and very properly repudiated) that view, but I don't see what it has to do with the things we are discssing. Of course, the idea that we "earn" redemption by "works" done after death is an unscriptural one. But stating that as if Barnabas were putting forth that idea, when (so far as I can tell) he is not, doesn't really address his position. By reading what he said as "working or earning" you are setting up a doctrine which, certainly, you can attack. I would attack that idea too, and declare it unsound, and I suppose Barnabas also would. But as I read it, that's not what Barnabas was saying.

I'm talking of the doctrine of purgatory that he was speaking in favor of....you know the part where the dead hang out in purgatory being purged and purified of the venial sins that prevent them from entry into Heaven....the sins that Jesus' death on the cross was not sufficient to atone for on Calvary; thereby necessitating this place called purgatory for working out these RCC venial sins. Thus the purgatorium fires purge the sinner of their sins, instead of Christ Himself and His spilled blood.







How should we deal with the following Scriptures?

The Scriptures clearly state -- do they not -- that some will be saved "as through fire" and will "suffer loss" at judgment, and that we must all "give account to God" for what we have done, and that in that process we receive recompense for what we have done, "whether good or bad" and that "judgment begins with the household of God" in a process through which even "the righteous are barely saved." [These Scriptures are given, with more context, and with the verse references, in my previous two posts.]

I don't see how those Scriptures can be read to mean something other than that some of those who are saved will find the transition from this life to God's kingdom difficult and painful, because they have to face up to their wrongdoings.


Here is what those scriptures mean, without resorting to reading purgatory into those verses when it isn't mentioned there.

Some being saved yet suffering loss as through fire at the judmgent simply means that on judgment day, there will be some people who are saved, but who realize that the squandered many oppurtunites for the kingdom of Christ. They suffered loss at the missed opportunites they could have taken advantage of to better impact and grow the Kingdom of Christ. All their unfruitful activities that didn't contribute to the Kingdom like wood and stubble burned in the fire, will have been worthless.

That is all that passage is saying....not remotely about purgatory.





All that of course doesn't mean that we do "work" -- much less "earn" something in the process: it would just mean that God, bringing us into His eternal life and kingdom, is doing in our lives -- through the person and finished work of Jesus -- an application of the salvation He has (already) wrought for us in Christ, and that we (though glad He is doing that, and grateful to Him for doing what He alone can do) find that process painful: that process of His applying Christ's salvation to our lives and changing our unrighteousness into the righteousness He by His grace is bringing us into.

But what you say here 1) doesn't require a purgatory doctrine; and 2) doesn't show us anywhere a clear support that a purgatory doctrine exists to facillitate this, even if it was required.

Christ took our sins upon Himself on the cross. That's the great love and mercy of the cross. He didn't leave some of the sins for us to have to temporarily burn and purge and torment over while in a post-death holding tank, as purgatory teaches.





I said "I don't see how those Scriptures can be read to mean something other than that some of those who are saved will find the transition from this life to God's kingdom difficult and painful, because they have to face up to their wrongdoings." But that doesn't mean that my reading of the Scriptures must be right: there are lots of things I make mistakes about. If you agree that those Scriptures mean more or less what I understand them to mean, then say so, and we can go from there. But if you disagree with my understanding of what they mean, then it will be helpful for you to explain how you read those Scriptures, and why.



THe difficulty and pain that is acknowleged isn't a burning torment in a purgatorium though....it is the internal realization that their sins let down and disappointed the Savior....no doubt one of the concerns that troubled Paul greatly to say that he was the chiefest sinner. Yet Paul knew that when he departed this life, he was not going to a purging abode for those sins; but rather to be with Christ.

I hope my explanation helps you. Sometimes even if you don't get a clear explanation or the one that you want, it is good to question yourself on whether or not the alternative you think might be the most likely one is even tendable to begin with. I'm sure you've heard some RCC apologicists say that of those verses concerning purgatory; but those verses themselves are mute regarding purgatory. All scripture is mute. It must be read in, and even then it is not clear. That's why I kept saying it is unsound. There's no good reason to take and embrace a bad doctrine when an unclear or sound doctrine might not be showing itself to you. Pray over it, ask the Holy Spirit to direct, search the rest of the scriptures for validation.....but don't just default to a bad doctrine in order to explain a passage.

THe difficulty and pain that is acknowleged isn't a burning torment in a purgatorium though....it is the internal realization that their sins let down and disappointed the Savior....no doubt one of the concerns that troubled Paul greatly to say that he was the chiefest sinner. Yet Paul knew that when he departed this life, he was not going to a purging abode for those sins; but rather to be with Christ.

Great point David!

Paul in particular noted the absense from the body is the same as presence with the Lord, both in 2 Cor. 5:6-8 and Phil. 1:20-25.

Did I misunderstand your post? If so I must apologize. I thought you were taking the thread off course by making an insult toward the Catholic Church, or Catholics generally, saying that they would do anything for money. Is that what you were saying?

If not I misunderstood, apologize, and will withdraw or revise my post.
But if not what were you saying? Please help me out!

Were you saying or implying, in that post, that the Catholic Church, or Catholics generally, saying that they would do anything for money?.

Yes or no, please, would be helpful answers.

My blunt and "callous" remarks, statements, etc.... are generally directed towards the past actions of the rcc in threads like these, now for example the rcc has the authority to return treasures belonging to Jews given to them by hitler won't return it to the rightful owners because hilter owed them money, but not other peoples money!!! and by accepting the booty they have received stolen property and it is facts like these that leave a bad taste in my mouth about the rcc and reading post #44 I am in agreement with that post and it doesn't seem like that there has been much change in the rcc for the middle ages, can I post my opinions based on facts??? yes I can !!! is it bullying??? No it's not, So i.e. you or no one else shouldn't take it to heart because after all " The truth shall set you free" and like Forrest Gump says, "That's all I got to say about that". Thanks.

That would mean that only those who are perfect would go on to heaven, if only finish the process of santification in this life. I don't think any orthodox Christians believe that. Most of us will die with the taint of sin still clinging to us. The Luke example you provide has no baring on what I was saying.

Most orthodox Christian believes that....excluding the RCC and purgatory embracing folks.

Non-purgatory believing Christians realize that our taint of sin was taken away from us, and placed on the shoulders of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:4 "Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world"

Colossians 2:13 "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross"

Hebrews 1:3 "when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high"

I Peter 2:24 "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. "


All of these passages refute the idea of purgatory, and the idea that a taint of sin still clings to us after death and necessitates a further, later purging in the world to come.






My suggestion is not that those who have not made a descision in this life can make a descision after they die.

A second chance decision after death.....That's called Universal Reconciliation.




I did not say that the spirit continues to sin. I said sin effects our whole person body and spirit. Once we die we no longer sin but we still have a sinful spirit, but it does not committ sins.

Scripture says that Christ too away all our sins....he didn't leave any sins hiding in our spirit to be purged out after death.

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. "

I'm sure for the right monetary contribution anything is possible.

That was uncalled for

I've been curious: Do Roman Catholics believe that anyone just goes straight to Heaven without going to Purgatory first?

Yes we do, Saints are said to be in Heaven and not Purgatory

I'm sure for the right monetary contribution anything is possible.I'm sorry to have to speak plainly, but I cannot let this kind of talk pass, even when the poster is a fine person who often has much to offer, as is the case here.

That is, the post is saying, Catholics or the Catholic church will do anything for money.


I didn't take it that way at all.

I read it as reminding those who might be arguing in favor of Purgatory, of the RCC's buying of indulgence program during the middle ages.

That was uncalled for

Get in line.............

I'm sorry to have to speak plainly, but I cannot let this kind of talk pass, even when the poster is a fine person who often has much to offer, as is the case here.

That is, the post is saying, Catholics or the Catholic church will do anything for money.

Jude 1:9 says

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Making gratuitously insulting remarks about other Christians you disagree with theologically is a practice which is contrary to Scripture.
Taking a group which is unpopular -- Catholics are unpopular here at Bibleforums and many places -- and accusing them of dishonest love of money, or other crimes, also is not in accord with Scripture. The common word for such an approach is "bullying".

These ways of talking are also contrary to normal rules of politeness.
They are not funny. They are self-righteous. They are not fair or honest.
They do not demonstrate that the speaker is particularly thoughtful.
They divide Christians in a time when Christianity is under attack.
They tend to convince non-believers -- and even those weak in the faith -- that Christians are quarrelsome, judgmental hypocrits.
They are mean spirited.

Perhaps it would be just as well if we could avoid talking in that way.

Most like him don't believe we Catholics are Christians because we don't do Christianity their way

Yes we do, Saints are said to be in Heaven and not Purgatory

The word 'Saint' only means belonging to some religion. In the Bible it never uses it to describe some sort of class of Christian.

Most like him don't believe we Catholics are Christians because we don't do Christianity their way

Their way??? There is only one way and that is by way of Scripture, no additives, no preservatives.

The word 'Saint' only means belonging to some religion. In the Bible it never uses it to describe some sort of class of Christian.

NHot everything is in the Bible and is not the utmost thing

Most like him don't believe we Catholics are Christians because we don't do Christianity their way

It's really because you don't do Christianity the Bible's way, but I've already invited you to discuss that on another thread and you declined.

The invite's an open one, if ever you're interested.

I'd be very open to a panel of Catholics, if you could gather them... whatever works for you.

Their way??? There is only one way and that is by way of Scripture, no additives, no preservatives.

Wrong, everyone outside the Church has thier own way that seems right to them but is not

It's really because you don't do Christianity the Bible's way, but I've already invited you to discuss that on another thread and you declined.

The invite's an open one, if ever you're interested.

I'd be very open to a panel of Catholics, if you could gather them... whatever works for you.

We do it's Christs way Protestant do it thier own way. CXhrist founded a Church not Protestants

NHot everything is in the Bible

That's certainly true of purgatory - it's no where in there.

Just a though on following for doctrine things that aren't in there: "in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

Most like him don't believe we Catholics are Christians because we don't do Christianity their way

Non-Catholic Christians never believe RCC-Christians are not Christians because of how they do Christianity. That's baloney, and just silly.

Non-Catholic Christians simply challege unsound and bad RCC doctrines that are pulled out of the air, and not grounded on clear scripture; in the hopes that their RCC-brethren will realize they too should abandon those unsound doctrines.

It doesn't make anyone not a Christian. That's personal between yourself and the Lord. :)

Wrong, everyone outside the Church has thier own way that seems right to them but is not

Then let's see what the Bible has to say about it, shall we?

Do you need that link again or can you find your way there?

We do it's Christs way Protestant do it thier own way. CXhrist founded a Church not Protestants

Then let's see what the Bible has to say about it, shall we?

Here's that link for you:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/217784-Catholic-s-and-Bible-reading/page6

Look at 1 Corinthians 15:9 - he was undeniably referencing before he was saved, when he was persecutor of the Body of Christ.

1"we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Hebrews 10:10)



2No, Gnosticism means secret knowledge, as in knowledge that's imparted apart from recorded Revelation which anyone can reference.

You're rationalizing against the demonstrable meaning of the text, and anyone can show from the text how you're mistaken.

That's not Gnosticism, but pretence of an ability to rationalize the truth despite the text very much is Gnosticism, considering "“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD" (Isaiah 55:8)



3"Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrews 9:26).

You are "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9), here since the text clearly states the opposite of what you assert.



4No, this is totally fiction that contradicts the scripture:

"So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other" (Galatians 5: 16-17).

This theme developed in Romans where Paul talks about the law taking occasion of the flesh to war against the spirit.

"as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us" (Psalm 103:12).



5No, the Bible undeniably states that He died "once for all."

Corinthians says that its the works that are burned off, refining the golden crowns to lay at His feet as seen in Revelation 4:9-11.

It's not part of the redemptive process, because being saved by the skin of your teeth is all that's at stake according to 1 Corinthians, not punishment as though there was something that we could possibly do to pay the debt of sin, seen in the same epistle (1 Corinthians) just a little further in: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" (1 Cor. 5:17).



6Lewis was not making any reference to purgatory.

You haven't presented anything here except counter-Biblical fiction.

By the way, I strongly suggest you change your name to Ba. Baracus if you want to speak with any kind of authority.

I will deal with the bold numbers in your post, so I don't have to break everything out.

But first off, the closer I draw to God the more sins I see in my life, sins that I did not know I had, until Christ shed light on them. I know many others who have had this experience either, I think Paul is talking about his past and present. In these passages.

1 True there is nothing in this that disproves what I have said. His sacrifice was once for all and is made full as we have our sins purged from us in the body, by drawing close to God and altering our actions to become more like Christ and after death as we have our sins purged from us.

2 We dealt with this already, but to believe that once the body dies that we don't have to deal with any sin is Gnosticism, because it portraits the idea that body/flesh is bad and spirit is good. I am suggesting that both are bad.

3 Hebrews 9 has nothing to do with this. His sacrifice deals with sin, but this has to be worked out in various ways unless we believe that we are sinless now in this present life. He dealt with the debt of sin but did not make us sinless.

You are going to have to clarify our other statement it makes no sense in context.

4 It does not contradict Scripture, especially the Scripture you go on to quote, since Galatians is talking about the Holy Spirit not our own spirit (or soul if you want to call it that).

If our sins are removed from us then why do we still sin? Do we all live perfectly? NO! we all still sin, we are not perfect, or sinless.

5 His death is once for all but has nothing to do with what I stated here.

You are connecting two Scriptures that do not connect, you are going to need to show some evidence that Paul was refering to the crowns we lay at Christ's feet in Revelation.

No where have I suggested that we can pay the debt of sin. I am saying that we must have our sinful natures and our sins that cling to us as germs or crusty scab covered banages ripped from us or purged from us, burned off of us. Think of the lizard on clinging to the man's shoulder in The Great Divorce, our sins must be killed before we can go into the mountains.

We are a new creation but we still sin! That is the whole point we must be cleaned up, taking off what is dirty and putting on our white robes. We do not wear them now we can't we would get them dirty, in which case Christ would have to wash them over and over again in his blood. Instead what we see is the robes being washed once the saints are in heaven. I am not saying that there is anything we can do, we must depend on Christ, he is the one who purges us from our sins.

6 Already dealt with.

A second chance decision after death.....That's called Universal Reconciliation.

My suggestion is NOT that those who have not made a descision in this life can make a descision after they die.

Once we are dead that is it, no one can choose Christ after death. You seem to be misunderstanding me we are saying the same thing on this point. I just believe that Christ is going to complete his work in us after death. I see a fatual flaw in myself, I sin. I cannot go before God with sin in my mind, body, soul, spirit, heart, flesh, anywhere I must be clean. The only way I am cleaned is by Christ. I see that cleansing started in this life but finished in the next.

NHot everything is in the Bible and is not the utmost thing

Anything doctrine and teaching that is profitable and true is found in the scriptures.

II Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect"

Paul didn't say, "also add in some later, yet to be specificied, man-made doctrines".

Paul rather, warned against doing just that thing, when Paul told us....

Colossians 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

And both of these admonitions were written down, divinely inspired by God to mankind, hundreds of years before any of the man-made doctrines that the RCC would later introduce as supposedly from God while yet absent from God's Word.

The Bible is much more trustworthy than later man-made doctrines. There are no foundational Christian doctrines missing from the Bible. However, many later man-made doctrines originated from the RCC are completely absent from the bible.

Protestants would say everything in the Bible is the utmost thing....otherwise the Lord wouldn't have had any need for it....man-made organizations who come up with their own rules and traditions, whether the teachings of the Pharisees and Scribes of the O.T. or the RCC additions of the NT, only tend to muck up the truth of God's word and it's application for our lives.

Wrong, everyone outside the Church has thier own way that seems right to them but is not

"The Church" ??? The Church is GODs people, not a name, not a doctrine ( as false as it is) not a title, and certainly not power because after all that's what rome means=power, and they have nothing to brag about.

Non-Catholic Christians never believe RCC-Christians are not Christians because of how they do Christianity. That's baloney, and just silly.

Non-Catholic Christians simply challege unsound and bad RCC doctrines that are pulled out of the air, and not grounded on clear scripture; in the hopes that their RCC-brethren will realize they too should abandon those unsound doctrines.

It doesn't make anyone not a Christian. That's personal between yourself and the Lord. :)

However no where in the Bible does it say go by the Bible Alone.

Then let's see what the Bible has to say about it, shall we?

Here's that link for you:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/217784-Catholic-s-and-Bible-reading/page6

Ain't taking your baiting

However no where in the Bible does it say go by the Bible Alone.

I'd ask you if your serious, but no thanks. 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So if it's not scripture then it is not inspired by GOD.

Anything doctrine and teaching that is profitable and true is found in the scriptures.

II Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect"

Paul didn't say, "also add in some later, yet to be specificied, man-made doctrines".

Paul rather, warned against doing just that thing, when Paul told us....

Colossians 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

And both of these admonitions were written down, divinely inspired by God to mankind, hundreds of years before any of the man-made doctrines that the RCC would later introduce as supposedly from God while yet absent from God's Word.

The Bible is much more trustworthy than later man-made doctrines. There are no foundational Christian doctrines missing from the Bible. However, many later man-made doctrines originated from the RCC are completely absent from the bible.

Protestants would say everything in the Bible is the utmost thing....otherwise the Lord wouldn't have had any need for it....man-made organizations who come up with their own rules and traditions, whether the teachings of the Pharisees and Scribes of the O.T. or the RCC additions of the NT, only tend to muck up the truth of God's word and it's application for our lives.

Did the Bible fall out of the sky? No, the Church put it together and since my Church put it together how can you trust it? Luther ripped out books but it was the true Church of Christ who put it together

I'd ask you if your serious, but no thanks. 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So if it's not scripture then it is not inspired by GOD.

Sorry, no. Scripture also says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth not a book

"The Church" ??? The Church is GODs people, not a name, not a doctrine ( as false as it is) not a title, and certainly not power because after all that's what rome means=power, and they have nothing to brag about.

The Church is what Christ founded. Christians make that up buthey are not seperate from the one true Church

The Church is what Christ founded. Christians make that up buthey are not seperate from the one true Church

That's the beauty of it, only catholics believe they are "the one true church" sorta like "the mormons", "jehovahs witness", "the international church of Christ" so you're in good company leading the pack.

The one TRUE Church is the bride of Christ and it is made up of ALL who place their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Please, exchange ideas, talk with one another, grow TOGETHER.

This has been the nice request.

Thanks -
V

Well it seems I was wrong, purgatory does exist afterall:

http://www.quarrygirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/purgatory-pizza-ext-570x308.jpg

That just means it's open fired, right?

That just means it's open fired, right?

Open fired pizza? Now I'm hungry :)

Open fired pizza? Now I'm hungry :)
Good stuff, yep!

Well it seems I was wrong, purgatory does exist afterall:

http://www.quarrygirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/purgatory-pizza-ext-570x308.jpg

Well well. It's exists, it's open, but completely empty. How's the food?

Yes we do, Saints are said to be in Heaven and not Purgatory

But in the RCC tradition, no one can be classified as a saint until some significant period of time after their death, while the church works through the process of confirming miracles for prayers prayed to that (now dead) individual and completes the process of beatification. So where does the person go before the are sainted? John Paul II is not in heaven yet, according to RCC, unless he's been beatified without anyone knowing about it.

But in the RCC tradition, no one can be classified as a saint until some significant period of time after their death, while the church works through the process of confirming miracles for prayers prayed to that (now dead) individual and completes the process of beatification. So where does the person go before the are sainted? John Paul II is not in heaven yet, according to RCC, unless he's been beatified without anyone knowing about it.

No they can be in Heaven, what the Church does is just make it offical for us left behind

So who decides?

And why would anyone on earth care?

So who decides?

And why would anyone on earth care?

I believe it's a committee, but not sure. As for your second it let's us know thet they are a model that we can look to of Christian virtue and living

Well well. It's exists, it's open, but completely empty. How's the food?

We're there in spirit, see the punishment is you can't eat anything, :lol:

I will deal with the bold numbers in your post, so I don't have to break everything out.

But first off, the closer I draw to God the more sins I see in my life, sins that I did not know I had, until Christ shed light on them. I know many others who have had this experience either, I think Paul is talking about his past and present. In these passages.

False: "For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles" (2 Cor. 11:5).


1 True there is nothing in this that disproves what I have said. His sacrifice was once for all and is made full as we have our sins purged from us in the body, by drawing close to God and altering our actions to become more like Christ and after death as we have our sins purged from us.

Look at what you’re doing here... you’re trying to change the process of recognizing how to be more obedient with a process of purging out the consequences of disobedience.

The refining of the walk has nothing to do with paying for or purging sins, it has to do with accomplishing those works that were set forth by God to do, instead of rebelling and doing something else.

Therefore, since the process isn’t one of paying or purging sins, but simply being more obedient in doing God’s will, then there can be no extension of that purpose in death when there is only the rest promised in Hebrews.

You’re imposing a works bases for salvation here, instead of recognizing the sin is simply the perversion of God’s will.

This is exactly the danger in accepting made up doctrines – it warps all the scripture around the doctrine, not only those passages into which false doctrines are imposed.


2 We dealt with this already, but to believe that once the body dies that we don't have to deal with any sin is Gnosticism,

No, that’s just what the Bible teaches, and therefore to teach otherwise is Gnosticism.


because it portraits the idea that body/flesh is bad and spirit is good.

That idea is found in scripture, like I pointed out.

The idea that is not correct is the conclusion that since A (the flesh is bad but the spirit is good) then B (we can do whatever we want with the flesh and it won’t affect the spirit), which is in contrast to God’s word.


I am suggesting that both are bad.

And I provided the scripture to show that you are wrong.

Again, it was the one in Galatians, for starters.


3 Hebrews 9 has nothing to do with this. His sacrifice deals with sin, but this has to be worked out in various ways unless we believe that we are sinless now in this present life.

No, it really doesn’t have to be worked out, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Any pretense of working it out is to include a works basis of salvation, and scripture warns against just when it says not to “frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Galatians 2:21).

Hebrews 9 does have everything to do with this or else redemption is a process and Christ died in vain, and we submit Him to public shame (Hebrews 6:6).


He dealt with the debt of sin but did not make us sinless.

“Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26)

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:19)

"I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.” (Isaiah 43:25).

“as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us” (Psalm 103:12).


You are going to have to clarify our other statement it makes no sense in context.

Oh, sure.

You’re doctrines are make-believe. They aren’t found in scripture. They’re fiction, contrary to the word of God, but taught in it’s place.

Jesus pointed out to the Jews that their faith was in vain because they rejected the word of God, teaching instead the doctrines of men.

That’s what you’re doing.

Let me know if you’d like further clarification.


4 It does not contradict Scripture, especially the Scripture you go on to quote, since Galatians is talking about the Holy Spirit not our own spirit (or soul if you want to call it that).

Sure, but if our spirit wasn’t in line with the Spirit, but was corrupt and not sanctified and made new in Him as we’re told, then why would Galatians use the unecessisary qualifier that it is the flesh that wars against the Holy Spirit?

If what you’re saying is true then the flesh and spirit would war against the Spirit, but that’s not what it says.

“Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed [is] willing, but the flesh [is] weak” (Matt. 26:41).

See if you can consistently find references to the human spirit of a follower of God in the Bible that suggests the spirit is evil.

You’re doctrines are man-made.


If our sins are removed from us then why do we still sin? Do we all live perfectly? NO! we all still sin, we are not perfect, or sinless.

We still sin even though Jesus died once for all to save us from our sin, because we’re still in a fallen world and we still have fallen flesh, as per Galatians, Romans, the Epistles of John, etc.

I’m not suggesting we wouldn’t continue to sin. That’s not a contention for my point in the least. We are, after all, all born after Christ’s sacrifice, so all forgiveness is necessarily proactive, especially since “his work has been finished since the creation of the world” (Hebrews 4:3).

What you’re suggesting is that because we still sin, then we must be purged.

Show me that from scripture, instead of from your imagination please, since I keep showing you the opposite from scripture.


5 His death is once for all but has nothing to do with what I stated here.

It does, and saying it doesn’t won’t change that it does.

Can I see some scripture at some point to back up some part of something you say?


You are connecting two Scriptures that do not connect, you are going to need to show some evidence that Paul was refering to the crowns we lay at Christ's feet in Revelation.

O please.

I’m connecting the burning off of works to reveal the treasures of obedience at the Judgment seat of Christ and the treasures laid down at the feet of the Judgment seat of Christ, while you’re connecting totally speculative concepts into that same first passage which totally change the meaning of the actual words of the text, and you’re asking me for evidence?

Come on.


No where have I suggested that we can pay the debt of sin.

Your argument necessitates it, otherwise what process is occurring after death when we no longer walk in the fallen world?

The principle is based on nothing less.


I am saying that we must have our sinful natures and our sins that cling to us as germs or crusty scab covered banages ripped from us or purged from us, burned off of us.

No, that’s not what the passage says. It says the “works” will be burned off, not the sins, “For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:10).

You’re adding to the text, with no evidence but your counter-Biblical speculation.


Think of the lizard on clinging to the man's shoulder in The Great Divorce, our sins must be killed before we can go into the mountains.

Your interpretation of Lewis’ fiction will not counteract scripture.


We are a new creation but we still sin!

Yes, we do, and that in no way then means that those sins (unlike the sins before them) but those fresh ones have to be purged in some unique and Gnostically revealed fashion.

That’s where you depart from scripture.


That is the whole point we must be cleaned up, taking off what is dirty and putting on our white robes.

No, we’re told over and over that’s already been done and the works of obedience are what’s refined in the fire and the works of disobedience simply don’t last and burn up – there is no reward for them.


We do not wear them now we can't we would get them dirty,

Book, chapter and verse please.


in which case Christ would have to wash them over and over again in his blood. Instead what we see is the robes being washed once the saints are in heaven.

Book, chapter and verse please.


I am not saying that there is anything we can do, we must depend on Christ, he is the one who purges us from our sins.

I’ve already shown you that He already has done so, and it was once for all and it has to be currently, not at some future point, seen in Hebrews “if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace” (Hebrews 6:6).

Any contention of which can therefore only be dealt with by applicable reference to a book, chapter and verse that supports your point.

Ain't taking your baiting

You'll just content yourself with derailing the thread then?

Sorry, no. Scripture also says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth not a book

How is this on topic?

There is a thread where we can deal with this, you know.

How is this on topic?

There is a thread where we can deal with this, you know.

I respond as I respond. You have much hatred in you I sense for Christians who don't follow your way

I respond as I respond.

I used to follow the Popeye school of philosophy too, but I ran out of spinach so now I use the Bible.


You have much hatred in you I sense for Christians who don't follow your way

Is that what this feeling is - hatred? Hmm. I knew it wasn't hungry or sleepy.

It feels very similar to loving concern mixed with playfulness.

I thought hatred would burn more.

I respond as I respond. You have much hatred in you I sense for Christians who don't follow your way

Talk about planting seeds of negativity. There is no truth in that whatsoever.

Talk about planting seeds of negativity. There is no truth in that whatsoever.

Aw, thanks TMS!

I love you too!

BUT YOU MUST SUBMIT TO MY WILL AND NOT CALL YOURSELF PROTESTANT!!

Did you know that's the only reason you don't?

We're finding out lots about ourselves, hey?

Aw, thanks TMS!

I love you too!

BUT YOU MUST SUBMIT TO MY WILL AND NOT CALL YOURSELF PROTESTANT!!

Did you know that's the only reason you don't?

We're finding out lots about ourselves, hey?

I will not submit to Protestantism, only because you want me to, call me rebellious, just don't call me direct.

I will not submit to Protestantism, only because you want me to, call me rebellious, just don't call me direct.

You must get just as much of a kick out of it as I do, when people try to make you defend Luther and Calvin, as though their reputations carry your points, hey?

You must get just as much of a kick out of it as I do, when people try to make you defend Luther and Calvin, as though their reputations carry your points, hey?

I know Luther started the Protestant reformation and I know nothing of Calvin other than Calvin Klein.

I just believe that Christ is going to complete his work in us after death. I see a fatual flaw in myself, I sin. I cannot go before God with sin in my mind, body, soul, spirit, heart, flesh, anywhere I must be clean. The only way I am cleaned is by Christ. I see that cleansing started in this life but finished in the next.

So in your belief we: after we die we go to a special place where only Christians go for an uncertain time to continue the process of sanctification which Christ started in us here on Earth and we stay there as long as it needs till we are totally free of sin.

The Scriptural problems I see, other than others already pointed out:

1) Such a place is never mentioned in Scripture, not in the OT, not in the NT.

2) What if a Christian never manages to become clean / without sin? He stays there forever?

3) Will Christians who fall or fail etc. be thrown in the lake of fire after all?

4) When will Judgement Day be? Will it wait till the last Christian will be clean / without sin?

5) But most of all...... the whole idea undermines the work of Christ and the act of grace done to us. The focus is on the individual again. Man must do it. Grace needs to be earned. That's not so. Christ has done it.

No all those points are wrong. First the Protestant OT contains less books the the regular OT and Purgatory is mentioned in there and the Bible was never meant to contain everything there is about the Christian faith, we are not people of a book like the muslims. Purgatory is in the NT which Paul talks about and even though the name Purgatory is not mentioned the concept is there, just as the Trinity is no where mentioned but the concept is there and Scripture alone is not mentioned at all but Protestants try to find the concept in Scriptures.

Purgatory is not Hell, every person who goes through it or there as a place (Note the Church never says it's a place just that we go through something as Scriptures themselves attest) goes to Heaven and it's a misnomer to assume we do something that is a Protestant myth. It is God who purges us because sin offends Him any sin, there are sins we can forget about and ones we fail to confess those and another myth that many Protestants think we Catholics save ourselves which could not be further from the truth, that idea is abhorrent to us as abhorrent as sin is to God. It is God only that saves us through His Grace which is unmerited through Christ atonement.

So as to your last point no it does not undermine what Christ did on the Cross, which was to create a bridge to God as the perfect sacrifice so we can once again walk with God.

Here is a great article on what Purgatory really is apart from the myths http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/how2purg.htm

So in your belief we: after we die we go to a special place where only Christians go for an uncertain time to continue the process of sanctification which Christ started in us here on Earth and we stay there as long as it needs till we are totally free of sin.

The Scriptural problems I see, other than others already pointed out:

1) Such a place is never mentioned in Scripture, not in the OT, not in the NT.

2) What if a Christian never manages to become clean / without sin? He stays there forever?

3) Will Christians who fall or fail etc. be thrown in the lake of fire after all?

4) When will Judgement Day be? Will it wait till the last Christian will be clean / without sin?

5) But most of all...... the whole idea undermines the work of Christ and the act of grace done to us. The focus is on the individual again. Man must do it. Grace needs to be earned. That's not so. Christ has done it.

1)Some concepts of theology are not spelled out in the Bible but we still believe them, because we have the witness of the Chruch, which was around before the Bible. Also I did not say it was a place, I believe as some other theologians do that once we look at Jesus, when he judges us as his follower or not, the process begins, his gaze starts to cleanse us.

2) Not possible, the good work that Christ began in us is finished by him. The believer in purgatory or the state of purging is not doing this to him/herself, it is being done by Christ. This process need not take a long time, some in believe it is done in an instant, I would be on their side.

3) Not possible, Christ begins the work of making us clean/sinless. He will finish it.

4) Only the Father in heaven knows that. Who is to say that the process if it takes a long time will not go on after the judgement. I do not know. You are dealing with things that the Son did not even know.

5) See this is where people are not reading what I am writing, but coming to the table with their own ideas of what Purgatory is and not listening to what even our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters are saying. There is no way that the doctrine and theology of Purgatory is promoting a works based salvation. In fact it is just the opposite. It is presenting a more logical and theologically sound doctrine than the idea that once we die we are free from sin, because it suggests that sin is a horrid and vial thing that was so much of a problem the Son of God had to come and die to free us from it. If sin totally left us when we died then it seems that it is not such a problem or God could just offer us life after we die. The theology of Purgatory treats sin as what it is something so bad that it cannot be anywhere near God. Once we leave this body we no longer have to worry about bodily sin, but we still have a sin nature in us, that is born to us, babies don't sin but they still have orginal sin, so sin must be deeper than our actions, it is in our very nature to sin. We must have that nature taken from us, and it might be painful but it is replaced with something so much better. Christ starts this action when we give our lives to him and he continues this action through our baptism, he strengthens it in us when we recieve communion, and he finishes it in us when we die and look on him in all his glory. The theology of purgatory is all about grace, it is a confession that we cannot be fully sinless/without a sin nature in our life time and it is the grace of God who removes that nature from us when we die. I do not understand how this is anything other than grace, or how it is based on works, show me, how it is. It does not undermine the act of grace or the work of Christ because it is all his work that finishes the process in us, not something that we do.

In this life we try by works and spiritual disciplines to become more like Christ and to sin less. Do we ever reach a point where we stop sinning or where the sanctification process is ever done in us in this life? I don't think so. So Christ being full of mercy and grace finishes the process in the next life.

As I have said my idea of purgatory is mainly taken from C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, in this the shadow/ghosts get to the edge of heaven, they have either just died or they have come from the Gray Town. When they walk the grace hurts their feet, a leaf feels like lifting a sack of lead, everything is solid and real, but they are not real they are shadows. But as they move into the heavenly country they are made more real, this is not their own doing Christ is doing it to them. They just have to keep trying to go further up and further in. As they move further up and further in, all the people at this point not just the shadows are learning what it is to truly love God and their sinful natures start to change, they become more perfect, not because they are doing anything but as they get closer to Christ he changes them. As much as I love Lewis' idea mine is a little different, I love the idea of moving further up and further in, but I think that is what is to be done in this world. What must be done in the next, ie heaven, is we have the work finished in us, we meet Christ and he transforms us into his likeness completely. He carries us across the finish line of what was our race because we cannot finish our race without him. Or take the image from the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, when Scrubb is changed into the dragon and Aslan finds him and tells him to strip his skin off. He does but he can never get down far enough. It is only until Aslan stips away his skin that he is finally rid of it. Now in the book this is the beginning of the Christian life, but it can also be compared to the end of the Christian life. There is nothing I can do to tear away my sinful nature it is only Christ who can do that. Purgatory is that place or time where he burns away my sinful nature.

Again only catholics believe that, concept??? there are no concepts in the Holy scriptures, only truth, so give it up already we will not believe in something that doesn't exist.

Again only Catholics believe that, concept??? there are no concepts in the Holy scriptures, only truth, so give it up already we will not believe in something that doesn't exist.

Ah, but in essence you do. The Holy Trinity is a concept pulled out of Scripture. The idea of Scripture alone is not even a concept nor Biblical yet Protestant fall for it in droves.

Ah, but in essence you do. The Holy Trinity is a concept pulled out of Scripture. The idea of Scripture alone is not even a concept nor Biblical yet Protestant fall for it in droves.

Protestants, or most protestant, believe all doctrine must be proven with scripture. We don't "fall" for it - we accept that scripture, being God breathed, is more authoritative than man/traditions/rules/bylaws.

1)Some concepts of theology are not spelled out in the Bible but we still believe them, because we have the witness of the Chruch, which was around before the Bible. Also I did not say it was a place, I believe as some other theologians do that once we look at Jesus, when he judges us as his follower or not, the process begins, his gaze starts to cleanse us.

Why wouldn't a doctrine so critical to the afterlife be spelled out in scripture? What doctrine should we believe that is greater than scripture?

Are you suggesting we give up sola scriptura?

Protestants, or most protestant, believe all doctrine must be proven with scripture. We don't "fall" for it - we accept that scripture, being God breathed, is more authoritative than man/traditions/rules/bylaws.

There is nowhere in Scripture that says to use it to exclusion and if you really want to get technical their are man made traditions all through Scripture.

Why wouldn't a doctrine so critical to the afterlife be spelled out in scripture? What doctrine should we believe that is greater than scripture?

Are you suggesting we give up sola scriptura?

Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine found in Scripture

There is nowhere in Scripture that says to use it to exclusion.

I don't believe ANYONE uses it to exclusion. What I DO believe is that we form our basis for doctrine on scripture ALONE - not traditions and not men.

As you said earlier, the Trinity is not used as a word in the whole of scripture but God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all there. I don't believe the Roman Catholic concept of purgatory IS in scripture.

I don't believe ANYONE uses it to exclusion. What I DO believe is that we form our basis for doctrine on scripture ALONE - not traditions and not men.

As you said earlier, the Trinity is not used as a word in the whole of scripture but God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all there. I don't believe the Roman Catholic concept of purgatory IS in scripture.

It is both Old and New; however Protestants use less than a full Bible.

It is both Old and New; however Protestants use less than a full Bible.

Well, being that this is a protestant website, and you don't believe protestants use a full bible, why do you bother coming here? Just curious.

It is both Old and New; however Protestants use less than a full Bible.

Please give me the scriptures that state something about purgatory. Then also please post the current Roman catholic teaching on purgatory. If you have already done this, I apologize - just direct me to the proper post.

As far as there not being a "full" bible, my understanding is that there are things in the apocrapha that are contradicted in what ALL accept as the Holy Bible, Roman Catholics included.

Well, being that this is a protestant website, and you don't believe protestants use a full bible, why do you bother coming here? Just curious.

When I first came here I didn't know what I wanted, now I want to share the light.

When I first came here I didn't know what I wanted, now I want to share the light.

What is the light?

When I first came here I didn't know what I wanted, now I want to share the light.

A noble deed for sure. But worry not, God has indeed enlightened us. At the end of the day, God cares not for the denomination we are a part of, but rather how we live for Him.

Please give me the scriptures that state something about purgatory. Then also please post the current Roman catholic teaching on purgatory. If you have already done this, I apologize - just direct me to the proper post.

Post 103


As far as there not being a "full" bible, my understanding is that there are things in the apocrapha that are contradicted in what ALL accept as the Holy Bible, Roman Catholics included.

No it was discarded by early Protestants because there were things they did not want to accept like Purgatory, it was nothing contrdictory to Holy Writ.

A noble deed for sure. But worry not, God has indeed enlightned us as well. At the end of the day, God cares not for the denomination we are a part of, but rather how we live for Him.

Ah tis to hope for such naivety, but alas God cares more than you think

You're hopeless dude. One can't be nice to you without you bringing out your teeth. Good luck man.

You're hopeless dude. One can't be nice to you without you bringing out your teeth. Good luck man.

No teeth here

----------

No it was discarded by early Protestants because there were things they did not want to accept like Purgatory, it was nothing contrdictory to Holy Writ.

Actually it wasn't until the council of Trent in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church adopted 11 books of the apocrypha.
As to why, not sure, but many of the false doctrines, including Purgatory and the Ascenion of Mary can be found in those books.

Really? THIS is inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

Sadly, the only thing that inspired was a money making scheme like Indulgences.

It's so sad. God gave us His Son and His Spirit and His Word. And people would rather believe in men's teachings OVER the bible itself.

Actually it wasn't until the council of Trent in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church adopted 11 books of the apocrypha.
As to why, not sure, but many of the false doctrines, including Purgatory and the Ascenion of Mary can be found in those books.

Ah, no Mary isn'in the OT

Really? THIS is inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

All Scripture is inspired, even though some don't like all of Scripture

All Scripture is inspired, even though some don't like all of Scripture
How can this be true:


Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

And THIS be true:
Romans 5
17 - For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Or THIS?
II Timothy 1
9 - who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,

Or THIS?
Ephesians 2
8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

9 - not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

How can this be true:

And THIS be true:
Romans 5
17 - For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Or THIS?
II Timothy 1
9 - who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,

Or THIS?
Ephesians 2
8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

9 - not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Paul is talking about works of the law, not good works.

So if alms delivers from death and purges all sins, why would anyone need Christ? Dosen't seem to fit with Scripture to me.

Ah, no Mary isn'in the OT

And neither were any of the apocryphal books.

Why wouldn't a doctrine so critical to the afterlife be spelled out in scripture? What doctrine should we believe that is greater than scripture?

Are you suggesting we give up sola scriptura?

Why would the doctrine of the Trinity not be spelled out in Scripture? There are a lot of doctrines not spelled out in Scripture, because the writers of what became the Bible were not writing a systematic theology book or an answer book to all theological questions.

The Church, the Holy Spirit, and our own reason/conscience were around before the Bible, I am suggesting we use all the tools God gave us to develop doctrine and understand God.

Sola Scriptura was developed out of the Reformation, I am suggesting we go back how the earliest Church functioned. To use everything that God has given us to develop doctrine and theology.

Much as I value Vhayes's contributions -- here as well as elsewhere -- I'm unconvinced by the general method of posting verses from books, without context, and seeing that as a problem with the books, because there seems at first glace to be tension of conflict with important doctrines.

Really? THIS is inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

Perhaps we should also exclude any books which contain verses such as the following?


And whoever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward. (Matt 10:42)

He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will repay him for his deed. (Prov. 19:17)

Blessed is he who considers the poor! The LORD delivers him in the day of trouble;
the LORD protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; thou dost not give him up to the will of his enemies.
The LORD sustains him on his sickbed; in his illness thou healest all his infirmities.
As for me, I said, "O LORD, be gracious to me; heal me, for I have sinned against thee!" (Ps. 41:1-4)

And Zacchae'us stood and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold. And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.(Luke 19:8-9)

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:27)

When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.

Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.

Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'

Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'

And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (Matt 25:31-46)

Lest there be any question, I'm not taking any position on the status of the apocryphal/deuterocanonical/septuagint-derived books held to be Scriptural by Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. The taking of these books as Scripture, BTW, whenever it was established by formal declaration, goes quite a way back, since the Eastern Orthodox, who fell out finally with the RCC in around 1054, and weren't really getting along with them for several centuries before that, also accept books that Protestants call apocryphal. I'm not taking any position on 'em, and haven't read them, except for a few stray pages. Obviously I don't set great store by them, since I've not taken the time to read them.

Rather, I'm saying that I'm uncomfortable with a doctrine of deciding which books are canonical which takes a verse here or there, apart from the whole context of the verse, finds that, on the surface it might be in tension with some of one's favorite doctrines, and then tosses the book on that basis. If we proceed on that basis, we can quickly find surface contradictions between particular verses and start cutting the Bible to shreds. Luther was uncomfortable, to say the least, with the book of James, and thought maybe it should be excluded, as is well known, for instance.

I seriously doubt whether Tobit is saying that alms literally purge away all sin; or that the RCC believes any such thing. But if one wanted to establish something like that doctrine, Matt. 25 would provide a great place for support.

In fact, we have to learn to live with the diverse teachings of Scripture, whose balance and overall meaning needs to emerge from careful weighing. Thus, without similarly careful weighing I don't want to jump to conclusions unfavorable to various books I haven't even read. And I'm not going to go there (to discussion of the apocryphal/LXX/deuterocononical books).

However, the thread is not really supposed to be about that, but about what judgment is like after death, for believers.

I've posted a lot of Scripture and argumentation on that point -- not associated with some doctrine of "purgatory", but just asking what the verses mean. No one seems to want to look at these. Without doing so, I don't see how our talking about the definitive role of Scripture can be, in this thread, more than words not cashed out by actdually looking at what the Bible says.

Ah, but in essence you do. The Holy Trinity is a concept pulled out of Scripture. The idea of Scripture alone is not even a concept nor Biblical yet Protestant fall for it in droves.

Let's clear the air here, I'm not Protestant and I don't need to defend something or someone and their belief, also the Holy Trinity is not a concept it is a real living thing within every believer and that is the difference between a catholic and a Christian.

Again only catholics believe that, concept??? there are no concepts in the Holy scriptures, only truth, so give it up already we will not believe in something that doesn't exist.

Ah, but in essence you do. The Holy Trinity is a concept pulled out of Scripture. The idea of Scripture alone is not even a concept nor Biblical yet Protestant fall for it in droves.

Let's clear the air here, I'm not Protestant and I don't need to defend something or someone and their belief, also the Holy Trinity is not a concept it is a real living thing within every believer and that is the difference between a catholic and a Christian.
The way the word "concept" is ordinarily used, our understandings of actual things are called concepts. Thus, there are cars and trucks, which are things in the exterior world, and there is language which uses words -- such as "car", "truck", "caro", "automovile", etc. -- to refer to those things. These words generally represent concepts, that is, understandings of the realities to which they refer.

When someone refers to "the word world" (kosmos) or the concept, or to "the concept of the world in Johanine writings" they are referring to the way that realities are represented in Scripture, and the understandings, or concepts, which go with them." We can talk about the concept of "forgiveness", for instance, or the concept of "salvation", or the concept of "Lordship" in the NT or in NT times, or even the concept of "house". Talking this way does not imply that there are not actual houses, it simply means that to be careful in examining any text -- in this case the Scriptures -- we need to pay close attention to how words are used and what they mean (a.k.a. "what the concept involved is") in order to be sure that we are understanding the text's own meaning, and not a meaning of our own which we bring to, and impose upon, the text.

Thus of course -- as the word "concept" is ordinarily used -- the Scriptures are full of concepts (sin, salvation, forgiveness, the world, God, and so on); and we discuss such concepts in order to try to make sure that we are understanding the meaning of the words the Scriptures use as the Scriptures themselves use them. When one refers, then, to the "concept of salvation" in the NT, or for that matter in the OT, one is not implying that it is "merely a concept" without an actual counterpart in reality. Instead, one is trying to make sure that our understanding of reality is in line with the understanding (or "concept") that the Scriptures use. For all of us are prone to make mistakes in our thinking and speaking.

If someone engaged in discussion then refuses to discuss concepts, on the grounds that the things in Scripture are true, that person is using the word "concept" quite differently from the usual way of using it. This is a problem, because if handy words like "concept" are eliminated from our vocabulary, that makes it hard to talk about the ideas which the NT (or any other text) is discussing, and how it discusses them.

When someone uses the word "concept" to say "Your ideas are concepts, not in Scripture, but my ideas are not concepts, but the truth" this way of talking is tantamount to that person saying "only my ideas of what Scripture is saying are right, and we can't discuss it" (which is a form, actually, of saying "You just be quiet and listen to me, because I'm right and don't have to listen to you"). That pretty much shuts down discussion.

The point that Barnabas was making is that the Trinity is a reality, but one which is not explained explicitly, or using the language of "Trinity", or even language such as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons in one God", or even the explicit statement that "Jesus Christ is eternally God". These are things we believe, and we believe them on the basis of the Scriptures, but they are not stated in just that form in Scripture. Thus the concept of the Trinity is something which refers to a reality -- as TMS rightly says, a reality that abides within us -- but nevertheless to talk about God, or think about God, as Trinity or as Creator, or in other respects, we need words and concepts. And when we talk about Jesus as "God the Son" or about "the Trinity" or about "one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" someone might object that we are going beyond the words of Scripture. But, Barnabas is pointing out, not so: the concept of God the Holy Trinity is not defined or spelled out or explained in detail in Scripture, and the word is not used.
But the idea is there in indirect form.

Barnabas was making that point in order to reply to the objection that the word "purgatory" is not used in Scripture, but that the concept of a process in which God sanctifies us by purifying us (sometimes it's painful!) from our sins is Scriptural (Jesus's discussion of the Vine in John 15 says all that, for instance) and that the Scriptures do indicate, Barnabas thinks, that at least in some cases God's work of purification in our lives, by His grace alone, continues and is completed in the process of judgment after we die.

Whether one agrees with him or not, and whether he's completely off-base or not, no progress will be made in discussion by one party (A) to discussion insisting that the ideas he holds about what the Scriptures say are reality and what others (B, C) think the Scriptures say are "concepts" without validity. Maybe so. Let A prove his case -- and, we may hope, in a friendly and gracious manner. But we must look at what is in Scripture, not rule it out in advance on the grounds that what A thinks Scripture says is "reality" and what B, and C, think is "vain ideas" (or "concepts") not found in Scripture. A must look at B and C's arguments, and show where they are wrong, if A hopes to convince not only B and C, but others who may (in A's view) be led astray by their confused or wrong ideas. B and C similarly, must make a case for their reading of the Scriptures, not only to help out A's thinking, but also to balance the thinking of those who might at first follow A, but who may think differently after they have heard the matter discussed from another angle.

As Proverbs 18:17 says "He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."

The way the word "concept" is ordinarily used, our understandings of actual things are called concepts. Thus, there are cars and trucks, which are things in the exterior world, and there is language which uses words -- such as "car", "truck", "caro", "automovile", etc. -- to refer to those things. These words generally represent concepts, that is, understandings of the realities to which they refer.

When someone refers to "the word world" (kosmos) or the concept, or to "the concept of the world in Johanine writings" they are referring to the way that realities are represented in Scripture, and the understandings, or concepts, which go with them." We can talk about the concept of "forgiveness", for instance, or the concept of "salvation", or the concept of "Lordship" in the NT or in NT times, or even the concept of "house". Talking this way does not imply that there are not actual houses, it simply means that to be careful in examining any text -- in this case the Scriptures -- we need to pay close attention to how words are used and what they mean (a.k.a. "what the concept involved is") in order to be sure that we are understanding the text's own meaning, and not a meaning of our own which we bring to, and impose upon, the text.

Thus of course -- as the word "concept" is ordinarily used -- the Scriptures are full of concepts (sin, salvation, forgiveness, the world, God, and so on); and we discuss such concepts in order to try to make sure that we are understanding the meaning of the words the Scriptures use as the Scriptures themselves use them. When one refers, then, to the "concept of salvation" in the NT, or for that matter in the OT, one is not implying that it is "merely a concept" without an actual counterpart in reality. Instead, one is trying to make sure that our understanding of reality is in line with the understanding (or "concept") that the Scriptures use. For all of us are prone to make mistakes in our thinking and speaking.

If someone engaged in discussion then refuses to discuss concepts, on the grounds that the things in Scripture are true, that person is using the word "concept" quite differently from the usual way of using it. This is a problem, because if handy words like "concept" are eliminated from our vocabulary, that makes it hard to talk about the ideas which the NT (or any other text) is discussing, and how it discusses them.

When someone uses the word "concept" to say "Your ideas are concepts, not in Scripture, but my ideas are not concepts, but the truth" this way of talking is tantamount to that person saying "only my ideas of what Scripture is saying are right, and we can't discuss it" (which is a form, actually, of saying "You just be quiet and listen to me, because I'm right and don't have to listen to you"). That pretty much shuts down discussion.

The point that Barnabas was making is that the Trinity is a reality, but one which is not explained explicitly, or using the language of "Trinity", or even language such as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons in one God", or even the explicit statement that "Jesus Christ is eternally God". These are things we believe, and we believe them on the basis of the Scriptures, but they are not stated in just that form in Scripture. Thus the concept of the Trinity is something which refers to a reality -- as TMS rightly says, a reality that abides within us -- but nevertheless to talk about God, or think about God, as Trinity or as Creator, or in other respects, we need words and concepts. And when we talk about Jesus as "God the Son" or about "the Trinity" or about "one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" someone might object that we are going beyond the words of Scripture. But, Barnabas is pointing out, not so: the concept of God the Holy Trinity is not defined or spelled out or explained in detail in Scripture, and the word is not used.
But the idea is there in indirect form.

Barnabas was making that point in order to reply to the objection that the word "purgatory" is not used in Scripture, but that the concept of a process in which God sanctifies us by purifying us (sometimes it's painful!) from our sins is Scriptural (Jesus's discussion of the Vine in John 15 says all that, for instance) and that the Scriptures do indicate, Barnabas thinks, that at least in some cases God's work of purification in our lives, by His grace alone, continues and is completed in the process of judgment after we die.

Whether one agrees with him or not, and whether he's completely off-base or not, no progress will be made in discussion by one party (A) to discussion insisting that the ideas he holds about what the Scriptures say are reality and what others (B, C) think the Scriptures say are "concepts" without validity. Maybe so. Let A prove his case -- and, we may hope, in a friendly and gracious manner. But we must look at what is in Scripture, not rule it out in advance on the grounds that what A thinks Scripture says is "reality" and what B, and C, think is "vain ideas" (or "concepts") not found in Scripture. A must look at B and C's arguments, and show where they are wrong, if A hopes to convince not only B and C, but others who may (in A's view) be led astray by their confused or wrong ideas. B and C similarly, must make a case for their reading of the Scriptures, not only to help out A's thinking, but also to balance the thinking of those who might at first follow A, but who may think differently after they have heard the matter discussed from another angle.

As Proverbs 18:17 says "He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."

I understand you point, nevertheless my concepts are not Holy nor Scripture, I stand on the belief of this scripture:

2Tim 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All other "teachings", doctrines, ideas, etc..... are just mans way of trying to be equivalent to scripture are we are not, Scruff, I appreciate you pointing it out to me, maybe I'm grounded on the fact that only the Word of GOD is sufficient. Thanks.

Hi Scruffy -

Let me say this - I have brothers and sisters in the Lord who practice as Roman Catholics. I would never doubt their salvation nor their sincerity. I would appreciate the same treatment/benefit of the doubt from those who post here as Roman Catholics. I am weary of being told I am the ugly red-headed step child who just isn't quite bright enough to get the necessity of belonging to "the REAL church".

I am in no way saying we should not do good works or that Jesus would be happy if we sat on our duffs and watched others suffer. But I do not believe good works would amount to a hill of beans if we do not have Christ as Savior.

I have no idea when the apocrapha was added to the holy scriptures. I have heard several dates put forward but do not know which, if any, are real. But anything that states almsgiving can expiate ALL sin is off base in my opinion.

I will post Tobit chapter 12 below along with the commentary that follows:

Tobit
Chapter 12
1
1 When the wedding celebration came to an end, Tobit called his son Tobiah and said to him, "Son, see to it that you give what is due to the man who made the journey with you; give him a bonus too."
2
Tobiah said: "Father, how much shall I pay him? It would not hurt me at all to give him half of all the wealth he brought back with me.
3
He led me back safe and sound; he cured my wife; he brought the money back with me; and he cured you. How much of a bonus should I give him?"
4
Tobit answered, "It is only fair, son, that he should receive half of all that he brought back."
5
So Tobiah called Raphael and said, "Take as your wages half of all that you have brought back, and go in peace."
6
2 3 Raphael called the two men aside privately and said to them: "Thank God! Give him the praise and the glory. Before all the living, acknowledge the many good things he has done for you, by blessing and extolling his name in song. Before all men, honor and proclaim God's deeds, and do not be slack in praising him.
7
A king's secret it is prudent to keep, but the works of God are to be declared and made known. Praise them with due honor. Do good, and evil will not find its way to you.
8
4 Prayer and fasting are good, but better than either is almsgiving accompanied by righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than abundance with wickedness. It is better to give alms than to store up gold;
9
for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin. Those who regularly give alms shall enjoy a full life;
10
but those habitually guilty of sin are their own worst enemies.
11
"I will now tell you the whole truth; I will conceal nothing at all from you. I have already said to you, 'A king's secret it is prudent to keep, but the works of God are to be made known with due honor.'
12
5 I can now tell you that when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was I who presented and read the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord; and I did the same thing when you used to bury the dead.
13
When you did not hesitate to get up and leave your dinner in order to go and bury the dead,
14
6 I was sent to put you to the test. At the same time, however, God commissioned me to heal you and your daughter-in-law Sarah.
15
I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord."
16
Stricken with fear, the two men fell to the ground.
17
But Raphael said to them: "No need to fear; you are safe. Thank God now and forever.
18
As for me, when I came to you it was not out of any favor on my part, but because it was God's will. So continue to thank him every day; praise him with song.
19
Even though you watched me eat and drink, I did not really do so; what you were seeing was a vision.
20
So now get up from the ground and praise God. Behold, I am about to ascend to him who sent me; write down all these things that have happened to you."
21
When Raphael ascended they rose to their feet and could no longer see him.
22
They kept thanking God and singing his praises; and they continued to acknowledge these marvelous deeds which he had done when the angel of God appeared to them.
Table of Contents Previous Chapter Next Chapter
Footnotes

1 (1-5) Tobit and his son generously agree to give Azariah far more than the wages agreed upon in Tobit 5:15-16.
2 [6] (6-10) In the fashion of a wisdom teacher, Raphael gives the two men a short exhortation similar to the one Tobit gave his son in Tobit 4:3-19.

3 [6] (6-7) The Jews considered the duty of praising God their most esteemed privilege. Without praise of God, life was meaningless. Cf Isaiah 38:16-20.

4 [8] Prayer . . . fasting . . . almsgiving . . . righteousness: these, together with the proper attitude toward wealth, are treated in great detail by Christ our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6). 9 for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin. Those who regularly give alms shall enjoy a full life;

5 [12] (12,15) Raphael is one of the seven specially designated intercessors who present man's prayers to God. Angelology was developing in this period. The names of two other angels are given in the Bible: Gabriel (Daniel 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:19, 26) and Michael (Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 1:9; Rev 12:7).

6 [14] I was sent . . . test: God often sends trials to purify his faithful servants further. Cf Job 1-2.

This is just plain wrong. It goes against every single gospel and all of the epistles.

You know I value your opinion and your thoughts. I am not saying this to be argumentative or stubborn - I just do not see how the Book of Tobit could be inspired when it plainly states that ALL sin can be cleared with alms giving.

Thanks for taking the time to read -
V

I introduced a serious line of inquiry into the thread, in its first few pages, which I hoped might be helpful in coming closer to a meeting of minds, and closer also to getting at what the Scripture actually is teaching us about the process of judgment and salvation.

I wanted to try to make progress by considering the question a bit differently, without reference to "Purgatory".

This post (#137) and the four following (#138, #139, #140, #141) collect most of the data and argumentation from my early posts on the thread, and pose these to all who are following the thread. Particularly, there are some important Scriptures which, as far as I see, haven't yet been addressed, except in the posts in which I cited them.
I am interested in hearing how others read these Scriptures!



In post #22, on page 2 of the thread I stated -- I quote here in full:

Let's consider the question a bit differently.

If one has accepted Christ, yet then lives a life full of serious sin, are we to suppose that the matter of facing the Lord at the day of judgment will be one which is altogether easy and pleasant?

First, the Scriptures seem to indicate otherwise. II Peter 3:10-14 instructs us that

the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.
It seems to me that Peter is indicating that we ought to seek to be without spot or blemish -- ought to live out our faith in holiness and purity -- because at Christ's coming it would be far better for us for our conduct as Christians to be found without fault, holy and righteous.

In Romans 14:7-12 Paul tells us not to judge others because it is not ours to judge other Christians, because they are Christ's servants, God's servants, not ours. We are merely their fellow servants. But the implication is that Christ will indeed judge His followers.


For none of us lives to himself, and none dies just to himself. For whether we live, we live for the Lord; and whether we die, we die as God's. So whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why do you judge your brother? or why do you set at nought your brother?

For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. When Paul states that each of us must give an account of himself to God, it does not seem to be implied that the experience of giving an account of ourselves to God will be just the same regardless of how we have lived. Rather, the implication is that we stand with fear and trembling before a righteous God, knowing our faults, and chastened, sorrowful, for what we have done that is wrong.

Again, Paul says in II Cor. 5:8-11 that

we labour, that, ... we may be accepted of him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he has done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men Paul seems to be saying that there are consequences for things which we -- we Christians -- do right and wrong.

In I Cor. 4 Paul says

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing against myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judges me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. Paul seems here to be saying that he himself, and other apostles and evangelists, who are stewards of God's household and mysteries, will yet be judged by God. When the Lord comes, Paul seems to say, the hidden things of his own life will be revealed, and he may have to face up to wrong in his life, even though he is not really aware of his wrongdoing now. Thus he does not even judge himself!

But to me this seems to presuppose that Paul considers that we will receive praise or reprimand from God, even though we are Christians who ultimately are saved, when we must give account of ourselves to God, and when He shows us wrong in our own lives -- even wrong that we did not suspect.

Surely, we cannot imagine that the process of facing up to our wrongdoings before God -- whether things we know we have done wrong, or things we did wrong without fully being cognizant of our wrongdoing -- will be one which is altogether calm and pleasant. Rather, he seems to be saying that it is a fearful thing to have to face up to what we have done wrong, in God's presence.

Likewise, Peter says (I Pet. 4:16-17) to be righteous in our conduct

Because the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? And "If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?" As I read it, Peter says that we will all be judged, held accountable for our deeds, by God. Of course, it is those who are found in Christ who are finally saved, for the eternal destruction sin brings about is taken away by the work and person of Jesus Christ alone. But Peter certainly also seems to be saying that we will have some very tough facing up to because of what we have done wrong.

In I Cor. 3:11-17 Paul tells us that the foundation upon which our life is secure in God is Jesus Christ alone. But Paul makes it clear that it makes a difference what we do with our lives, even if they are built upon that foundation.

No other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Now if any one builds on the foundation -- with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw -- each one's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.

If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.

If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and that temple you are. As I read it, Paul is saying that some who are saved will be saved "as through fire" -- that is, painfully. Those who have not used their lives to good effect -- have built upon the foundation of Christ in a shoddy, or partly worthless way -- will find what they have done not worthy to survive. They themselves will be rescued, saved, but as they find their lives to have been bad "they themselves will suffer loss" There is something very destructive, Paul is saying, upon misusing our bodies, which are temples of the Holy Spirit, and God will make that clear to us on the day of judgment.

All these texts of Scripture seem to me to be entirely consistent with what we know of God, and of Christ's teaching. It is God who is our great reward, and our salvation: our life comes from our relationship with God our maker and Father and Savior. But if what we do in our lives is appalling to God, wrong and bad in His sight, when we clearly see that we will, of course, be ashamed, and dismayed. It will be very terrible to know that much of what we have done is unrighteous in his sights -- as it will be pleasant if we know that God is pleased with how we have lived.

Thus, it seems to me logical, as well as in accord with Scriptures such as those I have given here, that at the day of judgment those who are saved, "as through fire", having been found in Christ but lived lives that are not in accord with God's commands and ways, will indeed find it very difficult, very painful, to come into God's presence, and very hard to adjust to live in God's presence, to holy life.

My core point there was that "If one has accepted Christ, yet then lives a life full of serious sin, are we to suppose that the matter of facing the Lord at the day of judgment will be one which is altogether easy and pleasant?" The objection was raised, by David Taylor, post #23, as best I could understand his objection that "anyone who ... has lived a life full of serious sin" probably "never knew Christ, and only played a surface-level lip game."

It seemed to me that I had misconveyed my point, so I tried again in post #27

Let me try again.

Let's think about a fellow -- call him Fred -- who has some serious moral faults and struggles. Fred was brought up in a Christian home, but his dad abandoned the family when Fred was 4. Fred has struggled with anger and unforgiveness toward his dad ever since. Fred is a couple years out of college, and a serious Christian. He goes to church, reads the Bible, contributes generously not just at church but to people in need, with time and money. But he flares up easily, and easily gets angry. When all Fred's classmates were sleeping around, Fred was not. But he did have some struggles with lust, porn, and masturbation, as a teenager and in college, and even now after he is married to a wonderful Christian girl, he struggles with lust and masturbation. And he also spends too much money, sometimes, buying things he doesn't really need, as a way of comforting himself when he gets tense. He sometimes drinks a bit too much. He had a somewhat abusive older sibling, and his mom died when he was 22, which was very hard for him.

Fred has worked hard to try to bring his thinking and his life patterns into line with God's will. But not wholly successfully. He talks honestly with Pastor Bob about these things, and Bob who sees great potential in Fred recently went on a two-day camping/fishing trip with Fred. But the real purpose, both of them knew, was to help Fred with his struggles. Fred talked with Bob a lot about difficult things, and Bob prayed for him. Two other elders, Ben and Frank, who know Fred pretty well from their Church men's group, were in a nearby cabin, and also prayed with Bob for Fred. As Fred talked more deeply about some of his faults, sins, and problems with Pastor Bob, he found this incredibly painful. At one point he was physically sick, as they started going into some of the pain from Fred's past which leads him to do some of the bad stuff Fred sometimes finds himself doing. At other times, Fred was so ashamed -- partly of some ways he behaved as a teen, as he discussed these in great detail for the first time in his life, partly about current struggles, and the details of ways he'd hurt others at times -- that he could scarcely go on talking. The pain of those conversations was partly Fred's own reaction to messed-up stuff in himself, and partly his shame, even a kind of terror, in going into all these things with Pastor Bob, who he looks up to, and reveres. But of course, painful as it was at points, Fred is really glad that he went, and really glad even to go through the suffering, to start to get his outlook and inner dispositions worked through and cleaned up.

If our facing up to our problems can be difficult, long-term, and painful, here on earth, as we consider our faults and struggles even in the presence of a godly and loving man like Pastor Bob, I don't see why it might not be -- for some people -- when they meed the Lord, a rather difficult and painful process to learn to adjust their inner attitudes, their wrong habits, their patterns of thinking, and to face up to the full extent of wrongs they've committed in their life. It could be difficult for several reasons, which include (1) because of having to look squarely at some ugly parts of life we hide from ourselves, (2) because of the pain of working through and changing in various areas, (3) because of being known by God, by the Lord, with our various serious faults.

This seems to me to be very closely in alignment with the various scriptures I posted. These Scriptures seem to indicate that, for many, many who are saved, giving account of our lives to God, and entering into the eternal life that is His, might be a rather difficult and painful thing. "The righteous" Peter says, can "only barely be saved" as "judgement begins with the household of God." There will be those who are saved, Paul writes, whose work, or parts of whose work -- whose lived lives -- will be "burned up" and the man himself in that case will "suffer loss" and "though he himself will be saved" it will be "only as through fire." Paul also says that "it is the Lord who will judges me" and that He "will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts." This process is one in which everyone must "give account of himself" to God. In that process "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive" a recompense for what "he has done, whether it be good or bad" and this strikes a certain "terror of the Lord" through which and because of which we pursuade people now -- especially those under our care as pastors -- to live Godly lives, Paul says.

This picture seems quite similar to what we experience, here and now, confronting our sins and failures, by ourselves, or with pastors or friends who help us do so. It is painful, but helps us get free, get clean, face the truth, and be more fully reconciled to God. God, in His mercy, by the redemptive power of Christ alone, takes us through difficult times -- difficult times of facing our sins and faults, in particular -- as part of the process of making us more the kind of people He aims for us to be. And the verses just quoted (given at more length, with references, in my previous post) suggest that something like this may happen when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

In post #29, I first noted that lots of people seemed to be attributing to Br. Barnabas things he was not saying, and those actually being things he had in fact explicitly stated he didn't believe. That is unhelpful. Barnabas was speaking for the idea that God's work of purification in our lives in some cases continues (by God's grace and Christ's person and work, not by our own efforts, and certainly not because we "earn" something) after death. Various people, again and again, replied as if Barnabas was saying we "earned" something, by work we did after death, and as if Barnabas was saying that the purification which, he had opined, God did in us after death was our own work, when he explicitly stated, to the contrary, that it was God's work.

I then went on to reiterate the Scriptural verses about judgment which refer to our being saved "as through fire" and having an arduous experience as we each had to "give account to God" for our lives, and to ask what these verses meant, in the opinion of participants in the thread.

How should we deal with the following Scriptures?

The Scriptures clearly state -- do they not -- that some will be saved "as through fire" and will "suffer loss" at judgment, and that we must all "give account to God" for what we have done, and that in that process we receive recompense for what we have done, "whether good or bad" and that "judgment begins with the household of God" in a process through which even "the righteous are barely saved." [These Scriptures are given, with more context, and with the verse references, in my previous two posts.]

I don't see how those Scriptures can be read to mean something other than that some of those who are saved will find the transition from this life to God's kingdom difficult and painful, because they have to face up to their wrongdoings.

All that of course doesn't mean that we do "work" -- much less "earn" something in the process: it would just mean that God, bringing us into His eternal life and kingdom, is doing in our lives -- through the person and finished work of Jesus -- an application of the salvation He has (already) wrought for us in Christ, and that we (though glad He is doing that, and grateful to Him for doing what He alone can do) find that process painful: that process of His applying Christ's salvation to our lives and changing our unrighteousness into the righteousness He by His grace is bringing us into.

I said "I don't see how those Scriptures can be read to mean something other than that some of those who are saved will find the transition from this life to God's kingdom difficult and painful, because they have to face up to their wrongdoings." But that doesn't mean that my reading of the Scriptures must be right: there are lots of things I make mistakes about. If you agree that those Scriptures mean more or less what I understand them to mean, then say so, and we can go from there. But if you disagree with my understanding of what they mean, then it will be helpful for you to explain how you read those Scriptures, and why.
My question still stands: I'd like to know what folks make of those Scriptures.

As far as I know, no one has replied by dealing with the Scriptures, though some have said "nice Scriptures; but we mustn't look for Scriptures to prove our points of view" etc. I find the reluctance to deal with these Scriptures odd. Repeated generalized statements about the importance of the Scriptures do not substitute for actually examining what the text says.

There is a collection of Scriptures which deal with these themes, and I think we need to look directly at what they say, if what we wish to do is to base our understanding on the Scriptures!!

Again, a friend reiterated that it is the teaching of the Scriptures we must adhere to. I replied (post #31), in addition to thanking him for his emphasis upon the Scriptures:


Yes, of course, we all agree that we should hold to Scriptural doctrine. But people differ about what that is.

I have given a lot of Scripture -- I usually do (always, unless I make mistakes) try to ground and develop my views from the Scripture -- which at least seems to support a reading which [some others don't] agree with. [They] in response, are saying that "we must hold with the Scriptures" or words to that effect. Sure. By all means. But I'm not really getting much traction from those who are dead set because of their doctrine against what those verses seem to say. I'm trying to look at relevant Scriptures. If you think I'm reading it wrong, let me know why, and how you would read those Scriptures. But just saying "the Scriptures, the Scriptures" doesn't help me much when I have been posting Scriptures and others disagree with what they seem to say clearly. It doesn't help me much because I have been trying to proceed from Scripture, and have posted quite a few, and no one has really helped me or others see why those Scriptures aren't relevant, if they aren't.Replying to a further point that friend made (still in post#31) I said:

Thanks for speaking to my post, but I don't quite understand what is is that you are saying here, in regard to the present discussion.

I see the Scriptures as presenting a view that, when we stand before God, some of those who are God's redeemed, will have to painfully face up to lacks and sins in their earthly life. I gave those Scriptures. One major concern I have about [post replying to my posts here] is that rather than addressing the Scriptures those who disagree ... seem to be saying something like "that just can't be true because it conflicts with doctrinal opinions I hold". Sorry if that sounds rough. I don't mean to mischaracterize what others are saying, but that is how it strikes me. I'm open to correction on this point, of course. I'd really like to know what you guys make of the Scriptures I posted.

Again a friend replied "I DO see your case, but it is what I consider 'derived' doctrine and since it is not clearly presented in scripture."
This perplexed me, because I hadn't made very much of a case: just cited a ton of Scripture and offered the reading of those Scriptures which seemed to me obviously what they were saying. But I also was repeatedly noting that I'd be interested in having others say how they handle those passages. That way, if I or others are misreading those passages we can get some help from friends who see the passages differently. But alas still no takers.

I responded (post #35) that I had not been arguing for a concept of "Purgatory" -- for many reasons, which include that I think that that term inevitably carries with it a lot of unhelpful baggage. Rather, I said

I have been arguing that the Scriptures -- many of the Scriptures -- which talk about judgment, and refer to the judgment of believers seem to indicate that we will have to give account to God for how we have lived our lives. Those same Scriptures indicate that that process will be painful and even terrifying for us, if our lives have not been lived rightly in God's sight.

Do you disagree about that? If not, we can proceed from there [that is, proceed from that common basis, to discuss the kinds of matters the thread deals with].

If so (that is, if you do disagree), then I would appreciate hearing how those Scriptures should, in your view, be read. It seems to me that I'm starting with relevant scriptures about judgment, and just trying to see what they say. Certainly, that does make sense to me in human terms, also, as I've indicated. It seems to me to fit well with the whole logical structure of Christian faith.

Of course I could be wrong -- and I'm very open to trying to learn from others. Feel free to point out where there's a better way to think about things.

But I do not see presenting a half-dozen key Scriptures dealing God's judging our lives, and noting that they seem to indicate that the redeemed, like everyone else, will have to answer to God for what they have done, as similar to weird ideas about UFOs, or justifying lying.

I get the impression that [various people on the thread] have doctrinal objections to the mere fact that having lived our lives amiss will be something we will regret at judgment. I can't imagine why the idea that we suffer if we go astray from God's ways seems to you "dangerous" or likely to undermine the idea that God judges us -- mercifully, but justly -- in light of decisions we have made in this life. In fact, I am saying that God will indeed do that.

General remarks about ... reading allegedly pre-existing views into the Scripture are things that anyone can make about any view, or any reading of the Scripture, that that person disagrees with.I explained that it would help if those who disagreed with what I said could explain exactly where I have gone wrong, since it seemed to me that I was sticking quite close to the Scriptures, and to highly relevant ones. I continued:

Is there another set of Scriptures that you want me to look at? Are there clearly formulated general principles or doctrines which you think I'm falling afoul of? Do you want to offer a different interpretation of the Scriptures I did present? I don't really understand what is seems so odd and off-base about looking a the passages I cited about God's judgments, or about the way I read them.
My questions still stand. I'd love to know what others make of the Scriptures about judgment, and so on, that I posted; and why (it puzzles me, since I don't really see contradictions here) they find what seems to me (perhaps erroneously) the plain meaning of those Scriptures so very much at odds with what they think the Scriptures teach.

yet one more time in process of being written

Breathe man breathe, :lol:

When I first came here I didn't know what I wanted, now I want to share the light.

If your intention is to share the light of the Roman Catholic Church, I fear you are going to be sorely disappointed here. If you want to trash our Bible, put a cork in it.

As for the purgatory thing, of course the RCC believes it... how else would have Saint Peter's Basilica have been built if not for people paying either for indulgences or their loved ones getting out of purgatory?

Why would the doctrine of the Trinity not be spelled out in Scripture?

Really? There is no Trinity spelled out in scripture?

Just because God doesn't say the word or trinity or spell out a theological definition does not mean that the context of the verses and general Biblical theology do not spell it out does not mean that the Bible doesn't teach it. Did you get a chance to read MarkEdward's thread about why he doesn't believe in the Trinity anymore?


There are a lot of doctrines not spelled out in Scripture, because the writers of what became the Bible were not writing a systematic theology book or an answer book to all theological questions.

Very true, but such doctrines are the doctrines of men and I really don't want to believe them because they are quite fallible and finite. In light of passages like II Tim. 3:16, why would we want anything other than what is God given?


The Church, the Holy Spirit, and our own reason/conscience were around before the Bible, I am suggesting we use all the tools God gave us to develop doctrine and understand God.

Even by those standards Purgatory is wrong. The Holy Spirit does not compel us to do anything contradictory to the Bible, our consciences tell us that payment for sins is already completed because of Jesus, and the Church denounces Purgatory in the strongest terms.


Sola Scriptura was developed out of the Reformation, I am suggesting we go back how the earliest Church functioned.

How was this not sola scriptura? Even if it isn't, how is the early church protected from error in its teaching? I only see the Bible being protected from error.


To use everything that God has given us to develop doctrine and theology.

How about just the Bible? :D

There is nowhere in Scripture that says to use it to exclusion and if you really want to get technical their are man made traditions all through Scripture.

No, since scripture is God breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) and not the interpretation of the author but the dictation of God alone (2 Peter 1:20), then this is patently false.

It is both Old and New; however Protestants use less than a full Bible.

According to whom, exactly?

How many books did Jerome say were in the Old Testament in Prologus Galeatus? The answer is 22, which is the exact amount in the Hebrew versions, which is the exact amount in the accepted Old Testament without the Apocryphal books.

Jesus, in Luke 24:44, mentions the scripture is made up of the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, none of which include the Apocryphal writings.

Here is a list of others who also mention the OT is comprised of the originally accepted 22 (according to the Hebrew divisions, which do not include the Apocrypha) books:

Melito 170 AD
Origen 210 AD
Hilary of Poitiers 360 AD
Athanasius 365 AD
Council of Laodicea (343-391 AD)
Cyrill of Jerusalem 386 AD
Gregory of Nazianzus 390 AD
Epiphanius 400 AD
Refinus 400 AD
and that takes us right up to Jerome himself.

It wasn’t until the end of the medieval era that anyone considered those fictitious books to be canon (and mores the pity they ever were).

Do you know what else is interesting about the apocryphal books?

The one that you'd likely suggest contains a reference to purgatory also self-identifies as a text written in the time where no prophesies were delivered, and therefore classifies itself undeniably as not scripture.

Would you like me to demonstrate that fact, or do you know that already?

Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine found in Scripture

Not only is this demonstrably false: "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar" (Proverbs 30:5-6), but it's also off topic.

It's not because Scripture doesn't mention purgatory that's it's so fundamentally wrong, it's that scripture forbids any such notion, and the sola scriptura rabbit trail is just a diversion from that, so let’s please stick to the topic and if you’d like to be proven wrong about any other topics please start a thread and I’m sure many will oblige in demonstrating your errors.

My blunt and "callous" remarks, statements, etc.... are generally directed towards the past actions of the rcc in threads like these, now for example the rcc has the authority to return treasures belonging to Jews given to them by hitler won't return it to the rightful owners because hilter owed them money, but not other peoples money!!! and by accepting the booty they have received stolen property and it is facts like these that leave a bad taste in my mouth about the rcc and reading post #44 I am in agreement with that post and it doesn't seem like that there has been much change in the rcc for the middle ages, can I post my opinions based on facts??? yes I can !!! is it bullying??? No it's not, So i.e. you or no one else shouldn't take it to heart because after all " The truth shall set you free" and like Forrest Gump says, "That's all I got to say about that". Thanks.

Hey TMS,

Something David Taylor noted prompted me to review something that supports your point here:

An amazingly heretical Pope (John XXII) commissioned a man named Agostino Trionfo to create a doctrine that extended the reign of the popes not only to the earth and the keys of heaven, but also by extension over purgatory - hence the church's ability to dispense indulgences to minimize and even absolve the sentence of purgatory in plenary indulgences.

So, according to the doctrine of the unchanging church, it is entirely up to the pope if and for how long anyone any one is in purgatory - ergo all indulgences that are sold are dispensed for nothing more than monetary gain of the RCC.

Thus, your comment was 100% accurate according to the RCC doctrinal of the time, in the supposedly unchanging church, and nothing I've ever read in the Vatican II or any other RCC canon denies that such is still the case.

I guess it’s still held to then that if the coin in the coffer rings...

And therefore it's unfair for anyone to say that such comments are uncalled for, since they are demonstrably true, and applicable.

Just thought you might find that useful.

Barnabus,

The other day I focused on one line of your argument, but neglected to address another, which I think requires some attention.

You mentioned that purgatory wasn’t exclusively an RCC doctrine, but claimed that there was a protestant purgatory, here:


There is an idea of it in the Bible as Scruffy has been pointing out and St Augustine developed that idea. St Gregory the Great developed it further the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages corrupted it with the idea of indulgences. Its roots are pure; it has been sullied throughout history by greedy men.

However, when Athanasius started a thread regarding how to view the early church fathers, you said they should be considered Catholic, seen here:


I have a question for you knowledgeable people concerning the early church fathers. I have never viewed the early church fathers as particularily Catholic, however I also understand that the Catholic church claims them as Catholic (and hence a course on women and spirituality follows suit). So I'm confused - is it more proper for me to consider them Catholic, or to consider them as something else like "early church" (not Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, etc.)


It would be proper to consider them catholic

If this is so then Augustine was Catholic, making any doctrines of Purgatory RCC doctrine. "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument" (Dr. James White).

However, even as an RCC doctrine molded by Pope Greg the Great in 593, it took more than 850 years (1439 council of Florence) before the RCC accepted it as doctrine.

And if you want to examine its roots further it was incorporated from the demonstrably pagan concept of indulgences that suffering, rituals or other supposedly sacred works are good works that somehow balance the scales of wrongs committed – a hallmark of pagan worship, extremely forbidden by scripture, because we know that it's only “the blood of Jesus Christ [God’s] Son cleanses” (1 John 1:7).

The Bible clearly shows that no rituals or suffering can possibly help because there can be no cleansing without blood (Hebrews 9:22), and we know from scripture that only sinless blood will sanctify (Exodus 12:5), and the blood of animals won’t cleanse sins (Hebrews 10:4), so far from being a possible candidate for protestant doctrine it simply is an RCC invention adapted from paganism, the undeniable focus of which is ongoing atonement, directly contradicting Hebrews 1:3, “Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”

Barnabus,

The other day I focused on one line of your argument, but neglected to address another, which I think requires some attention.

You mentioned that purgatory wasn’t exclusively an RCC doctrine, but claimed that there was a protestant purgatory, here:



However, when Athanasius started a thread regarding how to view the early church fathers, you said they should be considered Catholic, seen here:





If this is so then Augustine was Catholic, making any doctrines of Purgatory RCC doctrine. "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument" (Dr. James White).

However, even as an RCC doctrine molded by Pope Greg the Great in 593, it took more than 850 years (1439 council of Florence) before the RCC accepted it as doctrine.

And if you want to examine its roots further it was incorporated from the demonstrably pagan concept of indulgences that suffering, rituals or other supposedly sacred works are good works that somehow balance the scales of wrongs committed – a hallmark of pagan worship, extremely forbidden by scripture, because we know that it's only “the blood of Jesus Christ [God’s] Son cleanses” (1 John 1:7).

The Bible clearly shows that no rituals or suffering can possibly help because there can be no cleansing without blood (Hebrews 9:22), and we know from scripture that only sinless blood will sanctify (Exodus 12:5), and the blood of animals won’t cleanse sins (Hebrews 10:4), so far from being a possible candidate for protestant doctrine it simply is an RCC invention adapted from paganism, the undeniable focus of which is ongoing atonement, directly contradicting Hebrews 1:3, “Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”

You take my post out of context and do not include the one where I further clarified catholic to Athanasius. What I said was:
"I mean "holy catholic and Apostolic church" as found in the Apostles Creed or universal catholic as you have called it.

Because of the great confusion that can surround this type of subject and to be correct in what I say, if I mean Roman Catholic I will say "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic." If I mean universal I will say "catholic" or "holy catholic and Apostolic church" which is what they called themselves according to the Apostles Creed.

Roman Catholicism has been around since the Gospel made it to Rome. It just does not look like the Roman Catholicism of the Middle Ages or today. There was also Jerusalem Catholicism, Antioch Catholicism, Alexandria Catholicism, Corinth Catholicism, ie the church was catholic, Roman or any other city or region referred to where the bishop was."

There is a big difference between Catholic as understood to be Roman Catholic and catholic as understood to be universal catholic or holy catholic and Apostolic.

You take my post out of context and do not include the one where I further clarified catholic to Athanasius. What I said was:
"I mean "holy catholic and Apostolic church" as found in the Apostles Creed or universal catholic as you have called it.

Because of the great confusion that can surround this type of subject and to be correct in what I say, if I mean Roman Catholic I will say "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic." If I mean universal I will say "catholic" or "holy catholic and Apostolic church" which is what they called themselves according to the Apostles Creed.

Roman Catholicism has been around since the Gospel made it to Rome. It just does not look like the Roman Catholicism of the Middle Ages or today. There was also Jerusalem Catholicism, Antioch Catholicism, Alexandria Catholicism, Corinth Catholicism, ie the church was catholic, Roman or any other city or region referred to where the bishop was."

There is a big difference between Catholic as understood to be Roman Catholic and catholic as understood to be universal catholic or holy catholic and Apostolic.

This is how I see it, just because catholicism has been around for a long time doesn't make it right, it's just makes it old.

You take my post out of context and do not include the one where I further clarified catholic to Athanasius. What I said was:
"I mean "holy catholic and Apostolic church" as found in the Apostles Creed or universal catholic as you have called it.

Because of the great confusion that can surround this type of subject and to be correct in what I say, if I mean Roman Catholic I will say "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic." If I mean universal I will say "catholic" or "holy catholic and Apostolic church" which is what they called themselves according to the Apostles Creed.

Roman Catholicism has been around since the Gospel made it to Rome. It just does not look like the Roman Catholicism of the Middle Ages or today. There was also Jerusalem Catholicism, Antioch Catholicism, Alexandria Catholicism, Corinth Catholicism, ie the church was catholic, Roman or any other city or region referred to where the bishop was."

There is a big difference between Catholic as understood to be Roman Catholic and catholic as understood to be universal catholic or holy catholic and Apostolic.

OK, so ignoring for now that you didn't address all the other things I mentioned, the RCC claims to have doctrine that's totally compatible with the ECF, and claims alone to have charge over the safeguard of doctrine throughout the ages.

You are contradicting them on this assertion then, are you?

Because if you do then you're accusing the RCC of false doctrine, and the Council of Trent (which condemns people who hold your beliefs as anathema) is said to be written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I can cite that, but you already know it does.

The Bible says that anyone who says anything in the name of God that isn't true speaks presumptuously and they are therefore false prophets (Deut 18:20-22), so if you disagree with their doctrine here, you by natural and inescapable extention are calling the supposedly unchanging RCC doctrine false prophesy.

So you have one of two choices: 1. Admit that the RCC doctrine is false prophesy, or 2. Admit that you considered catholic Catholic and purgatory is therefore a Catholic (and exactly not protestant) doctrine.

I'm curious which one you'll adopt, but in either case I'd love to get back to Hebrews 1:3 where Jesus finishes His work of purging sins and goes and sits at the thrown of God.

If your intention is to share the light of the Roman Catholic Church, I fear you are going to be sorely disappointed here.

But it shines with all the luminescence of the Dark Ages...

Really? There is no Trinity spelled out in scripture?

Just because God doesn't say the word or trinity or spell out a theological definition does not mean that the context of the verses and general Biblical theology do not spell it out does not mean that the Bible doesn't teach it. Did you get a chance to read MarkEdward's thread about why he doesn't believe in the Trinity anymore?



Very true, but such doctrines are the doctrines of men and I really don't want to believe them because they are quite fallible and finite. In light of passages like II Tim. 3:16, why would we want anything other than what is God given?



Even by those standards Purgatory is wrong. The Holy Spirit does not compel us to do anything contradictory to the Bible, our consciences tell us that payment for sins is already completed because of Jesus, and the Church denounces Purgatory in the strongest terms.



How was this not sola scriptura? Even if it isn't, how is the early church protected from error in its teaching? I only see the Bible being protected from error.



How about just the Bible? :D

I would suggest that there are hints of the Trinity in Scripture but it is not laid out, the Holy Spirit is not called God it is suggested that he is God but not clearly said in such terms. I saw MarkEdward's thread even commented on it. He tried to prove from the Bible there was no Trinity, in his mind he was successful, if the doctrine were clearly laid out he could not have done this.

There are several doctrines not laid out in scripture that are not man made, they are hinted at such in Scripture, as the doctrine in this thread.

The payment for sin is done no one is debating that, what is in question is, is there a place or a time after death when our sinful nature is taken from us and if so how does Christ do this. The Protestant Chruches denounce Purgatory because they were over reacting to the problems the Roman Catholic Church created with indulgences. The problem is the pengulium, as it usually does when trying to correct abuses, swung too far to the other side.

How is the early church functioned not sola scriptura, is that the question? It was not because it did not have a collected NT Testament until into the 300s, the early church also used the aprocypha because they went with the LXX not with the smalled canon the Jews descided on later. The NT writers read from the what the Orthodox and RCC have now, not what the Protestants read from. The early church was less removed from Jesus and the Apostles and the Apostles students. They still had heresy to contend with like we do now but they had the full teachings of the Apostles not just a hand full of letters. For example 1 and 2 Corinthians were not the first and second letters written to the Corinthains, we do not have two letters that he wrote to them. However, Timothy traveled with Paul for several years, he learned a lot more about Paul's theology than we will ever know because of our limited resources now. What we have now is free from error but we don't have the full witness that the Apostles, like John, James, Peter, or Matthew had. John even said that if all the words and things that Jesus did were written down the earth would not even contain them. The Apostles and their disciples had access to a lot more than we do now.

Why would we limit ourselves to only the Bible when God has given us the witness of the Chruch and our own minds to us as resources. When drug companies research new drug possiblities they research all possible resources. Why if we are dealing with something so much more important would we limit ourselves to only one resource? All truth is God's truth, why not mine all possible sources to find nuggets of truth so that we can learn more about God from all things in our lives. We should search the Scriptures first and foremost but we should not stop there once we have exhausted the insight on a subject matter we find in it.

It was not because it did not have a collected NT Testament until into the 300s, the early church also used the aprocypha because they went with the LXX not with the smalled canon the Jews descided on later.

Did you get a chance to read what I submitted about the aprocypha just a couple posts back?

Why would we limit ourselves to only the Bible when God has given us the witness of the Chruch and our own minds to us as resources.

Because the Bible tells us to:

“Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar" (Proverbs 30:5-6)

"All flesh is grass, and all its beauty is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades when the breath of the LORD blows on it; surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever" (Isaiah 40:6-8).

"This is what the LORD says: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD" (Jeremiah 17:5).

"Stop trusting in man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?" (Isaiah 2:22).

"Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path" (Psalm 119:105).

"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you" (2 Thess 2:15) and in light of 2 Tim. 3:16-17, that would be everything, not things invented and imposed later.

The Bible tells us that there are false teachers who follow the example of the devil, specifically posting as apostles: “For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11: 13-15).

We are told that these ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15) would enter the flock as soon as Paul departed, and would not spare the flock (Acts 20:19) so such wolves were present from the beginning.

We’re warned to test every spirit to see if they are from these false prophets (1 John 4:1), and to prove all things (1 Thes. 5:21), not listening to anyone who prophesies falsely (Deut. 18: 1-22).

The church, therefore, is not the gauge of truth - it is not the truth "Thy word is truth" (John 17:17).

I think there's a lot of contempt and hatred for catholicism and for catholics here.

I think such attitudes and behavior disobeys Scripture -- which tells us to love one another -- and so dishonors Christ.

Scripture tells us that he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

I think all this ugliness drives people -- non-Christians and weak Christians -- away from the gospel. It is NOT winsome!

I think these attitudes and behaviors generally constitute self-righteous, self-destructive addiction, as almost all abuse does.




"I'm truly sorry for all us Christians who are readily and easily quick to ridicule a man.
If we hurt members in the body we become partakers of the enemy's work.
Please brothers let us not bring each other down." ~ Billy Graham

Let's clear the air here, I'm not Protestant and I don't need to defend something or someone and their belief, also the Holy Trinity is not a concept it is a real living thing within every believer and that is the difference between a catholic and a Christian.

If your not Catholic or Othordox then your Protestant, weather you think you are or not.

If your intention is to share the light of the Roman Catholic Church, I fear you are going to be sorely disappointed here. If you want to trash our Bible, put a cork in it.

I bever said or implied such, thanks for judging. I do feel sorry for you all that you have a hacked apart Bible


As for the purgatory thing, of course the RCC believes it... how else would have Saint Peter's Basilica have been built if not for people paying either for indulgences or their loved ones getting out of purgatory?

Nice

No, since scripture is God breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) and not the interpretation of the author but the dictation of God alone (2 Peter 1:20), then this is patently false.

Ah yes, The Bible fell out of the sky I see

Not only is this demonstrably false: "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar" (Proverbs 30:5-6), but it's also off topic.

It's not because Scripture doesn't mention purgatory that's it's so fundamentally wrong, it's that scripture forbids any such notion, and the sola scriptura rabbit trail is just a diversion from that, so let’s please stick to the topic and if you’d like to be proven wrong about any other topics please start a thread and I’m sure many will oblige in demonstrating your errors.

Sorry, it's not false. There is no where Scripture which was put together by us Catholics say to use it alone

christseeker,

As a long-time member of the board, I want to express my deep sorrow that you are often spoken unkindly to here.

Scruff

I think there's a lot of contempt and hatred for catholicism and for catholics here.


There is my friend, there is. It will continue because man hate not being their own master and until such time when Christ comes again hatred for the Church He founded will continue.

christseeker,

As a long-time member of the board, I want to express my deep sorrow that you are often spoken unkindly to here.

Scruff

Thank you. It's go with the territory, as soon as I came to my senses and returned to the Church from Calvinism I knew most would think me an unsaved heathen and heap veiled hatred my way. I'm sure I am cupable to, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa.

I think there's a lot of contempt and hatred for catholicism and for catholics here.

I think such attitudes and behavior disobeys Scripture -- which tells us to love one another -- and dishonors Christ.

Certainly they would, but we are commended to contend for the faith, warned against false apostles, false gospels and those bearing a false Jesus' in 1 Corinthians and Galatians so contend we must.

But why do you say there is a lot of contempt and hatred?

Can you establish that such is the case?

I bever said or implied such, thanks for judging. I do feel sorry for you all that you have a hacked apart Bible

We're not the ones that changed Genesis to a feminine pronoun to support our agenda, nor did we slice open the Bible and cram in books that self identify as non-scriptural or that blatantly contradict scripture.

Would you like to go to that other thread and we can finish discussing this?

We're not the ones that changed Genesis to a feminine pronoun to support our agenda, nor did we slice open the Bible and cram in books that self identify as non-scriptural or that blatantly contradict scripture.

Would you like to go to that other thread and we can finish discussing this?

No you ripped books out and we didn't do as your pattently false claims suggest

Ah yes, The Bible fell out of the sky I see

Actually, this is how it came about: "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Sorry, it's not false. There is no where Scripture which was put together by us Catholics say to use it alone

Scripture's compilation predated Roman Catholicism, and even if the above were true it would in no way give license to contradict said scripture.

Could you try to defend you points with... anything please?

No you ripped books out and we didn't do as your pattently false claims suggest

Then please address my earlier post, in which I demonstrated that this is false.

I'd love if you could provide something that resembles some form of evidence of some kind.

I think there's a lot of contempt and hatred for catholicism and for catholics here.

I can only speak for myself here. I have no problems with Catholics. I go to my dad's catholic church every week. What I can't stand is the belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church, and that the church started in Rome. Not only is it historically incorrect, it's an outright and blatant lie. The church began in Israel. That's where the Founder is from. Remember Jesus. It was only when Constantine chose to politicize Christianity and make it the official religion of the empire did Roman Catholicism have it's beginning. Prior to that only Christians were called Christians.

I have no hate, but I refuse to allow lies be spread here under the disguise of spiritual awakening. As I said, I know many many Catholics who I love and fellowship with. But this RCC propaganda has got to stop. If you want to discuss the RCC so much, discuss it with others that feel as you do. (And this is not referring to you Scruffy).

Scripture's compilation predated Roman Catholicism.

Could you try to defend you points with... anything please?

The Chudrch was the only one until the splits came, so yes the OT was before us and the NT was complied by us.

Thank you. It's go with the territory, as soon as I came to my senses and returned to the Church from Calvinism I knew most would think me an unsaved heathen and heap veiled hatred my way. I'm sure I am cupable to, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa.

Hatred isn't defined as evidence-based disagreement with you on issues regarding doctrine.

Instead of trying to direct attention towards your martydom here, can you please attempt to substantiate something that you're presenting.

Scripture would be lovely, but at this point I'll take any sort of citation.

You guys want to go have your peeing match in a corner somewhere so others can get back to the topic of discussing "purgatory," although this thread is starting to seem more like eternal damnation without hope of escape...

The Chudrch was the only one until the splits came,

Take that up with Barnabus here. He likes Catholics and even he doesn't agree with that.

But if you could present that in the form of an arguement with some sort of source, that would be great.


so yes the OT was before us and the NT was complied by us.

You're confused here... the apocrypha is not considered the NT.

It's good that we're having this discussion, as you're clearly labouring under some misapprehensions and if you try to cite your sources you'll find you were mistaken on some key points.

You guys want to go have your peeing match in a corner somewhere so others can get back to the topic of discussing "purgatory," although this thread is starting to seem more like eternal damnation without hope of escape...

Yes, absolutely I would, and I've offered the link to that other corner numerous times, but I still have a blatter full of references and would gladly relocate, if our friend here would care to accompany me instead of continuing the derail.

Hatred isn't defined as evidence-based disagreement with you on issues regarding doctrine.

Instead of trying to direct attention towards your martydom here, can you please attempt to substantiate something that you're presenting.

Scripture would be lovely, but at this point I'll take any sort of citation.

I can only tell you Matt 7:6, good day

You guys want to go have your peeing match in a corner somewhere so others can get back to the topic of discussing "purgatory," although this thread is starting to seem more like eternal damnation without hope of escape...

Point taken. I'm not wasting my time anymore.

Actually it wasn't until the council of Trent in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church adopted 11 books of the apocrypha.
As to why, not sure...

Really!?!?! Construction on Saint Peter's Basilica was started on April 18, 1506, coincidence??? :rolleyes:

I can only tell you Matt 7:6, good day

I couldn't agree more, "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces" (Matt. 7:6).

We most certainly should not, and scripture is sacred, so this affirms my point, especially in light of all of the scripture I've cited.

In fact, let's use this principle as a bridge back to the OP, shall we, since scripture says not to add to it and purgaroty is not only not found in the Bible but its doctrines are forbidden?

You didn't address how the books of Maccabees identify themselves as written in the time when no prophecy was given, since you seem to still be suggesting the apocrypha has some say here.

Hey guys... OPEN MOUTH. INSERT CHILL PILL. Be nice for crying out loud.

Ok - this may have been discussed before and I missed it - what is purgatory and how is it defined?

If it's already in a post, then please point me to that post.

Thanks -
V

Oh - and please can we all refrain from calling each other swine? That'd be good, thank you.

In a nutshell... a place where folks go where they are in limbo until such a time they are taken out of limbo and brought into the kingdom of heaven.

When it came about... they could pay the church a price to purchase loved ones out of purgatory. Apologist today know that happened and don't usually attempt to deny the fact. They just try and seperate the doctrine from the misuse of the doctrine. Problem is... that is a difficult sell since that's what the intent of the doctrine was as history shows clearly. Firefighter hinted at it in his last few post.

oh - and please can we all refrain from calling each other swine? That'd be good, thank you.

I don't think anyone was, were they?

I thought that verse was referenced in relation to doctrine.

Have I actually failed to be literal enough in my interpretation?

Man teddyv's got to see this.

I would suggest that there are hints of the Trinity in Scripture but it is not laid out, the Holy Spirit is not called God it is suggested that he is God but not clearly said in such terms. I saw MarkEdward's thread even commented on it. He tried to prove from the Bible there was no Trinity, in his mind he was successful, if the doctrine were clearly laid out he could not have done this.

The only problem with this is that Mark read his own agenda into the text. How many Christian scholars seriously doubt the Trinity? And even if the Bible does not provide us with a formulaic doctrine of the Trinity, it can still be quite reasonably gleaned and is strongly implied.


There are several doctrines not laid out in scripture that are not man made, they are hinted at such in Scripture, as the doctrine in this thread.

Please do tell me the doctrines that are not found in scripture.


The Protestant Chruches denounce Purgatory because they were over reacting to the problems the Roman Catholic Church created with indulgences. The problem is the pengulium, as it usually does when trying to correct abuses, swung too far to the other side.

How could this be the case if the Reformation were first and foremost about scriptural authority? Many of the Reformers even believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (which isn't unscriptural per se, but it relies upon an odd yet consistent reading of a few passages). Luther even left in paedobaptism, which was certainly a RCC practice yet could be objected to and is objected to by many Protestants.


The NT writers read from the what the Orthodox and RCC have now, not what the Protestants read from.

The Orthodox church don't consider the Deuterocanon to be scriptural.


What we have now is free from error but we don't have the full witness that the Apostles, like John, James, Peter, or Matthew had. John even said that if all the words and things that Jesus did were written down the earth would not even contain them. The Apostles and their disciples had access to a lot more than we do now.

The problem is that what we DO have is our only insight into the person of Jesus. I believe sola scriptura as a matter of philosophical and not religious conviction. I believe that the ideal situation would be to know Jesus directly as a human, and many people were saved in this way. It is also possible to be saved without a Bible, I'm not arguing that. My only point of contention is that we can allow tradition to arbitrate in place of scripture.


Why would we limit ourselves to only the Bible when God has given us the witness of the Chruch and our own minds to us as resources. When drug companies research new drug possiblities they research all possible resources. Why if we are dealing with something so much more important would we limit ourselves to only one resource?

Because only one resource can be free from error.

Do you believe that the faith has been delivered once and for all, or revelation is progressive?

I don't think anyone was, were they?

I thought that verse was referenced in relation to doctrine.

Have I actually failed to be literal enough in my interpretation?

Man teddyv's got to see this.

Man - you need to grow up.

Ar we cool now?

In a nutshell... a place where folks go where they are in limbo until such a time they are taken out of limbo and brought into the kingdom of heaven.

When it came about... they could pay the church a price to purchase loved ones out of purgatory. Apologist today know that happened and don't usually attempt to deny the fact. They just try and seperate the doctrine from the misuse of the doctrine. Problem is... that is a difficult sell since that's what the intent of the doctrine was as history shows clearly. Firefighter hinted at it in his last few post.
Thank you. I guess I should do some research to discover when it started being taught and when it started being pushed heavily and on what verses it is/was based on.

Man - you need to grow up.

Ar we cool now?

Weren't we cool before?

I need to grow up?

I'm confused as to why I keep receiving reproaches as though I'm acting immaturely.

I've been somewhat playful to try to keep it light whenever I reference people, and serious only in my treatment of doctrine, but how am I the one who's demonstrating immaturity if others have accused me of being hateful and I've expressed no hard feelings or personal contempt in response?

Thank you. I guess I should do some research to discover when it started being taught and when it started being pushed heavily and on what verses it is/was based on.Yeah... there's tons of information out there naturally pro and con.

There's been some good post that have refuted it in here but then the motive behind the refuting is questionable.

I don't think anyone was, were they?

I thought that verse was referenced in relation to doctrine.

Have I actually failed to be literal enough in my interpretation?

Man teddyv's got to see this.

I saw it and don't drag me into this mess. :)

Thank you. I guess I should do some research to discover when it started being taught and when it started being pushed heavily and on what verses it is/was based on.

I posted some of its origins in this thread if you're interested:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/96741-Purgatory?p=2578755#post2578755

I saw it and don't drag me into this mess. :)

Too late... hook, line and sinker.

Weren't we cool before?

I need to grow up?

I'm confused as to why I keep receiving reproaches as though I'm acting immaturely.

I've been somewhat playful to try to keep it light whenever I reference people, and serious only in my treatment of doctrine, but how am I the one who's demonstrating immaturity if others have accused me of being hateful and I've expressed no hard feelings or personal contempt in response?

Sometimes what one would consider playful, others would consider rude - and usually those who think they are being playful are those who lack maturity.

Do not cast your pearls before swine. Two posters used that verse - it was in poor taste in my opinion. Except I like the tase of pig.... so... hmmmm.

At any rate - carry on - this thread is very educational for me.

I posted some of its origins in this thread if you're interested:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/96741-Purgatory?p=2578755#post2578755

Yes - thank you. I will read it later this evening. I have often wondered about Paul speaking of works beig burned and either coming out as gems or disappearing completely into smoke. I know what I "think" it means but I'll give a read.

Thanks again -
V

Sometimes what one would consider playful, others would consider rude - and usually those who think they are being playful are those who lack maturity.

According to what, please? You're basically accusing me of immaturity here, and yet I think I've modeled a fair amont of loving patience by not getting upset at the numerous accusations against my character, of which this is one.


Do not cast your pearls before swine. Two posters used that verse - it was in poor taste in my opinion.

I responded to how the appropriate application of the verse without hostility, even though it was clearly intended to convey hostility not only towards me, but towards all of Protestantism.


Except I like the tase of pig.... so... hmmmm.

So you can be playful, but when I am it is immature?

Can you explain to me the difference please?

Ryan, if you would like to discuss Vhayes' attempt at calming down the thread (her job as a moderator) feel free to start a thread in C2M. I am sure she will be happy to discuss it with you. NOW, can we get back to the thread a stop derailing this one?

According to what, please? You're basically accusing me of immaturity here, and yet I think I've modeled a fair amont of loving patience by not getting upset at the numerous accusations against my character, of which this is one.



I responded to how the appropriate application of the verse without hostility, even though it was clearly intended to convey hostility not only towards me, but towards all of Protestantism.



So you can be playful, but when I am it is immature?

Can you explain to me the difference please?
Yep. I'm an old broad.

Oh - and FYI - I did think the other poster was meaning it as an insult - that's the reason I said TWO posters.

Now - can we leave the childish behind and get on with the thread.

I have a serious question - how is RCC doctrine changed - for lack of a better word. I mean, how is it possible to go from Mary being The "Mother of God", to being a perpetual virgin, to being conceived without "sin" (which means sex is a sin??) to being currently touted as the Co-redemptrix?

I need help - needless to say.

Yep. I'm an old broad.

Oh - and FYI - I did think the other poster was meaning it as an insult - that's the reason I said TWO posters.

Now - can we leave the childish behind and get on with the thread.

Certainly, but please then bear in mind I have no idea in what way I've erred, since my supposed childishness has not been made explicit, and since I don't know I'm sure it will be preceived again later.


I have a serious question - how is RCC doctrine changed - for lack of a better word. I mean, how is it possible to go from Mary being The "Mother of God", to being a perpetual virgin, to being conceived without "sin" (which means sex is a sin??) to being currently touted as the Co-redemptrix?

I need help - needless to say.

She isn't officially co-redemptrix by doctrine... yet.

Her status as "Queen of Heaven" has interesting implications, given that the only time that title appears in the Bible it is in condemnation of the Babylonian diety.

But what does that have to do with purgatory?

Ryan, if you would like to discuss Vhayes' attempt at calming down the thread (her job as a moderator) feel free to start a thread in C2M. I am sure she will be happy to discuss it with you. NOW, can we get back to the thread a stop derailing this one?

Sure.

If there's anything I haven't addressed yet I'd love for anyone to fire away.

She isn't officially co-redemptrix by doctrine... yet.

Her status as "Queen of Heaven" has interesting implications, given that the only time that title appears in the Bible it is in condemnation of the Babylonian diety.

But what does that have to do with purgatory?
It doesn't - but it does have to do with how things become doctrine - or how thing become "undoctrine" in the RCC. Things like babies in limbo - like eating fish on Friday - why do these things change if they were divinely inspired for starters?

It doesn't - but it does have to do with how things become doctrine - or how thing become "undoctrine" in the RCC. Things like babies in limbo - like eating fish on Friday - why do these things change if they were divinely inspired for starters?

The RCC claims they don't change but that popes, in the office of Peter, are delivered perspective to develop doctrines over time.

Things like only eating fish on Friday was another fiscal advantage for a pope who had stock in the fish market, but it's not considered essential doctrine, and therefore, while it needed to be obeyed at the time does not affect the core doctrines of canon law.

Canon law must be forever, and cannot be contradicted either by other canon law, the earlier church fathers, the Bible, or sacred traditions.

That it is contradicted on all accounts is what keeps the Catholic apologists so busy, and is what makes my job so simple.

All this arguing among the brethren about a place that doesn't exist, alright already people(s) let sing Silent night.

Stille nacht
Helige nact
Alles...

Let's take an example, as a kind of mirror of our conduct on this thread

Let's suppose that I have a friend who is Jewish. This friend does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, nor that He is God. Instead, he is very angry at Jesus, and everything to do with him, being bitter at mistreatment by Christians, historically.

While he is visiting at my house, the Jewish faith comes up. I go out of my way to repeat every nasty cliche about Jews that has ever been uttered. Greedy moneylenders. Killers of Christ. Illuminati. Then when I am challenged I say "he doesn't believe in Christ, so its my duty to set him straight, and combat his error. Book of Jude!"

The rude nasty self-righteous tone addressed to Catholics here

This thread adopts the same attitude to Catholics. Rather than concentrate on the issue at hand -- on which there are plenty of long Scripture-filled posts which have not been addressed -- again and again we get slurs against catholics and catholicism, not relevent to doctrine, but accusations of financial motives, and going off an every anti-catholic tangent. The tone is rude and nasty.

One does not win those with whom one disagrees over to one's position by making rude comments and expressing general dislike for their group, but by kindness, politeness, and graciousness, combined with pertinent discussion, tactfully conducted, of issues on which there are disagreements.

Scripture prohibits rude conduct toward others. Common sense tells us that it is not the way to get your point across. Further, people address hostile comments to Christseeker.

The analogy of the (20th c.) Jewish trek to the promised land.

People who conducted pogroms against Jews, historically, discriminated against them, and insulted them, flattered themselves by telling themselves they were championing the truth of Christ against unbelievers. But in fact, when people gang up on an unpopular minority, insulting and reviling them, they are not -- not ever -- defending the truth, no matter what they tell themselves. They are, instead, doing everything possible to keep people away from the truth, and from their own views. Such nasty, ungodly conduct will never draw anyone to the truth, however sound or convincing the arguments are of those who conduct themselves in this abusive way.

The way that people here treat Catholics is similar. These catholic-haters -- and please remember that you cannot love God whom you have not seen if you do not love brothers and sisters whom you have seen (I John 4) -- keep throwing out miscellaneous insults and jibes. Of course, this is not the way to win anyone over to one's point of view. Instead, Catholics learn, from the conduct that we allow here, that non-Catholic Christians are rude jerks, full of insults, and eager to close in like a pack of dogs around a lone Catholic who dares show his face. These catholic-haters justify their behavior by claiming, to themselves and others, that they are just trying to defend the precious truth of the Gospel. But this is not so.

What might effective witness for the Gospel look like?

If one really cared about the Gospel, instead of one's self-righteous condemnation of others, one would speak to those whom one wanted to win over as kindly and fairly as possible. One would, in fact, act winsomely. That kind of conduct might open minds of Catholics to hear arguments and truths which differed from their preconceptions. That kind of conduct might open the minds of non-Christians who view our forums to the Gospel. They'd say: "Despite their deep doctrinal differences, they treat one another with love and respect. Maybe there is something to Christianity after all, if it produces lovely character of that sort." This is the sort of thing that draws people to Christ!!

Instead, the mean-spirited, wolf-pack, insulting-tones, of those who post here, eager to misrepresent and to think the worst of others, drive people away from Christ, and divide Christians. People who do not know Christ will say, seeing the hatred and contempt with which those folk post here against catholics will say "this cannot be the right religion, because it fills people with rudeness and self-righteousness and hatred. People who are catholics will not be open to learning things God might have taught them through their protestant brothers and sisters, because those brothers and sisters have gone about insulting them. People who are Christians, also, unless very strong in the faith, will start to lose faith in a religion which people who loudly claim to be defending Christ are insulting and nasty to others.

However the disgusting evil of internecine strife in the form of anti-catholic posting on this thread does not stop there.

What is the imperative of the moment: to do justice and love mercy and walk humbly with thy God.

We need to consider who our friends are, and the friends of Christ, in an increasingly dangerous and dark world

This is not the 16th century folks. The world -- even in the US and Europe -- is full of people who want to stamp Christianity out. The world is full of people who persecute Christians and kill them, and burn their homes. You know what? The people persecuting Christians -- in Vietnam and Burma (Myanmar) and Uzbeckistan, and India, and Pakistan, and Sudan, and Iraq, and Iran, and Palestine -- persecute Christians irrespective of whether they are orthodox, or catholic, or protestant and the like.

Christians, in this country, and Britain, and Europe, are trying to stand up for freedom of speech, to preach the gospel, and against the powerful tide of attempts to coerce people into approving of homosexuality, and against the tide of forcing people to support abortion, and against Sharia law, and so on. These Christians are both Catholic and Protestant (and in some regions, Orthodox). Civilization, and worse, Christianity, is under attack from all sides. Catholics are often in the forefront of those attempts to defend Christian morality, freedom of speech, and faith in Christ.

And faced with that, what is a common response?

But all some people can find to do is to spit in the faces of other Christians -- orthodox Christians who worship the One God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and who uphold the morality which the Scriptures give us, often at great cost. When they do that, they actually spit in the face of Christ.

A dozen talented atheist propagandists here could not do as much to hinder the work of the Gospel as self-righteous and rude haters calling themselves Christians do.

C'mon Scruff, Loving someone and not liking or agreeing with their doctrine is two completely different factors, and accusing anyone on the board of hating catholics is not of GOD, be careful Scruffy those are some pretty harsh and untrue accusations.

I've specified what I am talking about. I've given detailed arguments and concerns.
For instance in post #204. I welcome a serious response.

I live in a world of civil discourse, a world in which people disagree strongly all the time without insulting one another.
The discourse here is largely uncivil: it is bullying and hate-filled and nasty. Against Catholics.

You are certainly right that loving someone and not liking or agreeing with their doctrine are different.
This thread is filled with nastyness and hatred toward Catholics.
I have chosen to speak some truth about reviling speech here, as I see it, in a very restrained way.

If what you want is to discuss doctrine, good! That's what the thread is supposed to be for.
I've posted about 10,000 words, 6 major passages, dozens of verses about the topic of the thread.
No one seems interested in replying. That's OK, but it makes it implausible to argue that the real concern is doctrine.

Sorry, TMS, I've specified what I am talking about.

I live in a world of civil discourse, a world in which people disagree strongly all the time without insulting one another.

The discourse here is largely uncivil: it is bullying and hate-filled and nasty. Against minorities, especially catholics.

Were I to speak the truth as I see it it would be much, much more indicting than what I've chosen to say here in a restrained way.

You are right that loving someone and not liking or agreeing with their doctrine are different. This thread is filled with nastyness and hatred toward Catholics.

Just so we're on the same page, I ask these questions to all believers:

Do you believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins??? Do you believe Jesus is your LORD and Saviour??? then it doesn't matter which denom, religion, faith, a person is because there are too many scriptures that says, you are saved. GOD bless you Scruffy. :)

Not possible, the good work that Christ began in us is finished by him. The believer in purgatory or the state of purging is not doing this to him/herself, it is being done by Christ. This process need not take a long time, some in believe it is done in an instant, I would be on their side.

Then we have little to disagree.

1 Cor 15:51-52 Listen, I will tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed – in a moment, in the blinking of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Also,

Luke 16:19-23 There was a rich man who dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. But at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus whose body was covered with sores, who longed to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. In addition, the dogs came and licked his sores.

Now the poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. And in hell, as he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far off with Lazarus at his side.

I've specified what I am talking about. I've given detailed arguments and concerns.
For instance in post #204. I welcome a serious response.

I live in a world of civil discourse, a world in which people disagree strongly all the time without insulting one another.
The discourse here is largely uncivil: it is bullying and hate-filled and nasty. Against Catholics.

You are certainly right that loving someone and not liking or agreeing with their doctrine are different.
This thread is filled with nastyness and hatred toward Catholics.
I have chosen to speak some truth about reviling speech here, as I see it, in a very restrained way.

If what you want is to discuss doctrine, good! That's what the thread is supposed to be for.
I've posted about 10,000 words, 6 major passages, dozens of verses about the topic of the thread.
No one seems interested in replying. That's OK, but it makes it implausible to argue that the real concern is doctrine.

Give everyone a break, Scruff.

We don't just bash Catholics. We bash baptists/Charismatics/AOG/pentecostals/frozenchosen/Arminian/Calvinistic/catholics equally...Whatever we don't like or agree with, we accuse of eating babies and watching Harry Potter.

***** Mod Staff Note *****

This thread has gotten way off course, and turned to to much in-bickering about groups, instead of discussion the issues of the topic.


Any further ya-ya snips amongst one another will simply be deleted.

If you feel you or your group is being slighted by another individual, the use the report feature, don't go into rogue-retaliation mode.

Debate and discuss the issues of the topic, but do so without antagonizing individuals or groups.

***** Mod Staff Note *****

I do not think that catholics are the only ones to teach that men can and must pay for their own sins. Jewish teaching seems to support the idea as well. Any church teaching where men earn their way to heaven could easily adopt the idea that purgatory should exist. Any protestant church that uses 2 macabees as scripture could easily make claim to buying souls of men out of condemnation after they have died.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Lots of protestants and evangelicals believe (at least in practice) that men can and do pay for their own salvation by good works...

Lots of protestants and evangelicals believe (at least in practice) that men can and do pay for their own salvation by good works...

How true! I actually used to believe this for years, it's amazing what you just come to accept as fact. I think it's quite natural because that's how all other religions work.

Lots of protestants and evangelicals believe (at least in practice) that men can and do pay for their own salvation by good works...

I believe the main fundamental difference between works-based salvation models held by some protestant groups, and the RCC doctrine of purgatory is this.

The protestant groups who believe this, believe it only applies during this mortal life.

The RCC purgatory doctrine however, applies salvation by works to the after-death state.

A pretty significant difference...which is why I mentioned earlier, the notion of after-death salvation leads towards Universal Reconciliation.

I do not think that catholics are the only ones to teach that men can and must pay for their own sins. Jewish teaching seems to support the idea as well. Any church teaching where men earn their way to heaven could easily adopt the idea that purgatory should exist. Any protestant church that uses 2 macabees as scripture could easily make claim to buying souls of men out of condemnation after they have died.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

The Talmud1 speaks of Purgatory:

Sabbath 33b:
"The judgment of the wicked in purgatory is twelve months."
Rosh HaShanah 16b-17a:
"It has been taught that the school of Shammai says: "There will be three groups on Judgment Day (yom haDin):
(1) one that is completely righteous,
(2) one that is completely wicked,
(3) and one that is in between."

The completely righteous will be recorded and sealed at once for eternal life. The completely wicked will be recorded and doomed at once to Gehinnom, as it says: "And many who sleep in the dust of the earth shall rise up, some to eternal life and some to shame and eternal rejection" [Daniel 12:2]. Those in between will go down to Gehinnom and cry out and rise up, as it says: "And I will bring the third part through the fire and refine them as silver is refined and test them as gold is tested. They will call on my name and I will answer them" [Zechariah 13:9]

The three groups listed in the Talmud are placed a little different in Revelation. Revelation 3:15-16 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou were cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

The completely righteous will be recorded and sealed at once for eternal life. The completely wicked will be recorded and doomed at once to Gehinnom, as it says: "And many who sleep in the dust of the earth shall rise up, some to eternal life and some to shame and eternal rejection" [Daniel 12:2]. Those in between will go down to Gehinnom and cry out and rise up, as it says: "And I will bring the third part through the fire and refine them as silver is refined and test them as gold is tested. They will call on my name and I will answer them" [Zechariah 13:9]

How is this teaching purgatory?

The first is just a heaven/hell distinction, the second is an end times scenario/Messianic prophecy (depending on your view of Dispensationalism).

No purgatory here.