Purgatory Or The Judgment Seat of Christ?

[Singer]

Those Catholics going against Church teachings, knowingly, willinging, and
unrepentantly, are hardly Catholics at all (except in namesake).

Therefore I see no benefit for those loose Catholics who have learned to
quote the Rosary, to understand the ''actual'' mysteries of the emblems,
to honor the pope, confess to the priests, expect regeneration through
baptism, to look to Mary in prayer etc.

They're surely not Protestants so what are they...?
Catholics who don't have Jesus in their hearts, maybe.

So it still comes down to the fact that without having the Son, there is no
salvation. It could actually be the loose Catholic who has the Son though.
Being a good Catholics does not necessarily include ''having the Son''.
(They'd just be good Catholics.....much like being a good baseball player or
a good golfer). Nothing to do with the saving of the soul.

Catholicism doesn't even regard "accepting the Lord" as a meaningful event.
They lay no claim to salvation nor can they report when salvation occurred.

The receiving of the Son is what ''born again'' is.
As a good Catholic; ask yourself if you have received the Son ...!!

He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God
does not have life...1 John 5:12

That promise was not offered to Protestants nor Catholics; as there were
none at the time John spoke those words. It is simply offered to whosoever.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Kathryn,

You said, I have been told here that Mary was not instrumental in Jesus' first public miracle. I have been told this was just one of many miracles, no big deal. This is not the word of God.

Ray said, 'Perhaps our greatest praise is that we follow the Bible, the Word of the living God.'

I see no problem with Mary keeping things running smoothly at Jesus first wedding; I don't ever hear of a second social wedding in the Bible. I see that the disciples are mentioned twice, Mary once and the Jews once and Jesus six times. Apparently, the reason for Jesus miracle was to get the disciples to see that He was Divine and had great power to change the water into wine. As a result the disciples believed in Jesus Christ.

You said, ' . . . but for her He did the miracle.

I believe He performed the miracle in order to convert the disciples in the real sense of the word. It was not 'show-time' for anyone.

You said, 'Mary had a significant role which is denied by you guys who claim to hold to the word of God.'

I am saying that Mary was merely an acolyte on this social occasion. The mother of our Lord was not involved in any salvific significance at any point in the Bible, which is the Word of God.

You said, 'Yes, Mary is the Mother of God. She became the mother of God at the
Incarnation. Most here deny this. In Holy Scripture Martha knew just this, as she was filled with the Holy Spirit. She called Mary the "mother of my Lord". Most here will not acknowledge this. There is more that many choose to ignore, but to say it is because of belief in Sola Scriptura is not correct.

I don't doubt that Martha made such declarations. But, Jesus purposefully distances Himself from her by using the word, 'woman.' In this way He secures for all time the truth that Jesus only is our Mediator. [I Tim. 4:5; I John 2:1]

Kathryn, you said, 'I believe I hold closer to truth of Holy Scripture as a Catholic, who believes Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church that Jesus gave us. The pillar and foundation of Truth is the Church...the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. Besides Jesus explained things to the Apostles before He went to heaven and they passed down the faith they were taught to contend earnestly for. I'll stick with the Church's teachings.'

I believe that Jesus only gave us His truth via His Apostolate. Please, don't try to tell us that the alleged, first Pope, Bishop Peter, had scribes hand write his Roman Catholic catechism for his membership. We as well, like the apostles of old, defend the faith that was once delivered to the saints. It was some distance of time after the apostles and fathers of the faith died, that the first Pontiff sat in his Papal chair. We are not so ignorant as to believe the Roman Catholic church started with the Apostle Peter. After all, he was such a poor disciple/apostle to lavish on him the title of Bishop of Rome. {remember his three denials} The Apostle Paul would have been a better candidate for this spiritual title, but then, after all, the Roman Catholic Church was not on the scene at that time.

 

[Yelsew]

Thank you Grant for posting what you did on "purgatory". I will study it for a while then if I have questions, I'll ask them based upon what you posted.

By the way, if I were to do a search through an electronic edition of the Catholic version of the Holy Scriptures, which version of the bible would I use? What Keywords would I use to find references to "purgatory".

 

[neal4christ]

Neal
Bob, this is an example where you simply make something up and present it as Catholic teaching.

Bob, you quoted me as saying something that I did not. I believe that was Ron's post.

Neal

[ June 09, 2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

[Singer]

That was a good post, Ray Berrian.

There was Faith before Catholic Faith.........so makes me wonder if the latter is
an imposter. Maybe Catholicism IS a different Gospel. I had always
just considered it another denomination until the recent claims and absurdities
posted.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
"Only those who die with Mortal sin upon their soul - go to hell"

Bob, you did it again!

You made up something and present it as the teaching of the church.

What is especially offensive to me is that you put it in quotes!

"The Soul that has chosen self in preference to God and which has died without turning back to God, In other words the Soul that has died in the state of mortal sin..it is in hell" The Faith Explained p 177

The quote that you cite doesn't say what your made up "quote" says.

You really don't get it do you?

 

[thessalonian]

"Romans chapter eight starts out with the verse that anyone who loves Jesus will not come into condemnation and closes out this chapter by saying that absolutely nothing can separate us from the love and care coming from Jesus Christ. "

There are interestingly enough two things missing in Paul's list of things that cannot separate us from the love of God. The first is the word absolutely which you insert in to the verse. I'll let you guess the second after I post a verse.

John 14:15
"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments."

Good guess. Sin it is.

In another place Jesus says the same thing except that he speaks in terms of keeping his words, for to keep his words is to avoid sin. Now can failing to keep his word separate us from him?

1 Corinthians 15:2
by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

If is a conditional. So if we do hold fast we are in good shape. It seems to me to be clear from this verse (and many others as I don't want to leave the impression I am proof texting as some do) that we can in fact turn from our belief in him through sin.

Blessings

 

[CatholicConvert]

Good morning Ray --

We have no 'private interpretation' as you suggested. Our Christian leadership study through strong hermaneutical laws, Hebrew and Greek, leading to true Biblical interpretation.

Back to square one. When such study contradicts the teachings and writings of the Early Fathers, then obviously someone is wrong. When Presbyterians cannot agree with Baptists, who cannot agree with Adventists, who cannot agree with Episcopalians, who cannot agre.....well, you get the point I'm sure...

There's a problem. And if there is no agreement, then there must be "private interpretation".

Example. Everyone would agree that 2 + 2 = 4 (except those seriously out to lunch). Why? Because that formula fits a certain MATHEMATICAL RULE. Language must have the very same rules, therefore, someone must be breaking one of the rules to come to the point he comes to which disagrees with someone else.

Perfect example: the Greek word "logizomai" Now I am not a Greek scholar (heck, the only Greek I know is the guy who owns the restaurant up the street from me) but I read in two sources, both Catholic apologetics, that this word means "to count what is really there". It is the word used in Romans 3 and 4 for "imputed". It is a mathematics term.

Then I went to the very Protestant Vine's Bible Dictionary and Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the NT and found out that this is indeed the proper interpretation. In other words, when St. Paul uses it in Romans, speaking of Abrahams's being "imputed" righteousness, it DOES NOT mean that God credited an alien righteousness to Abraham. It means that God saw Abraham's faith and credited that faith for what it is - an act of righteousness. God counted what was really there.

Since this is the correct rule of the Greek, and it further corresponds to the exegesis of the covenant of God in which God must deal with us as either covenant keepers or breakers, then HOW IN THE WORLD do you get the idea of "forensic justification" (imputed righeousness) when the Greek does not support it?

Brother, the only way is if you stick your own "private interpretation" upon the verse in order to bend it to your whims.

Please, do not tell me again that there is no such thing as private interpretation.

My brother I was not born last night. Just because the Pope distributes a Christian catechism does not mean that many do not disagree with her {meaning the church's] findings. I personally know many Catholics who do not follow the church's concept and guidance as to contraception. And how many Catholics, in high political places, are there who strongly disregard her view of abortion.

Yes, and on the Judgement Day, they will stand in horror to find out that they have been cast out of the kingdom and have inherited not eternal life, but eternal perdition. God is not mocked, even though His justice may seem agonizingly slow in coming.

Your Churchh has a lot of disunity just as in our denominations.

I repeat what was said earlier. In the OFFICIAL TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH there is NO DISUNITY The fact that there are rebels in the Church, who have been infected with the Protestant virus of thinking that they have the right to rebel against and not believe that which they disagree with, DOES NOT CHANGE THE CHURCH'S TEACHINGS!!! It makes hell's fires hotter for them.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

[Ray Berrian]

Catholic Convert,

We do not have private interpretations, and guess what, we even concur with the Roman Catholic Church when we declare the Apostle's Creed or the Nicene Creed. At least in these areas of truth we are in agreement; this is good.

There are many other spiritual truths and beliefs that all Protestants agree about. We believe, for example, in the Second Coming of Christ, justification by faith, sanctification and our ultimate glorification with Jesus our Redeemer.

I point out as you would agree that these are the references as to 'imputation.' We believe that it is Jesus righteousness that is imputed to our lives and existence. You also would agree that these are the references to the term, 'impute.' Psalm 32:2; Romans 4:6,8,11,22,23,24, 5:13; and James 2:23.

Hopefully you will agree with the interpretation and explanation of these verses that I will examine.

In Psalm 32:2 the Hebrew word for 'impute' used is 'chashab or khawshab' meaning to inter-penetrate, weave, count, or to reckon. {from Strong's Concordance}

In the reference in Romans and the Book of James the Greek word for 'impute' is the same throughout. It is the word {logizomai or logidzomahi} and Dr. Strong says that it can have these meanings: 'to take an inventory, to count, to impute or to reckon.'

In Psalm 32:2 God is telling us that He will not 'take an inventory, or reckon all of our sins against us, because they were removed, past, present and future as noted in I John 2:2a. If we have truly received Christ as our Savior He will never again hold our sins against us as clearly suggested in Romans 8:1 and I John 2:12.

In Romans 4:3 Abraham as well as every new Christian has the righteousness of Christ placed in his account, as, if you will, as His deposit of merit on our behalf.

In Romans 4:6 God speaking through the Apostle Paul says, that David concurs that happy is the new Christian who God imputes Christ's righteousness apart from our struggling with works to keep the Lord satisfied with us.

Romans 4:8 suggests that a Christian can be pleased that the Lord will not send us to Hell if we sin after we come into the faith of Jesus.

Romans 4:11 Paul is saying that future Gentiles will be in the eternal covenant just as God was with Abraham. He meant that the Gospel is not only for the Israelites but also for all other people and nations of people.

Roman 4:22 tell us that the imputation of Christ's righteousness was placed in Abraham's spiritual credit account.

Romans 4:23 & 24 suggests that Paul is saying that this grace and righteousness put in the account of Abrahams life, will also be placed in every true Catholic or Protestant believers heart and life.

Romans 5:13 suggests that sin was in the world before the giving of the Law, but that sin was not imputed when the Law was not in existence.

And lastly, James 2:23 tells us that when Abraham believed in Jehovah Lord, the righteousness of Christ was imputed, inter-penetrated, was accounted as, or reckoned to Abraham's life and experience. And Abraham was called the friend of God.

The Lord is not anxiously watching and ready to send us to Hell, if we sin because of Adamic nature and humanity. He loves us with an everlasting love, but He will discipline/chasten His faith and covenant people if we persist in our favorite sin or sins.

Jesus can only stand fast in His promise of giving us everlasting life [John 3:16] His eternal covenant because as the Apostle Paul penned the words coming straight from Jesus, that Christ will never lay sin to our account [Romans 4:8] because we have fully trusted Him as our only hope in this life and into the next one. [John 3:18a]

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
"Only those who die with Mortal sin upon their soul - go to hell"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Soul that has chosen self in preference to God and which has died without turning back to God, In other words the Soul that has died in the state of mortal sin..it is in hell" The Faith Explained p 177
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trying2Underst-

Bob, you did it again!

You made up something and present it as the teaching of the church.

What is especially offensive to me is that you put it in quotes!


The quote that you cite doesn't say what your made up "quote" says.
[/quote]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Soul that has chosen self in preference to God and which has died without turning back to God, In other words the Soul that has died in the state of mortal sin..it is in hell" The Faith Explained p 177
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is left as an exercise for the reader to "discover" that "The Soul that has died in the state of Mortal SIN - is in HELL" might possibly mean "only those who die with Mortal sin on their souls go to Hell".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Neal --
Bob, you quoted me as saying something that I did not. I believe that was Ron's post.

Neal - I appologize. I am trying to keep the posts and the name straight and that one was clearly in error in attributing the statement to you.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Grant said --
I'm going to post our Scriptural support (for Purgatory) with explanation

I want to make sure I don't miss this when it happens.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Grant said --
I'm going to post our Scriptural support (for Purgatory) with explanation

I want to make sure I don't miss this when it happens.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Umm...Bob...I posted a lengthy description and explanation using Scripture on page 3.

God bless,

Grant

 

[BobRyan]

Grant --
Now, Scripture tells us in regards to Heaven, that "nothing unclean will enter it." (Rev. 21:27)

True - but clearly this text does not make any mention of Purgatory. Jews in the OT could easly affirm the same truth as do Protestants today.

Scripture says in 1Cor 6 "But you were WASHED you were Santified" PAST tense. Not "you WILL be WASHED and Sanctified in Purgatory".

Grant --

Before Jesus' sacrifice, he told the parable of Lazarus, in which He said, "When the poor man died, he was carried away by the angels to the bosom of Abraham." (Luke 16:22)

Neither of these places fits the doctrine of purgatory. The rich man appears to be in hell even by Catholic standards and Lazarus is in peace enjoying rest not pleading for his living relatives to pray him out of Abraham's bosom. There is no mention of "souls suffering in Abraham's lap" in scripture. No identification of the Luke 16 story with anything remotely like the RC teaching on "Purgatory".

Grant --
In Ephesians 4:8 we see that at the ascension, Jesus "took prisoners captive,"

True and Matt 27 says that many who were in the graves were raised with Christ.

But none of this mentions purgatory or being in a place of suffering or needing indulgences to free them early, or a spiritual bank or.. The entire system of Purgatory is "missing" from the text.

Grant --
Further, in the book of II Maccabees (which you do not accept as the Holy Word of God, but nonetheless was written before the time of Jesus Christ), we see the belief in a temporary state of purification:

"He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gont to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin." (2 Macc 12:43-46)

#1. EVEN the RCC admits that Idolatry - and dying in a state of Idolatry is "mortal sin" so by RC standards this is a clear case of people NOT in Purgatory.

#2. There is no mention in the text of the souls "suffering anything while dead" and the ONLY purpose that the sacrifice had was "In the Resurrection". In fact the text is clear - "without the resurrection" the actions were pointless. But the RC doctrine would be BEFORE The resurrection - the indulgence GETs the soul out of Purgatory and into heaven.

#3. As you point out - the 2Macc text "can't" be one of those Bible texts I was missing that Protestants would accept as a support for Purgatory.

Grant --
This of course is in line with the prophet Zechariah:

"In all the land, says the LORD, two thirds of them shall be cut off and perish, and one third shall be left. I will bring the one third through fire, and I will refine them as silver is refined, and I will test them as gold is tested." (Zech 13:8-9)

This is not speaking of a "host of dead people" where 1/3 are going through the fire. IN fact nothing in Zech 13 points to people that have died.

Grant --
This is reaffirmed in the New Testament by St. Paul:

"the work of each will come to light, for the day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that soundone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire." (1 Cor. 3:13-15)

Unless you are claiming that the "works of a persopn" die with him and go to purgatory with him - I don't see it. Furthermore - 1Cor 3 ALSO does not state that the person must die before his works are burned up OR that the person is dead at all. There is nothing in the text to suggest anything other than "a person's teaching and ministry" will bear fruit in this life and in the unfolding of events - in the light of day - it will be seen whether they were building on hay or gold and silver. Where do you get the part about "being dead and being on fire" or something to that effect in 1Cor 3?

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[GraceSaves]

Thank you for your interpretation, Bob.

Now you have yours, and the Catholics. Case closed.

God bless,

Grant

 

[neal4christ]

Neal - I appologize. I am trying to keep the posts and the name straight and that one was clearly in error in attributing the statement to you.

No problem, just pointing it out!

Neal

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
"Only those who die with Mortal sin upon their soul - go to hell"

Originally posted by BobRyan:
"The Soul that has chosen self in preference to God and which has died without turning back to God, In other words the Soul that has died in the state of mortal sin..it is in hell" The Faith Explained p 177

Originally posted by BoBRyan:
It is left as an exercise for the reader to "discover" that "The Soul that has died in the state of Mortal SIN - is in HELL" might possibly mean "only those who die with Mortal sin on their souls go to Hell".

So you changed the quote (without telling us) by adding the word "only" because you wanted to point out that the actual quote "might possibly mean"...?

In the future, when you decide to deliberately alter "quotes" would you have the decency to let us know?

BTW, a deliberately altered quote is false witness.

 

[BobRyan]

"The Soul that has chosen self in preference to God and which has died without turning back to God, In other words the Soul that has died in the state of mortal sin..it is in hell"

Is taken to mean "NOT just those with mortal sin"??

Why spin it backward like that?

Revisionist history by our RC bretheren?

Even the recent statements by the Pope are not "accepted"??

Surely - in denying all the RC facts listed - our RC bretheren can improve on that position by PROVING/SHOWING that contrary to the Catholic quote above "those WITHOUT Mortal sin ALSO go to hell" as is being claimed by one of our RC bretheren currently.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ray Berrian]

God teaches us in the Christian life that we are totally dependent on Him for everything, spiritual, physical, financial and emotional. It seems to me that He tries to knock out all of the props out of our lives that will give us a sense of self-sufficiency.

Are we saved now and will we be saved at the judgment because we claim to have faith in Jesus and because we keep all of the church rules and expectations for us, or are we in a state of grace because of what Christ has done for us at the Cross and in us by His Spirit?

James 2:10 says, 'For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he {or she} is guilty of all.' What does God want us to know through the inspired writings of the half-brother of our Lord?

James is saying that if you misrepresent the truth, cheat on your Federal taxes, for example, or commit adultery in your mind and heart, you and I are guilty of all the sins that are enumerated in the word of God. [Galatians 5:19-21] The Galatian account starts out by saying, 'Adultery, fornication uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, whichraft, hatred . . . ' If you offend in one sin God makes you guilty of all. Why? He is trying to impress on you the fact that you are totally dependent on His grace, mercy, blood, and patience if you ever expect to get to Heaven. Even under the former covenant Moses wrote in Deuteronomy 27:25 'Cursed be he who confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them . . . '

Keeping the rules of any denomination insures nothing, because ecclesiastical systems are only man made, though blessed by God. This does not mean that we should go out and break every rule of the church just to show we have Christian liberty. To serve a system of belief is a form of idolatry; but to trust and depend on Christ for one's ultimate salvation is in reality one aspect of Divine worship.

In other words, one scintilla of sin if it showed up on His record would be enough for Him to damn us forever away from His glorious Presence.

Basically, in the mind of God sin is sin. Anyone of them could separate us from God being Christians, except that He is our mercy-seat and our High Priest in Heaven. He covers our sins past, present and future in His own atonement. [I John 2:2a] Telling a half-truth about a brother or sister in the congregation is just as ugly in the eyes of the Lord as fornication. This does not mean that the ramifications of committing fornication are the same as talking bad things against a brother in the faith. The Christian may because of his or her carelessness find out that they have aids, while, what we thought as hardly considered sin, like the bad-mouthing a fellow member of the church may not appear to bring bad lasting results.

Because of our proclivity for falling into sin, we have no other Source of sure hope than in Jesus the One Who died for us on the Cross.

Some more legalistic Protestant churches have their disciplines that jot down their rules that hopefully keep their people away from things that will lead them into sin. And it is my understanding that the Roman Catholic Church has their venial sins that do not require the 'confessional' and absolution from a priest. It requires mere confession of that sin to God. The mortal sins are the worse ones, which I will call cardinal sins. Mortal sins require the confessional and absolution from the duly appointed priest.

In my life and in the lives of several people I have talked to, I find that God is busy knocking out all the pins/props that we feel sustain our lives. Jesus Christ is sovereign and He wants nothing in our lives that we can depend on except His Person and imparted grace in our hearts.
So great is our God and the gift of everlasting life that He has given to us freely, apart from any works of the Law or any rules set up by the human, institutional churches.

Our salvation is only by His grace. [Ephesians 2:8-9] Praises to the One Who died for us on the middle Cross on old Golgotha. This hill that Jesus died on is the word in Aramaic meaning the skull; a bald, round, skull-like mound or hilltop.

 

[Yelsew]

Bro Ed,

Please, do not tell me again that there is no such thing as private interpretation. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />My brother I was not born last night. Just because the Pope distributes a Christian catechism does not mean that many do not disagree with her [meaning the church's] findings. I personally know many Catholics who do not follow the church's concept and guidance as to contraception. And how many Catholics, in high political places, are there who strongly disregard her view of abortion.

Yes, and on the Judgement Day, they will stand in horror to find out that they have been cast out of the kingdom and have inherited not eternal life, but eternal perdition. God is not mocked, even though His justice may seem agonizingly slow in coming.</font>[/QUOTE]I do not find what you say here to be in the Holy Scriptures, either the original or the translated, as to being 'the basis of Salvation!' This must by your 'private interpretation' as to the workings of God, and what he requires of man for salvation, and not the interpretation of "the church" that is wholly reliant on the Holy Scripture for it existance. You say that one can be condemned to "eternal perdition" because of their understanding on contraception and abortion? Jesus says that Salvation is the result of FAITH ALONE, and that all else is the result of one's faith condition.