Purgatory. Fact or myth???

[The Mighty Sword]

My insistence here is that the Catholic mass is basically an esoteric and (unneccessarily) eccentric version of celebrating communion and the celebration of the death and atonement of Christ. That is what Leo said. If "mass" is a "sacrament", then so is "communion". The only question to be answered is whether the act of mass or the act of communion has salvific value, or whether the faith in mass or the faith in communion has salvific value. Leo and I both say the latter, whereas you seem more caught up in the actions of mass.


The point which you managed so marvellously to miss is that these saints are very much alive. They are not divine and we are not talking about mediation. Your objection to Leo was an objection to his simple comment that the saints are alive. You're having your argument about mediation with yourself, because neither of us brought it up.


Do you understand the difference between a valuable teaching and Holy Spirit-inspired canon? And even if you don't, Leo's point was simply that the Catholic church (inspired by the Holy Spirit) compiled the canonical Bible.


I have no patience with semantic tomfoolery. "Esteemed" means "respected". "Hail" is a salutation of respect and acclamation. If nothing else, we can leave this point with the admission that Mary was highly favoured and blessed among women. If you have a problem with that, you can take it up with Jesus.

Our disagreement, then, is down to the fact that you have not distinguished wrong doctrine from heresy.

That has to be the first time I've ever seen someone answer their own posts, bravo.

[Ryan R]

My insistence here is that the Catholic mass is basically an esoteric and (unneccessarily) eccentric version of celebrating communion and the celebration of the death and atonement of Christ. That is what Leo said. If "mass" is a "sacrament", then so is "communion". The only question to be answered is whether the act of mass or the act of communion has salvific value, or whether the faith in mass or the faith in communion has salvific value. Leo and I both say the latter, whereas you seem more caught up in the actions of mass.

... and since Ephesians demonstrates it has no salvic value, then I rest my case.

The point which you managed so marvellously to miss is that these saints are very much alive.

Interesting that I've demonstrated that I acknowledge this and I've pointed out that the Bible draws a distinction between alive physically and being in heaven - both points you seem to be totally ignoring.

They are not divine and we are not talking about mediation.

You keep talking about divininty here, not me.

Your objection to Leo was an objection to his simple comment that the saints are alive.

I already mentioned that it wasn't and what I meant.

You're having your argument about mediation with yourself, because neither of us brought it up.

Intercession of the dead is mediation, because they are in God’s presence and not communicating through prayer, the language of faith.

Do you understand the difference between a valuable teaching and Holy Spirit-inspired canon?

Yes. So? The Catholic Church accepts tradition as Holy Spirit inspired canon.

And even if you don't, Leo's point was simply that the Catholic church (inspired by the Holy Spirit) compiled the canonical Bible.

So? Even if that were true, it doesn’t give them license to break God’s laws so it doesn’t matter at all.

I have no patience with semantic tomfoolery. "Esteemed" means "respected". "Hail" is a salutation of respect and acclamation. If nothing else, we can leave this point with the admission that Mary was highly favoured and blessed among women. If you have a problem with that, you can take it up with Jesus.

I am totally comfortable about what Jesus said about Mary. I pointed out what words He used, and you have yet to respond to that.

Your accusation of tomfoolery has not distracted me from the fact that you’re not addressing the verses I quoted.

Take the verse you are trying to use in your defense and quote it here for all to see. Let’s look at it in context, see who’s saying what about whom, and look at other verses. We will find, when we explore these passages, that God has told us that Mary was favoured in His eyes to bless; not to esteem people; and that Jesus specifically said that His mother was anyone who did His will.

Now, please try to demonstrate from scripture how that explanation is incorrect.

Our disagreement, then, is down to the fact that you have not distinguished wrong doctrine from heresy.

What difference does it make? If doctrine is wrong, then it’s wrong.

I think that heresy is when you alter the message of salvation, straying from who the Bible says we are in relation to God and sin, who God is, who Jesus is, and what Jesus has done for us. For the record the RCC is guilty of corrupting all of these.

[Bing]

And yet, my friend, you seem to have no trouble casually announcing to the world that in your opinion the letter to the Ephesians says that faith does not lead to salvation. Perhaps you have gnawed this particular bone a little too fervently. I'll bow out of the discussion here, and let you consider whether or not you really meant that.

I would like to conclude by pointing out that I believe you have a great deal of wrong doctrine, and I freely admit that I have wrong doctrine as well. I do not believe that you are a heretic. The Roman church has experienced its fair share of heretics, and in many cases has defended the faith and the truth - against arianism, monism, gnosticism, islam, idolatry, modalism and montanism, and more recently against secularism and syncretism - and it has fallen short in many regards, as has the Protestant church. I urge you to remember that in many cases Roman Christians are members of the bride of Christ, and co-heirs with you in the promises of Christ, and that occasional wrong (or simply exaggerated) doctrines are not the same thing as heresy. I admit that you are absolutely right to challenge falsehoods when you see them, and I also admit that there are certainly Roman Christians who are heretics, and who have distorted the truth of God into a lie. My purpose in addressing your arguments is to defend what is defensible, not to defend heresy. And please, as a personal favour; if you reply to me, try and reply to what I am actually saying, instead of sentence fragments stripped from context. It makes me look like a fool, and I'm sure you don't want that.

[The Mighty Sword]

And yet, my friend, you seem to have no trouble casually announcing to the world that in your opinion the letter to the Ephesians says that faith does not lead to salvation. Perhaps you have gnawed this particular bone a little too fervently. I'll bow out of the discussion here, and let you consider whether or not you really meant that.

I would like to conclude by pointing out that I believe you have a great deal of wrong doctrine, and I freely admit that I have wrong doctrine as well. I do not believe that you are a heretic. The Roman church has experienced its fair share of heretics, and in many cases has defended the faith and the truth - against arianism, monism, gnosticism, islam, idolatry, modalism and montanism, and more recently against secularism and syncretism - and it has fallen short in many regards, as has the Protestant church. I urge you to remember that in many cases Roman Christians are members of the bride of Christ, and co-heirs with you in the promises of Christ, and that occasional wrong (or simply exaggerated) doctrines are not the same thing as heresy. I admit that you are absolutely right to challenge falsehoods when you see them, and I also admit that there are certainly Roman Christians who are heretics, and who have distorted the truth of God into a lie. My purpose in addressing your arguments is to defend what is defensible, not to defend heresy. And please, as a personal favour; if you reply to me, try and reply to what I am actually saying, instead of sentence fragments stripped from context. It makes me look like a fool, and I'm sure you don't want that.

That was a great post. Thank you.

[Ryan R]

And yet, my friend, you seem to have no trouble casually announcing to the world that in your opinion the letter to the Ephesians says that faith does not lead to salvation.

I did not say that.

Bing, I know that I have a tendency to sound sharper than I intend, so if I have offended you I am sorry. I appreciated the compliment you gave me a few posts back and I'm not trying to reward it with sharpness, which I understand is not a fruit of the spirit.

Perhaps you have gnawed this particular bone a little too fervently. I'll bow out of the discussion here, and let you consider whether or not you really meant that.

By 'that' I suppose you mean that '"faith does not lead to salvation", but here I truly am confused at the suggestion.

I was the one who said that salvation is gained by faith - it is a free gift, gained solely by faith in grace. Any other suggestion is incorrect. Having stated this, I really don't know how I can be guilty of suggesting that faith does not led to salvation.

I would like to conclude by pointing out that I believe you have a great deal of wrong doctrine,

Then by all means help me out. Show me where in scripture the correct doctrine can be found.

and I freely admit that I have wrong doctrine as well.

No one has it all right, but that's why it's key to keep at it.

I do not believe that you are a heretic.

I appreciate the sentiment of your statement, and I personally don't try to judge whether or not individuals are 'heretics' but I freely will identify doctrines that I think are un-biblical (i.e. any thing that is practiced as a religious rite that is not found in scripture or is contrary to scripture)

The Roman Catholic Church, however, does consider me a heretic. I am anathema for believing in faith-based, and not works-based, salvation according to Catholic doctrine.

The Roman church has experienced its fair share of heretics, and in many cases has defended the faith and the truth - against arianism, monism, gnosticism, islam, idolatry, modalism and montanism, and more recently against secularism and syncretism - and it has fallen short in many regards, as has the Protestant church.

But the Protestant church does not claim infallibility. It is not pretending to be an institution that is either perfect nor necessary for salvation, so it doesn't share in the RCC faults of remaining unrepentant of sins nor trying to take away from the grace of Jesus as the sole mediator between man and God. Just as a side note, I don’t actually identify myself as Protestant, but for ease of reference I will accept being classified as one.

The RCC has "defended the faith" against those who claim that salvation is through faith alone by burning them at the stake, while committing similar transgressions as those that have been here labeled as the RCC's "fair share of heretics" by teaching un-biblical doctrines.

I am sorry, but the RCC will not escape judgment by trying to assume the office of judge.

I urge you to remember that in many cases Roman Christians are members of the bride of Christ, and co-heirs with you in the promises of Christ, and that occasional wrong (or simply exaggerated) doctrines are not the same thing as heresy.

I have provided my definition of heresy, and it is not my fault if the RCC chooses to engage in un-biblical practices that include it in that definition. I don't make up the rules for salvation, I just read them and proclaim them to the best of my ability.

I have not called any individual Catholics heretics and I have stated and restated that I neither know, nor care (in the sense that it will have no effect whatsoever in how I proclaim the truth) who in their heart is saved. That's between them and God. I am, however, scripturally obligated to challenge any un-biblical doctrines, and I will continue to do so (God willing), even if I am inadvertently hurting feelings, isolating myself, loosing friends, suffering persecution, etc., etc.

I admit that you are absolutely right to challenge falsehoods when you see them, and I also admit that there are certainly Roman Christians who are heretics, and who have distorted the truth of God into a lie. My purpose in addressing your arguments is to defend what is defensible, not to defend heresy.

Then please continue to do so.

And please, as a personal favour; if you reply to me, try and reply to what I am actually saying, instead of sentence fragments stripped from context. It makes me look like a fool, and I'm sure you don't want that.

I really don't and I sincerely apologies for any way in which I conducted myself poorly or any way in which I have cast a negative reflection on you.

I'm not really sure how I have been guilty of not replying to what you are actually saying, though, since I left in the entire context of your post. I'm not trying to be difficult, and will gladly re-arrange my approach to this conversation to any preference you have. Do you like full paragraph responses following the post instead of intermittent comments that interact with the passages? Just let me know and I will be happy to adjust.

Thanks for the perceptive Bing. I hope to hear more from you, as I've put some study into praying to the dead Christians and such and would be happy to discuss.

[Steven3]

Ryan and Bing
Thread has taken an interesting turn.

But the Protestant church does not claim infallibility. It is not pretending to be an institution that is either perfect nor necessary for salvation, so it doesn't share in the RCC faults of remaining unrepentant of sins nor trying to take away from the grace of Jesus as the sole mediator between man and God. Just as a side note, I don’t actually identify myself as Protestant, but for ease of reference I will accept being classified as one.

Well exactly -- the Protestant church probably owes more to Martin Luther and William Tyndale than any two other men, yet today Martin Luther and William Tyndale's views on death, resurrection are classified as "World Religion" by the very same Protestants in England and Germany who read the KJV and Luther Bibel. Ultimately modern Protestantism is Calvinist - Calvin's views triumphed and Luther became a heretic. Luther and Tyndale denied that the dead could even dream as in the sleep of life, yet Calvin believed in something worse than purgatory - eternal torment with no exit.

But does modern Protestantism stll hanker after infallibility? Or does it admit with relaxedness the heretical "World Religion" views of its founders? Interesting question...

[Ryan R]

Ryan and Bing
Thread has taken an interesting turn.Well exactly -- the Protestant church probably owes more to Martin Luther and William Tyndale than any two other men, yet today Martin Luther and William Tyndale's views on death, resurrection are classified as "World Religion" by the very same Protestants in England and Germany who read the KJV and Luther Bibel. Ultimately modern Protestantism is Calvinist - Calvin's views triumphed and Luther became a heretic. Luther and Tyndale denied that the dead could even dream as in the sleep of life, yet Calvin believed in something worse than purgatory - eternal torment with no exit.

But does modern Protestantism stll hanker after infallibility? Or does it admit with relaxedness the heretical "World Religion" views of its founders? Interesting question...

Yes it is, and I don't consider myself Protestant, because I strive to have no devotion to what people get out of the Bible, if it can't be demonstrated in the Bible. Everyone's wrong on something. It's the Bible that's our infallible rock.

[Steven3]

Yes it is, and I don't consider myself Protestant, because I strive to have no devotion to what people get out of the Bible, if it can't be demonstrated in the Bible. Everyone's wrong on something. It's the Bible that's our infallible rock.

Good comment, good attitude.

[JC33andDivine]

I dont think Catholicism is saying that Christ sacrifice is not sufficient. What it is saying is that if you have any stain of sin remaining after death it needs to be purged before entering heaven. And God, according to the RCC, is the one doing the purging.....a purging that does not happen without Jesus sacrifice on the cross. Luther said we are dung covered in snow. That's a good explanation....and if the snow is on us now or placed on us when we die...it matters not, because God is doing it. Of all the questionable doctrines in the RCC..this is one of the least bothersome. It becomes a problem when Catholicism is making doctrines out of it and selling indulgences for personal gain...which imo is a horrible and reprehensible action. When you read what Yohann Tetzel did it makes you sick....trying to sell God's grace..something he freely gives...is despicable. No wonder God raised up Luther to put a end to that non sense.

[Gillian]

I have often heard difference opinions regarding " purgatory " does this place exist or is it just another myth or if it does exist is there any scripture indicating it in fact does exist???


If this should be in World religions please adjust accordingly, Thank you,

oh it used to existed already in form of limbo awaiting place Hades in Bible. Purgatory is man invention in it orignal from OT and NT but Christ emptied that place in death. catholics just dont want to acknowledged the fullness of Christ. limbo hell fire in musilm version blance of bad and good deeds. I think they also relay on parents friends etc of statue to pay to immans . the Place used to exist just not correct version by catholic or musilm, by christians it considered finished by sucess of Christ

[The Mighty Sword]

oh it used to existed already in form of limbo awaiting place Hades in Bible. Purgatory is man invention in it orignal from OT and NT but Christ emptied that place in death. catholics just dont want to acknowledged the fullness of Christ. limbo hell fire in musilm version blance of bad and good deeds. I think they also relay on parents friends etc of statue to pay to immans . the Place used to exist just not correct version by catholic or musilm, by christians it considered finished by sucess of Christ

There is alot of thing they won't acknowledge even todays scandals are a testimony to that very statement.

JC33andDivine: It becomes a problem when Catholicism is making doctrines out of it and selling indulgences for personal gain...

What the going rate for "indulgences" these days

[Equipped_4_Love]

The vote on a prodominately protestant board will be myth.

To believe in purgatory is to miss the work on the cross. Either Christ's work on the cross was sufficiant or it wasnt.

It doesn't have to do with forgiveness. Jesus' work on the cross was complete in the aspect of ourforgiveness, and purgatory is not to ensure our forgivenes, or justification, but our sanctification.

So, in a nutshell, Christ's work on the cross is sufficient, but the Holy Spirit's work in believers is insufficient. That's what this doctrine suggests.

I disagree with it.

[Equipped_4_Love]

We are sanctified while we live, by the work of the Holy Spirit in us. To believe that we are in need of further sanctification when we actually receive it in full upon coming into His very presence at death, is wrong.

The Catholics do not believe that we receive it in full upon coming into His presence. Can you point out Scripture to support that our death ensures immediate sanctification?

Any further purging of sin means that the blood of Christ is unable to cleanse us as He promised and adds to holy scripture the notion that we must DO something to make us worthy of heaven--that is a works-based religion and totally anti-Christ, worthy of utter contempt and rejection.

Yes.....but purging of sins is not the issue. Sanctification and justification are 2 completey different things.

[Ryan R]

I dont think Catholicism is saying that Christ sacrifice is not sufficient. What it is saying is that if you have any stain of sin remaining after death it needs to be purged before entering heaven.

Denying Hebrews 9-10, and simultaneously claiming the ability to mediate such purging, thereby assuming the role and power given to Christ alone.

And God, according to the RCC, is the one doing the purging.....

Via the RCC, just like Christ actually accomplished for us on the cross. They're very clear about that.

a purging that does not happen without Jesus sacrifice on the cross.

Not without, but in addition to and therefore the insufficiency of the sacrifice in this system is clearly pronounced.

Luther said we are dung covered in snow. That's a good explanation....and if the snow is on us now or placed on us when we die...it matters not, because God is doing it. Of all the questionable doctrines in the RCC..this is one of the least bothersome. It becomes a problem when Catholicism is making doctrines out of it and selling indulgences for personal gain...which imo is a horrible and reprehensible action. When you read what Yohann Tetzel did it makes you sick....trying to sell God's grace..something he freely gives...is despicable. No wonder God raised up Luther to put a end to that non sense.

I disagree. If the RCC wants to sell indulgences it's a symptom of a greater illness, and that is the belief in man-made traditions (turning salvation into a works-based salvation, and redirection faith in Jesus to faith in man) over the God-given word (that says salvation is faith-based, a gift of faith in the true Redeemer and Mediator), and the most troublesome of the traditions is that salvation comes through the RCC. This is something they insist as a base point (that one cannot be saved unless they are saved by the RCC institution, as seen in the Council of Trent), as well as an ongoing remission of sins in confession, transubstantiation, purgatory, prayers to the saints, indulgences, and many other works-based remissions.

The big problem is that the RCC insists that salvation comes when you put your faith in the RCC as the mediator between man and God, but of course wee have a mediator already, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" 1 Tim. 2:5), and He had to be perfect in both in doctrine as well as in action in order to carry our sins, once and for all.

So, we are saved by faith in grace (Ephesians 2:8-9), because our Mediator was perfect in every way and voluntarily paid for our sins once and for all (as seen in Hebrews 9-10) so instead of facing the Judgement of God, we are saved by faith in the grace of our Mediator.

But, by placing faith in another mediator, one that is flawed with unrepentent heresies and the attrocities of mass murder of evangelicals (among many other faults), and one that insists that salvation is works-based, then when people face judgement of God the only filter they will have elected by their faith will not be the perfect, sinless Mediator who washed away their sins once and for all, but of a heinous institution that can only possibly further smudge them with its own vile sins, and then leave them to actually be judged on their works.

Well, none of us can afford to be judge on our works. ""Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:19).

If the RCC succeeds in promoting a works-based salvation, then people will be judged by their works and the will pay eternally for it, because "There is no one righteous, not even one" (Romans 3:10), and we cannot earn heaven and no one else can earn it for us other than Jesus. Place faith in Him and avoid judgement. Place faith in any other Mediator and/or Redeemer and you will be judged accordingly.

"It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31).

[JC33andDivine]

I really have no problem with what was said. What I'm saying is that some kind of purging taking place when you die is not out of the realm of possibilities. We are facing a judgment..that much we all agree with..and it wont be pretty(there will be loss). Where the RCC errs is by trying to define everything - making official doctrines out of them and then claiming to ho have the power to mediate them---as you said.

C.S. Lewis wrote a piece on this essentially saying the same thing I am saying. NOTHING good has come out of the purgatory belief/doctrine. So the reformers did the right thing by scrapping the belief all together. He likened it to sitting in a dentist chair and being handed some mouth wash. Since the scriptures do not spell out all the details of what occurs when we die, there is room for healthy specualtion. I dont try and convince people that it does exist because it's just not very high on my priority list. We will find out more when we die.

http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/OldWorl...orycslewis.htm

There is no doubt that the RCC is power drunk and has been for quite sometime now. I believe there are good earnest Christians in that Church who are saved despite the RCC's attempt at redefining the gospel of Jesus Christ. I think Jesus heart aches when he sees what has happened to this ancient church. So many human hands meddling in Church affairs has them too far from orthodox Christianity to look back. When in doubt they pull up the words of a few Church fathers and place their faith and trust in their fallible interpretation of the scriptures.

Are you a former Catholic?

Denying Hebrews 9-10, and simultaneously claiming the ability to mediate such purging, thereby assuming the role and power given to Christ alone.



Via the RCC, just like Christ actually accomplished for us on the cross. They're very clear about that.



Not without, but in addition to and therefore the insufficiency of the sacrifice in this system is clearly pronounced.



I disagree. If the RCC wants to sell indulgences it's a symptom of a greater illness, and that is the belief in man-made traditions (turning salvation into a works-based salvation, and redirection faith in Jesus to faith in man) over the God-given word (that says salvation is faith-based, a gift of faith in the true Redeemer and Mediator), and the most troublesome of the traditions is that salvation comes through the RCC. This is something they insist as a base point (that one cannot be saved unless they are saved by the RCC institution, as seen in the Council of Trent), as well as an ongoing remission of sins in confession, transubstantiation, purgatory, prayers to the saints, indulgences, and many other works-based remissions.

The big problem is that the RCC insists that salvation comes when you put your faith in the RCC as the mediator between man and God, but of course wee have a mediator already, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" 1 Tim. 2:5), and He had to be perfect in both in doctrine as well as in action in order to carry our sins, once and for all.

So, we are saved by faith in grace (Ephesians 2:8-9), because our Mediator was perfect in every way and voluntarily paid for our sins once and for all (as seen in Hebrews 9-10) so instead of facing the Judgement of God, we are saved by faith in the grace of our Mediator.

But, by placing faith in another mediator, one that is flawed with unrepentent heresies and the attrocities of mass murder of evangelicals (among many other faults), and one that insists that salvation is works-based, then when people face judgement of God the only filter they will have elected by their faith will not be the perfect, sinless Mediator who washed away their sins once and for all, but of a heinous institution that can only possibly further smudge them with its own vile sins, and then leave them to actually be judged on their works.

Well, none of us can afford to be judge on our works. ""Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:19).

If the RCC succeeds in promoting a works-based salvation, then people will be judged by their works and the will pay eternally for it, because "There is no one righteous, not even one" (Romans 3:10), and we cannot earn heaven and no one else can earn it for us other than Jesus. Place faith in Him and avoid judgement. Place faith in any other Mediator and/or Redeemer and you will be judged accordingly.

"It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31).