Let's discuss purgatory

[Amy.G]

Why did he not mention 'trinity, incarnation'? They are both fundamentals of the faith.

Copout. Many passages in the NT reveal the trinity, whether you want to call it that or not. Why would Jesus describe the horrors of hell and not describe purgatory (or whatever you want to call it). Where did He even talk about a 3rd place? Surely if it was real, He would have told us about it.

The scriptures you have posted in no way describe a place called purgatory.

And your question to me in no way answers my question to you. What is purgatory like???????

 

[ReformedBaptist]

oh, so in that case...I'm to spell it out for you...that's all you had to say

In XC
-

I know you think I am harsh..I read your testimony. Btw, are you a man? I am asking because I am treating you as one. If you are a lady I am sorry, and will be more gentle.

Your testimony basically shows no conversion to christ Agnus. Nothing. No conviction of your sins, no repentance, no looking to as your savior from your sins, no resultant change in your life...

I know you could have just left those parts out...is there something you left out?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Based on this testimony you provided you have never been born from above.

I, too, find this testimony very troubling. I'm hoping that maybe he's just really bad at articulating his salvation testimony, as some people are.

All I see is "well, it seemed like a good idea". Nothing at all relating to salvation. (And, in case you're wondering, yes, I'm being vague on purpose because I want to hear him explain it, not just read my post and say, "Oh, yeah, that's what I meant".)

Based on what he's presented here, if he were trying to become a member of our church, we'd have to turn him down.

 

[lori4dogs]

Baptists don't split on the inerrancy of Scripture. There are some that disagree on some aspects of inerrancy, but all Baptists believe the Bible is inerrant. The Catholics that I have met, at least many of them, don't believe it is.

Nonsense, there is a Baptist church in my area where the pastor admits to not believing in the inerroncy of scripture nor does he believe in hell.

 

[DHK]

Nonsense, there is a Baptist church in my area where the pastor admits to not believing in the inerroncy of scripture nor does he believe in hell.

Then it is a liberal or an apostate church. Apostate means one who has turned from the faith. If the church has turned from its faith, then it is no longer Baptist, though it may hang the name there.
Why not label Jim Jones as Catholic?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I know you think I am harsh..I read your testimony. Btw, are you a man? I am asking because I am treating you as one. If you are a lady I am sorry, and will be more gentle.

Actually, I think you've been very respectful, particularly in light of several personal attacks and snide remarks. You have more self-control than I do.

And if you are harsh, then it seems you're only harsh in the same sense that a doctor pulling off a scab to treat a wound is harsh. It may sting, but it's necessary. Better the wounds of a friend than the kiss of an enemy. Better open rebuke than secret love.

Your testimony basically shows no conversion to christ Agnus. Nothing. No conviction of your sins, no repentance, no looking to as your savior from your sins, no resultant change in your life...

I wasn't going to name those things for the reasons I explained in my last post, but I found the lack of any of these very troubling, also.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Nonsense, there is a Baptist church in my area where the pastor admits to not believing in the inerroncy of scripture nor does he believe in hell.

Then that isn't an example of a Baptist church splitting from other Baptist churches, but of a Baptist church being apostate and leaving Christianity altogether.

 

[Marcia]

Matt. 5:48 - Jesus says, "be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect." We are only made perfect through purification, and in Catholic teaching, this purification, if not completed on earth, is continued in a transitional state we call purgatory.

We are made perfect through sanctification in this life and though we don't become perfect, we are without sin in heaven when sanctification is complete.

Luke 16:19-31 - in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God's graces for all eternity. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory.

We don't know that someone will not feel regret in hell. He could have had regret that his brothers are unaware of this torment. The rich man is in torment in the place for the unsaved. It is probably a hallmark of hell that people will be eaten up by their regrets.

2 Tim. 1:16-18 - Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him “on that day.” Paul’s use of “that day” demonstrates its eschatological usage (see, for example, Rom. 2.5,16; 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; 5.5; 2 Cor. 1.14; Phil. 1.6,10; 2.16; 1 Thess. 5.2,4,5,8; 2 Thess. 2.2,3; 2 Tim. 4.8). Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory.

It says to grant mercy on the "house of Onesiphorus." This is totally not in support of purgatory!

The Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains; 17but when he was in Rome, he eagerly searched for me and found me--

Heb. 12:14 - without holiness no one will see the Lord. We need final sanctification to attain true holiness before God, and this process occurs during our lives and, if not completed during our lives, in the transitional state of purgatory.

This shows the Catholic misunderstanding of sanctification and atonement. Either the death of Jesus was sufficient or not.

Luke 23:43 – many Protestants argue that, because Jesus sent the good thief right to heaven, there can be no purgatory. There are several rebuttals. First, when Jesus uses the word "paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol," meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection.

We've had discussions on this - not everyone agrees that Paradise is not heaven. Even if it isn't, it is clearly not Purgatory and the thief will be with Jesus!

Second, since there was no punctuation in the original manuscript, Jesus’ statement “I say to you today you will be with me in paradise” does not mean there was a comma after the first word “you.” This means Jesus could have said, “I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise” (meaning, Jesus could have emphasized with exclamation his statement was “today” or “now,” and that some time in the future the good thief would go to heaven).

This is said by several cults and has been soundly refuted by Bible scholars and Greek scholars.


Only addressed a few of these as my time is limited.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

We are made perfect through sanctification in this life and though we don't become perfect, we are without sin in heaven when sanctification is complete.

Hey, Marcia. I just want to clarify some things so that we don't confuse the Catholics and the liberals here.

First, we're not perfected through sanctification. We're perfected when Christ's righteousness is imputed to us at justification. I'm guessing that you're basing this on Heb 10:14, which says that "Christ has perfected forever those whom He has sanctified". They're two different things. One is the what ("perfected forever"), the other is the who ("those whom He has sanctified.")

The second is that we're not without sin in the sense that we have no sin, but in the sense that no sin is accounted to us, thanks to receiving the righteousness of Christ.

 

[Marcia]

It was in Jesus' bible, the Septuagint. It was in the bible for 1100 years before being cut out. It is even in the original King James bible.

It may have been in the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the OT, but it was not in the original Hebrew Bible. The Jews never accepted the Apocrypha as God's word.

In the early church, there was debate as some used the Apocrypha to help with Christian instruction. Clement (d. A.D. 95) quoted from the Wisdom of Solomon and Polycarp of Smyrna (d. A.D. 156) quoted Tobit. Jerome (d. A.D.420) however, was clear to make a distinction between it and the Hebrew canon, which he considered scripture and the Apocrypha. Jerome with some reservations included the Apocrypha in his Vulgate translation upon the Catholic Church’s insistence. Others such as Augustine (d. A.D. 430), held the view the apocrypha was canon, but later admitted to a distinction between the Hebrew Canon and the “Outside books”. The distinction between the Hebrew Canon, and the Apocrypha would become an issue during the Reformation, as the grip of the Rome on the Bible lessened with the printing press, and churches broke from Rome’s authority.

Arguments against the Apocrypha​

1. There is not sufficient evidence that they were reckoned as canonical by the Jews anywhere.
2. The LXX design was literary, to build the library of Ptolemy and the Alexandrians.
3. All LXX manuscripts are Christian and not Jewish origin. With a 500 years difference between translation and existing manuscripts. Enough time for Apocryphal books to slip in.
4. LXX manuscripts do not all have the same apocryphal books and names.
5. During the 2nd Century AD the Alexandrian Jews adopted Aquila’s Greek version of the OT without apocryphal books.
6. The manuscripts at the Dead Sea make it clear no canonical book of the OT was written later than the Persian period.
7. Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-40 AD), quoted the Old Testament prolifically, and even recognized the threefold classification, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.
8. Josephus (30-100 AD.), Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha; numbering the books of the Old Testament as 22 neither does he quote the apocryphal books as Scripture.
9. Jesus and the New Testament writes never once quote the Apocrypha, although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost the entire book of the Old Testament.
10. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (90 AD) did not recognize the Apocrypha.
11. No canon or council of the Christian church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly four centuries.
12. Many of the great fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha---for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
13. Jerome (AD 340-420) The great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon.
14. Not until 1546 AD in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/index.htm

 

[Marcia]

Hey, Marcia. I just want to clarify some things so that we don't confuse the Catholics and the liberals here.

First, we're not perfected through sanctification. We're perfected when Christ's righteousness is imputed to us at justification. I'm guessing that you're basing this on Heb 10:14, which says that "Christ has perfected forever those whom He has sanctified". They're two different things. One is the what ("perfected forever"), the other is the who ("those whom He has sanctified.")

The second is that we're not without sin in the sense that we have no sin, but in the sense that no sin is accounted to us, thanks to receiving the righteousness of Christ.

We are seen as righteous (the imputation of righteousness upon faith) when we have faith. Sanctification is being made more into the image of Christ.So it depends on what you mean by being perfected. We are not actually perfect when we believe but we are perfect (complete and in the image of Christ) in heaven.

I explained all this on 2 other threads here.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

We are seen as righteous (the imputation of righteousness upon faith) when we have faith. Sanctification is being made more into the image of Christ.So it depends on what you mean by being perfected. We are not actually perfect when we believe but we are perfect (complete and in the image of Christ) in heaven.

I explained all this on 2 other threads here.

First of all, I'm not disagreeing as much as I'm just saying that you have to choose your language very, very carefully because the Catholics and liberals are parsing every word, looking for something to jump on.

The way you phrased what you said could give them the impression that you're saying we're perfected by sanctification.

 

[Marcia]

I'm posting this again.

Originally Posted by lori4dogs
It was in Jesus' bible, the Septuagint. It was in the bible for 1100 years before being cut out. It is even in the original King James bible.

It may have been in the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the OT, but it was not in the original Hebrew Bible. The Jews never accepted the Apocrypha as God's word.

Note #9 below.

In the early church, there was debate as some used the Apocrypha to help with Christian instruction. Clement (d. A.D. 95) quoted from the Wisdom of Solomon and Polycarp of Smyrna (d. A.D. 156) quoted Tobit. Jerome (d. A.D.420) however, was clear to make a distinction between it and the Hebrew canon, which he considered scripture and the Apocrypha. Jerome with some reservations included the Apocrypha in his Vulgate translation upon the Catholic Church’s insistence. Others such as Augustine (d. A.D. 430), held the view the apocrypha was canon, but later admitted to a distinction between the Hebrew Canon and the “Outside books”. The distinction between the Hebrew Canon, and the Apocrypha would become an issue during the Reformation, as the grip of the Rome on the Bible lessened with the printing press, and churches broke from Rome’s authority.

Arguments against the Apocrypha​

1. There is not sufficient evidence that they were reckoned as canonical by the Jews anywhere.
2. The LXX design was literary, to build the library of Ptolemy and the Alexandrians.
3. All LXX manuscripts are Christian and not Jewish origin. With a 500 years difference between translation and existing manuscripts. Enough time for Apocryphal books to slip in.
4. LXX manuscripts do not all have the same apocryphal books and names.
5. During the 2nd Century AD the Alexandrian Jews adopted Aquila’s Greek version of the OT without apocryphal books.
6. The manuscripts at the Dead Sea make it clear no canonical book of the OT was written later than the Persian period.
7. Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-40 AD), quoted the Old Testament prolifically, and even recognized the threefold classification, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.
8. Josephus (30-100 AD.), Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha; numbering the books of the Old Testament as 22 neither does he quote the apocryphal books as Scripture.
9. Jesus and the New Testament writes never once quote the Apocrypha, although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost the entire book of the Old Testament.
10. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (90 AD) did not recognize the Apocrypha.
11. No canon or council of the Christian church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly four centuries.
12. Many of the great fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha---for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
13. Jerome (AD 340-420) The great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon.
14. Not until 1546 AD in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/index.htm

 

[Zenas]

Could you show me where? Where does scripture describe the place of purgatory? I don't remember reading any posts on that.

If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. 1 Corinthians 3:15.

I gave you this verse and others early in this thread, with the caveat that there are no positive statements about purgatory in the Bible but there are several passages that imply the existence of Purgatory. You promptly rejected them as having nothing to do with Purgatory because you don't believe in Purgatory. That is your prerogative but if you do believe in Pergutory, this verse suggests it is a fiery place where people are purified of residual sins before entering Heaven. I haven't been particularly active on this thread but thought I would put this out there since you have asked the question many times but no one has asnwered it.

 

[Marcia]

I gave you this verse and others early in this thread, with the caveat that there are no positive statements about purgatory in the Bible but there are several passages that imply the existence of Purgatory. You promptly rejected them as having nothing to do with Purgatory because you don't believe in Purgatory. That is your prerogative but if you do believe in Pergutory, this verse suggests it is a fiery place where people are purified of residual sins before entering Heaven. I haven't been particularly active on this thread but thought I would put this out there since you have asked the question many times but no one has asnwered it.

I know you are addressing Amy but I want to comment.

The works will be burned up. Look at the passage in context; it's about rewards.

 

[DHK]

I gave you this verse and others early in this thread, with the caveat that there are no positive statements about purgatory in the Bible but there are several passages that imply the existence of Purgatory. You promptly rejected them as having nothing to do with Purgatory because you don't believe in Purgatory. That is your prerogative but if you do believe in Pergutory, this verse suggests it is a fiery place where people are purified of residual sins before entering Heaven. I haven't been particularly active on this thread but thought I would put this out there since you have asked the question many times but no one has asnwered it.

Purgatory is a place where a sinner is "purged" for their sins.
The scene in 1Cor.3:11-15 is in heaven. It takes place right before Jesus himself. You will not find Jesus in purgatory.
Secondly, there is no torment in heaven, nor is there any torment mentioned here in this chapter.
Thirdly, as has already been mentioned this is a specific judgement which has a name--the judgment seat of Christ. It is for believers only. It will take place approximately 1,000 years before the Great White Throne Judgement of Revelation 20:10-15. The two judgements have two different names, and are for two different peoples (saved and unsaved), and for two different purposes.
Fourthly, again there is no torment, but only loss of reward. The believer in this chapter will either gain reward or lose reward. He is not facing punishment or torment at all. You cannot eisigete that concept from this passage. Look at the elements that are used: wood, hay, stubble; gold, silver, and precious stones. There are two groups of three elements. Each group has one thing in common among themselves. The first group (wood, hay and stubble) will burn. Let's use an example. If the work that you do for Christ is not done out of a right heart attitude, or if it is done out of compulsion rather than willingly, then you will suffer loss. It will be compared to wood, hay or stubble--and when put through the fire, or tested it will burn up. The picture is one of works, not of people.
But if your service for God is from the heart, sincere and pure, then it will be compared to gold, or silver or precious stones, when put through a fire will only be purified even more.
Notice this verse:

1 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.
--It is the work that is burned, not the person.
--The person will be saved. That is eternal security of the believer. It does not say that he will go into a fire (purgatory). He will be saved from fire. Only his works will be lost. It is a judgment of the believers works.

 

[Zenas]

I know you are addressing Amy but I want to comment.

The works will be burned up. Look at the passage in context; it's about rewards.

Not all the works will be burned up, only the wood, hay and straw, i.e., the bad works. The good works will come through the fire and for those there will be a reward. However, the bad works are not allowed to accompany a person into Heaven. They are removed in Purgatory.

 

[DHK]

Not all the works will be burned up, only the wood, hay and straw, i.e., the bad works. The good works will come through the fire and for those there will be a reward. However, the bad works are not allowed to accompany a person into Heaven. They are removed in Purgatory.

They are not removed; they are burned up. When you burn wood you get ashes, basic disintegration. There is nothing left. With hay the result is even worse, and likewise with stubble. It is a picture of lost rewards, not of people.

 

[Zenas]

The scene in 1Cor.3:11-15 is in heaven. It takes place right before Jesus himself. You will not find Jesus in purgatory.

You don't know that. The Bible doesn't say where this scene is. You only infer it is in Heaven, yet you castigate me for infering it is Purgatory.

Secondly, there is no torment in heaven, nor is there any torment mentioned here in this chapter.

It speaks of fire and burning. If the good and bad deeds we take with us are burned, surely it will be pretty hot. Even straw makes a hot fire.

Thirdly, as has already been mentioned this is a specific judgement which has a name--the judgment seat of Christ. It is for believers only. It will take place approximately 1,000 years before the Great White Throne Judgement of Revelation 20:10-15. The two judgements have two different names, and are for two different peoples (saved and unsaved), and for two different purposes.

John Deere called it the Bema judgment or something like that, and he says there are three judgments (see post 44). You say there are two. Which is it really? Or could it be that you are both wrong and the Great White Throne judgment will be to separate the saved from the unsaved so we all get to participate? Perhaps you are confused by the intervention of that pesky millenium. Oh No! What if the so called millenium turns out to actually be the church age and you are off by 1,000 years more or less.

Fourthly, again there is no torment, but only loss of reward.

Actually that was "secondly". See above.

The believer in this chapter will either gain reward or lose reward. He is not facing punishment or torment at all. You cannot eisigete that concept from this passage. Look at the elements that are used: wood, hay, stubble; gold, silver, and precious stones. There are two groups of three elements. Each group has one thing in common among themselves. The first group (wood, hay and stubble) will burn. Let's use an example. If the work that you do for Christ is not done out of a right heart attitude, or if it is done out of compulsion rather than willingly, then you will suffer loss. It will be compared to wood, hay or stubble--and when put through the fire, or tested it will burn up. The picture is one of works, not of people.
But if your service for God is from the heart, sincere and pure, then it will be compared to gold, or silver or precious stones, when put through a fire will only be purified even more.

I will go with you this far, that this passage speaks only of people who are going to Heaven. Those going to Hell will not experience this, whether it be speaking of Purgatory or of the judgment seat of Christ. However, these "works" are caught up with the individual. But for the presence of the person the works would not be there. When the works burn, their bearer feels the heat. You are also right that we see two sets of works. The gold, silver and precious stones are clearly good works. The wood, hay and stubble are bad works, both sincere and insincere.

 

[Zenas]

They are not removed; they are burned up. When you burn wood you get ashes, basic disintegration. There is nothing left. With hay the result is even worse, and likewise with stubble. It is a picture of lost rewards, not of people.

Removed, burned up, whatever. They are gone. You're right about the people. They are not lost, they are being purified and going to Heaven.