Let's discuss purgatory

[Zenas]

I know that Christ would never give up on me. He has promised never to leave me nor forsake me no matter what happens.

I agree Christ would neve give up on me. However, I can give up on Him. And He is not going to take people to Heaven who once had a relationship with Him but have abandoned that relationship to the pleasures of the world. The Bible doesn't teach that and to the extent you think it does, we will just have to disagree.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Let's not discuss it.

If Christ paid the full price for our sins, why would God punish us after death?

He may still be our Father and treat us He wishes but not punish us for things that have been paid for.

Surely!

Death will be a very interesting experience thats for sure, looking forward to it.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

If you've already been forgiven for committing sin X, you can't be forgiven for committing sin X. It's like my car which is red. There is nothing I can do to make my car red because it's already red. That is why 1 John 1:9 has no meaning if all future sins are forgiven at the time a person is saved. It would be completely redundant. It only has meaning if there are unforgiven sins. :BangHead:

Except that we're not talking about your car. What this is talking about is the difference between our union with God and our communion with God.

I don't become un-married to my wife everytime I sin against her or offend her. Likewise, if you are born again, you do not become un-born again.

However, if I still want to have a strong relationship with my wife, then I must go and apologize to her, in the same way that I must repent of my sin in order to restore my relationship to God.

When David implored God to create in Him a clean heart, he wasn't asking to be re-saved. He was asking for his communion with God to be restored.

I liken it this way: every sin is like a brick and every time we sin, we stack those bricks on top of one another. God never revokes our salvation, but if we continue to build that wall of bricks, we can build it so high that we can no longer hear God's voice and can find it difficult to know His will.

However, when we repent, repentance breaks that wall down so that we can resume our communion with God.

 

[carpro]

According to the Catholic Church purgatory is scriptural.

How do Catholics defend such a thing?

I call it Tweenerville, and like the land of OZ, it doesn't exist.

 

[annsni]

Maybe you won't ever disown your children but lots of parents do. I see it every day. A child is disrespectful to a parent, marries someone the parent doesn't like, or whatever reason. The parent simply writes the child out of his will and when the will is read that child is on the outside looking in.

Just because one is not in a will doesn't mean that they're not their child. No matter what, they are still their father's child. If their body was discovered in a shallow grave, and DNA taken from them to find their father, it can be traced to dad. Period. I never met my biological father. Ever. I'm not sure he ever saw me. However for all eternity, he is my father because I have his DNA in my blood and bones. Nothing can ever change that.

 

[Marcia]

On all of which I agree with you. You're still leaving out the 'how', though. Now, I've heard the term 'glorification' mentioned several times on these various threads; I've asked what that means and haven't yet had an answer.

We are glorified by the power of the Holy Spirit, the same way Jesus was. That is why Jesus is the "first fruits."

Glorified is our state in heaven when we have our resurrected bodies. It is nothing we can do for this; it is done as a final part of redemption. It is the completion of redemption.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I agree Christ would neve give up on me. However, I can give up on Him. And He is not going to take people to Heaven who once had a relationship with Him but have abandoned that relationship to the pleasures of the world. The Bible doesn't teach that and to the extent you think it does, we will just have to disagree.

I think the whole point is that a redeemed person will certianly preserve and will not give up on God.

 

[Marcia]

Yes, it’s pretty well known. It is clearly a minority view but a few others also believe in baptismal regeneration. No, I really never thought much about that until Amy posted this thread a few days ago. In the time I have been a member of my church no one has ever been asked to sign a doctrinal statement, not even the pastor. My church just isn’t into doctrine very much. We’re very big on missions, feeding the hungry, etc. We’re also very much into individual and community prayer. We’re also really good at socializing. This Christmas season I will be going to four social events connected with the church.

I’m pretty sure no church in my association has its members sign doctrinal statements. Any church that tried to do that had better be prepared to lose a lot of members.

Thanks for answering the questions.

In my church, we have a briefer doctrinal statement and a very long, detailed one. I appreciate that. That way, I know the pastors are on the same page and if someone starts teaching something off, it can be dealt with and resolved. People can't just come in and teach anything.

I should have said did you have to agree to a doctrinal statement - not necessarily sign one. I honestly can't recall if I signed anything when I joined, but I did have to affirm an agreement with the doctrinal statement, which I read very carefully. Right now, I'm in a SS class going over the basic doctrines of the faith and one of the things we have in our notebook is the detailed doctrinal statement for reference. It's very helpful.

Doctrine just means teaching. The NT exhorts believers to hold to sound doctrine. You can do all the good works you want, but without teaching doctrine, a church is out of balance. A church can have a solid doctrinal statement that it holds to and practice good works. It's not one or the other.

 

[Marcia]

1 John 1:9: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” If all future sins are forgiven at the moment a person is saved, this verse has no meaning and should removed from the Bible for redundancy. If I have a red car, I can’t do anything to make make my car red. It’s already red. If I live at 123 Maple Street, I can’t move to 123 Maple Street because I’m already there. Similarly, if I am already forgiven for committing sin X, I can’t be forgiven for committing sin X.

We all know John was directing his comments to Christians. He wasn’t telling them how to be saved. He was telling them how to have sins forgiven that you commit after you are saved. The eternal security advocates will say this has nothing to do with losing your salvation and gaining it back, but it’s all about restoring fellowship with God. I don’t think that is what it means at all but let’s say it does. The fellowship is being restored by sins being forgiven. Otherwise John was a liar. Of course if it were really about restoring fellowship, I think John would have said so rather than disguising his message in some discourse about sins being forgiven.

Or, JDF, could it be this: that you see two levels of forgiveness in scripture just like you see three judgments? The first being forgiveness that saves, and the second being forgiveness that restores fellowship? So if I am saved and I commit sin X, it has already been wiped out by Level 1 forgiveness but it still should be totally obliterated by Level 2 forgiveness? Is that what you mean?

The early gnostic teachings were being refuted in 1 John. That is one reason there is such an emphasis on the beginning of having seen and touched Jesus, since the Gnostics taught Jesus did not have a real human body.

They also taught that since the body is not important, one can sin freely, or perhaps that sin does not really exist. This false teaching was one of the big problems in the early church. So here it is being emphasized that being saved does not mean sin does not matter or that sin does not exist. Apparently, some of the Christians were falling for this and thinking they did not need to confess or repent of their sins. When we sin, we are offending God and if we keep doing that without confessing and asking forgiveness, our heart hardens and we become unable to produce fruit.

So this does not mean all of our sins were not forgiven when we believed. As a matter of fact, it shows that our sins have been forgiven because we are availing ourselves of that in confessing. An unbeliever cannot do this because they have not trusted Christ. They cannot ask for forgiveness and get it; only a believer does this.

I think it's partly a time thing. When we trust Christ, our sins - past, present, and future -- are forgiven. God is outside time and forgiveness is always present for Him, but not for us. Since we have not committed the future sins yet, we are not aware of the forgiveness for those sins until we commit them and confess them. This time of confession reminds us of what Christ did and the forgiveness we have through faith in Him.

 

[Zenas]

Thanks for answering the questions.

In my church, we have a briefer doctrinal statement and a very long, detailed one. I appreciate that. That way, I know the pastors are on the same page and if someone starts teaching something off, it can be dealt with and resolved. People can't just come in and teach anything.

I should have said did you have to agree to a doctrinal statement - not necessarily sign one. I honestly can't recall if I signed anything when I joined, but I did have to affirm an agreement with the doctrinal statement, which I read very carefully. Right now, I'm in a SS class going over the basic doctrines of the faith and one of the things we have in our notebook is the detailed doctrinal statement for reference. It's very helpful.

Doctrine just means teaching. The NT exhorts believers to hold to sound doctrine. You can do all the good works you want, but without teaching doctrine, a church is out of balance. A church can have a solid doctrinal statement that it holds to and practice good works. It's not one or the other.

The short answer to your question is no. My church's doctrinal statement is the BF&M 1963. According to our constitution, the church covenant is "the traditional Baptist church covenant promulgated by the New Hampshire Baptist Convention of 1833." In recent years we have been giving new members a membership packet containing these documents as well as something of our church's history. The membership packet also contains a church directory of our members and a supply of offering envelopes.

I have been a member of my church for 34 years and no one has ever asked me in an official capacity, "Do you believe this, or do you agree with that?" It's just not a part of our culture.

 

[Zenas]

The early gnostic teachings were being refuted in 1 John. That is one reason there is such an emphasis on the beginning of having seen and touched Jesus, since the Gnostics taught Jesus did not have a real human body.

They also taught that since the body is not important, one can sin freely, or perhaps that sin does not really exist. This false teaching was one of the big problems in the early church. So here it is being emphasized that being saved does not mean sin does not matter or that sin does not exist. Apparently, some of the Christians were falling for this and thinking they did not need to confess or repent of their sins. When we sin, we are offending God and if we keep doing that without confessing and asking forgiveness, our heart hardens and we become unable to produce fruit.

So this does not mean all of our sins were not forgiven when we believed. As a matter of fact, it shows that our sins have been forgiven because we are availing ourselves of that in confessing. An unbeliever cannot do this because they have not trusted Christ. They cannot ask for forgiveness and get it; only a believer does this.

I think it's partly a time thing. When we trust Christ, our sins - past, present, and future -- are forgiven. God is outside time and forgiveness is always present for Him, but not for us. Since we have not committed the future sins yet, we are not aware of the forgiveness for those sins until we commit them and confess them. This time of confession reminds us of what Christ did and the forgiveness we have through faith in Him.

You're exactly right about the background of 1 John, i.e., warning Christians about the gnostic movement. However, you seem to be elevating the confession part of 1 John 1:9 above the forgiveness part. It sounds like you're saying that John meant to say that when we confess we think we have forgiveness but actually that forgiveness was was granted long ago. John was a good writer and I really think if that is what he meant he would have said it. You are making something complicated that is really very simple.

 

[Marcia]

You're exactly right about the background of 1 John, i.e., warning Christians about the gnostic movement. However, you seem to be elevating the confession part of 1 John 1:9 above the forgiveness part. It sounds like you're saying that John meant to say that when we confess we think we have forgiveness but actually that forgiveness was was granted long ago. John was a good writer and I really think if that is what he meant he would have said it. You are making something complicated that is really very simple.

Well, I am certainly not a theologian and may not have done a good job on that.

Here is John Gill:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Forgiveness of sin here intends not the act of forgiveness, as in God, proceeding upon the bloodshed and sacrifice of Christ, which is done at once, and includes all sin, past, present, and to come; but an application of pardoning grace to a poor sensible sinner, humbled under a sense of sin, and confessing it before the Lord; and confession of sin is not the cause or condition of pardon, nor of the manifestation of it, but is descriptive of the person, and points him out, to whom God will and does make known his forgiving love; for to whomsoever he grants repentance, he gives the remission of sin; in doing of which he is faithful to his word of promise; such as in (Proverbs 28:13) (Isaiah 55:7) ; "and just"; in being "true", as the Arabic version adds, to his word; and showing a proper regard to the blood and sacrifice of his Son; for his blood being shed, and hereby satisfaction made to the law and justice of God, it is a righteous thing in him to justify from sin, and forgive the sinner for whom Christ has shed his blood, and not impute it to him, or punish him for it; though the word here used may answer to the Hebrew word (qydu) , which sometimes carries in it the notion and idea of mercy and beneficence; hence mercy to the poor is sometimes expressed by righteousness; and the righteous acts of God intend his mercies and benefits unto men; see (Daniel 4:27) (1 Samuel 12:7) ; and so forgiveness of sin springs from the tender mercies of our God, and is both an act of justice and of mercy; of justice, with respect to the blood of Christ, and of pure grace and mercy to the pardoned sinner: the following clause, [/FONT]

http://studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=1jo&chapter=001&verse=009

 

[Marcia]

David Guzik:

If we confess our sins: Though sin is present, it need not remain a hindrance to our relationship with God - we may find complete cleansing (from all unrighteousness) as we confess our sins.
i. To confess means, "to say the same as." When we confess our sin, we are willing to say (and believe) the same thing about our sin that God says about it. Jesus' story about the religious man and the sinner who prayed before God illustrated this; the Pharisee bragged about how righteous he was, while the sinner just said God be merciful to me a sinner. (Luke 18:10-14) The one who confessed his sin was the one who agreed with God about how bad he was.
ii. Confess is a verb in the present tense; the meaning is that we should keep on confessing our sin - instead of referring to a "once-for-all" confession of sin at our conversion.
iii. You don't have to go to a confessional to confess your sin. When you are baptized, you are confessing your sin by saying you needed to be cleansed and reborn. When you receive communion, you confess your sin by saying you need the work of Jesus on the cross to take your sin away. But of course, we need to confess our sin in the most straightforward way: by admitting to God that we have done is sin, and asking for His divine forgiveness, based on what Jesus has done on the cross for us.
iv. Our sins are not forgiven because we confess; if this were the case - if forgiveness for a sin could only come where there was confession - then we would all be damned, because it would be impossible for us to confess every sin we ever commit. We are forgiven because our punishment was put upon Jesus, we are cleansed by His blood.
v. However, confession is still vital to maintain relationship with God, and this is the context John speaks from. As God convicts us of sin that is hindering our fellowship with Him, we must confess it and receive forgiveness and cleansing for our relationship with God to continue without hindrance.
vi. Confession must be personal; saying "God, if we have made any mistakes, forgive us" isn't confession, because it isn't convinced (saying "if we made"), it isn't personal (saying "if we made"), it isn't specific (saying "if we made any"), and it isn't honest (saying "mistakes").


c. He is faithful and just to forgive us: Because of Jesus' work, the righteousness of God is our friend - insuring that we will be forgiven, because Jesus paid the penalty of our sin. God is being faithful and just to forgive us in light of Jesus.
i. "He would be unrighteous if He broke His promise ratified by the blood of Jesus." (D. Smith)
d. The promise of 1 John 1:9 shouldn't lead us into sin, saying "Hey, I'll go ahead and sin because God will forgive me." It should lead us out of sin, knowing that God could only be faithful and just to forgive us our sins because the wrath we deserved was poured out on the sin. Since each sin carries with it its own measure of wrath, so there is a sense in which each sin we commit added to the agony of Jesus on the cross.

http://studylight.org/com/guz/view.cgi?book=1jo&chapter=001

 

[Matt Black]

Matt, when I explained this, I gave a time-line, and plenty of Scripture which backed up my view. Instead of simply saying or rather complaining: I don't believe, why not go back to the original post and tell me why the Scriptures and the time-line that I gave is not correct. Perhaps your objections are not valid for a reason. Go back to my original post, and tell me from the original post where I went wrong. I don't want you general complaints pulled out of the air. Tell me from my original post what Scriptures you don't agree with; what part of the time-line you don't agree with, where exactly you don't agree with. In other words quote me!
Quit your complaining.
The Bible has an interesting verse that you should find out what it means in the KJV.

1 Corinthians 16:13 Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.
--Quit you like men, Matt.

OK, I will endeavour to thus acquit myself. But I don't appreciate being called a liar or a troll by some here; those who do will be ignored by me in future.

You said:

One Judgment: The Bema Seat of Christ--just after the rapture, during the tribulation, and before the Second Coming. (for believers only)
Second Judgment: The Great White Throne Judgement--After the Millennial Kingdom is over--for unbelievers only; their final sentence into the lake of fire.
Third Judgment--The Judgment of the Sheep and Goats: just before the Millennial Kingdom--It is a judgment of the nations; as to which nations were friendly to the Jews and which were not friendly to the Jewish nation.
These are the three judgements spoken of.

JohnDeereFan similarly (post #44 I believe) spoke of these three judgments.

Firstly, your interpretation of the passages which refer to these judgements (in particular Matt 25 and Rev 20) hinges on pre-millenialism being the correct form of eschatology and you know as well as I do that there's more than one way to skin this particular eschatological cat. Zenas has already correctly called you on this.

Secondly, you are weakest on your eisegesis - I can find no other term to describe what you're doing with Matt 25 - on the sheep and the goats. This Matthean passage does not refer to whether or not people treated the Jews well; in fact, if anything, it contradicts this view since Jesus is referring to His 'brethren'. Now we can argue the toss as to whether He means just believers or mankind generally, but it sure as heck doesn't mean the Jews (see, for example, Matt 12:47-50; I take it to mean whoever does the will of His Father).Nor does it state that this judgement comes before the millenial kingdom - again, you are reading something into the text that just isn't there.

Thirdly, as I have stated already a couple of times, the three judgements as you view them taken together do not amount to a coherent eschatology. I restate my case so that you can be clear: you have the problem of there potentially being believers amongst the 'goat' nations and unbelievers in the 'sheep' nations.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

This Matthean passage does not refer to whether or not people treated the Jews well

Actually, you're the one who made that claim in post #216:

Oh I'm sure Jesus can determine who is saved and who isn't. But your interpretation and conclusion just don't hold water, because of the contradiction in your conclusion, which is (if I need to spell it out again): Judgement #2 and Judgement #3 (in yours and DHK's scheme of things) contradict each other. Judgements #1 and #2 do not, but it's your interpretation and conclusion re Judgement #3 that's the problem. In #3, you have - according to you - the nations of the world judged according to whether they've been nice to the Jews or not the passage from Matthew's gospel doesn't actually mention the Jews but never mind) and if they have, off they go to heaven and if they haven't, down to hell they go. Only one problem: if the 'nice nations' contain unbelievers, then those unbelievers need to go to hell under Judgement #2 - but they can't because under Judgement #3 they have to go to heaven. Conversely, if there are believers in the 'nasty nations', then that's their bad luck - they have to go to hell under Judgement #3. So your (not Jesus' but how you would have Him act according to your interpretation of these Scriptures) whole eschatological soteriology is up the spout.

I've never said anything at all about anyone being judged based on "how nice they were to Israel". This is the second time you've accused me of that, but you won't find anything like this in any of my posts.

You say you don't want to be known as a liar. Well, a good way to start changing your reputation is to stop making things up and stop lying about what others have said.

The bottom line is that that both DHK and I (and, to some extent, Reformed Baptist) have all shown you scripture to support this. It's all very convenient for you to sit back and say that we're wrong and impugn our exegesis of these passages, but you haven't shown any evidence at all from scripture to support your claims.

 

[Matt Black]

Did you not read what DHK posted? He was the one who mentioned the Jews first. Please read what he said again. When I referred to the Jews I made sure I prefaced my remarks by saying "according to you (DHK)"; that does not mean that I share his belief that this passage is about the Jews; in fact, if you took time to read what both I and others have posted you would see that I don't agree that it's about the Jews. Show me where I've made up what others have posted: show me where I've misquoted DHK. Your accusation is false and base and if you have any decency in you you will withdraw it.

There's really little point in engaging with you if you are not going to read what people type!

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Did you not read what DHK posted? He was the one who mentioned the Jews first.

Even if that were true, he did not say about the Jews what you falsely claim he said about the Jews.

What's more, twice, you have falsely accused me of stating that the judgement of the sheep and the goats is based on "how nice they were to Israel", when you KNOW that I've never said anything like that.

Show me where I've made up what others have posted

Again, not once, but two times, you accused me of stating that the judgement of the sheep and the goats is based on "how nice they were to Israel".

Your accusation is false and base and if you have any decency in you you will withdraw it.

No, I will not withdraw it. You're the one who should apologize for claiming that I stated that the judgement of the sheep and goats is based on "how nice they were to Israel".

I just quoted your own words from post #216, when you named me by name and said "you [referring to me] and DHK"

What's more, you go on in that same post to say: "In #3, you [again, referring to me] have - according to you [a third time, referring to me] - the nations of the world judged according to whether they've been nice to the Jews or not "

So, here we see that not only did you claim that I said it the judgement of the sheep and the goats is based on "whether they've been nice to the Jews or not", but you didn't even pay attention to what I said. Had you actually bothered to read what I wrote, you'd have seen that the third judgement is the Bema Seat judgement, not the judgement of the sheep and the goats (which is the first judgement).

There's really little point in engaging with you if you are not going to read what people type!

And there is no point in wasting my time with you if you're just going to lie about what I said.

 

[Matt Black]

OK, I accept that DHK was the one who explicitly referred to treatment of the Jews in the Matt 25 Judgement and I apologise for having gotten the two of you confused (it's kind of difficult to keep track of who's said what on a thread like this). However:

1. It was an honest mistake, not a lie: my request for an apology stands; why are you so quick to assume dishonesty?

2. In any event, you have been pretty clear in endorsing what DHK has posted on this subject, so why the touchiness?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

1. It was an honest mistake, not a lie: my request for an apology stands; why are you so quick to assume dishonesty?

The "it was an honest mistake" defense might hold a little more water if you hadn't repeated your accusation AFTER it was explained to you that I never said such a thing.

2. In any event, you have been pretty clear in endorsing what DHK has posted on this subject, so why the touchiness?

Because he didn't say what you claim he did, nor did I.

 

[Matt Black]

Which bit?