Purgatory

[Guest JeffCR07]

Honestly, the teachings of purgatory arnt really that hard. The visage of God cannot allow for impurity in his presence, but if I have venial sin on my soul when I die, what happens then? I don't go to hell, so then what?

Its simple: the sin is removed from our soul and we enter heaven

So what is purgatory? It is the condition of the soul when it is being cleansed of any sins that remain.

Besides that, the Church doesn't officially teach anything much more.

[Bruce S]

the erroneous MAN MADE doctrine of purgatory, NEGATES everything that Christ and Paul taught.

The "good theif" was a massive sinner, one that was being executed for his life of crime.

But the GT, was in heaven, THAT DAY, because he believed in Christ.

That is the prime example, of the mistaken doctrine, one that was used by the Catholic Church to extract massive wealth from bereaved and grieving relatives.

[Guest JeffCR07]

The Good Thief doesn't contradict Purgatory at all. You only go through a purification if purification is necessary (ie sin is [i]still on your soul[/i]) when you die. Christ forgave the Good Thief, and I kind of doubt that he sinned in between the moment Christ forgave him and when he died, thus, no purgatory for him.

Also on the GT: This story is used erroneously to show that faith and works don't "come hand in hand" as the Church teaches they must. I would like to point out that you can see the faith and works of the GT remarkably intertwined, due to the fact that he was defending Christ from the criticism of the other theif (defending the name of our lord = deed) when he made his profession of faith in Christ (faith = ...well...faith).

Personally, I would argue that this deed would serve as a penance and that the thief spent no time in purgatory (my own personal belief)

- Your Brother in Christ

[Guest JeffCR07]

also, I would like to add a little something to phatcatholic's post.

Your theology is not "incorrect" but a note should be made:

If you die before doing your penance, but you die with the [i]intent[/i] to do it as soon as possible (ie, you are shot dead as you step foot out of the confessional, and you were about to kneel in a pew and do your penance) then there is no blemish on your soul, and you are clean before both the eyes of God and the Body of Christ, and no cleaning of the soul is required

[ICTHUS]

[b][Devil's Advocate][/b]

[quote][b]Isaiah 6:5 [/b]
Then I said, "Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"
[b]6 [/b]Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar.
[b]7 [/b]He touched my mouth with it. "See," he said, "now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged."

Sins are purged so he may enter Heaven. If sins are purged, then he will be saved.[/quote]
(Me) Jesus' blood purges our sins when we are justified, and no stain of them remains. You are mis-exegeting this verse. As the famous hymn goes, so does the way in which Christ effects our salvation. Purgatory is an unbiblical myth.

"My sin! O, the thought of this glorious thing!
My sin, [b]not in part[/b], [i]but the whole[/i]!
Is nailed to the Cross, and I bear it no more!
He hath shed His own blood for my soul!"

[quote][b]Matt 12:32 [/b]
And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

How can someone be in Hell, and then be forgiven??? The age to come people can be forgiven, it can't be Heaven because there is no need for forgiveness because in Heaven there will not be sin... it can't be Hell because once your in Hell, it's for eternity. [/quote]

(Me) You are clearly pulling a trick that many Roman Catholics like to do with Scripture - [b]eis[/b]egesis - reading a doctrine into the text that simply isn't there. Christ is emphasizing that they who blaspheme against the Spirit will never be forgiven, not that 'some sins are forgiven now, some later'. Your conclusion is absurd.

[quote][b]Rev 20:13 [/b]
The sea gave up its dead; then Death and Hades gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their deeds.
[b]14 [/b]Then Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire. (This pool of fire is the second death.)
[b]15 [/b]Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the pool of fire.


Death and Hades (not the pool of fire) gave up their dead and they were judged according to their deeds.... THEN Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire (HELL as we know it)

Death and Hades is not Hell, and is not Heaven... then what could it be??? The Catholic Church calls it Purgatory.[/quote]

(Me) Wrong again. One need only look at the Greek to see that, where the word is rendered "Death" the Greek word is "thanatos", and Hades is a Greek word in itself - in fact, the place where the unrighteous dead went in Greek mythology! (The righteous being destined, of course, for the Elaysian fields). Hades was not a place of purificaiton, but rather, one of [b]everlasting punishment![/b]

So, the passage reads: "And the sea gave up the dead (nekros) that were in it, and death (Gk. Thanatos) and Hell (Gk. Hades)

"So the sea gave up the dead (nekros), and death (thanatos) and Hades (Greek word usually rendered "Hell") gave up their dead, and they were judged according to their deeds"

The basis for purgatory from this verse is utterly untenable, since the word for "Death" implies a state of being (thanatos) and the word "Hades" - is basically a synonym in the Greek language for the Christian concept of Hell.

A more sane interpretation of this verse might be "And the sea gave up its dead, and the land (those who had died and were buried in the Earth) gave up their dead, and Hell gave up its dead"

[quote][b]1 John 5:16 [/b]
If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. [/quote]

Augustine says that this sin is 'to forsake, even unto death, the faith which worketh by love' ([i]De Correpcione et Gratia[/i], XXXV). The sin unto death is not to wank off, nor to eat meat on Fridays, nor to use birth control - it is final, obstinate rejection of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Concluding that there are distinctions between sins on this basis is absurd, especially when St. James says:

James 2:1-13 KJV

[color=blue]My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 [b]For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.[/b]11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.[/color]

[quote][b]Rev 21:27 [/b]
but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Nothing Unclean can enter Heaven, but not all sin is deadly (1 John 5:16) therefore we must have our sin purged (Isaiah 6:6-7) before we enter Heaven if we are guilty of lesser sins. [/quote]

I dealt with the Isaiah passage and the 1 John passage above. It is true that nothing unclean can enter Heaven - that's why GOD DOESN'T PERMIT UNREGENERATES INTO HIS KINGDOM!!! - because they are still dead in their filth and sin!!

[quote][b]1 Cor 3:15 [/b]
But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

How can we be saved from Hell, because Hell is eternal? This being saved as through fire can only be Purgatory, where our lesser sins will be purged from us. [/quote]

Roman Catholics scream 'context' at Protestants who fail to use it, but they omit it when it suits them! How convenient! Let's examine the context, shall we?

[color=blue]According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 [b]Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.[/b]14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.[/color]

So clearly, the fire will try man's WORKS, not the person themselves - the person will be saved, even at the judgement where honour is awarded according to our works, but only through having his works burnt up through fire. This verse does not teach purgatory.

[quote][b]Luke 12:59 [/b]
I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny."

We will pay for all our sins in one way or another (Purgatory). All our sins must be paid for. [/quote]

Context, my good man!

[color=blue]He said to the crowd: When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, 'It's going to rain,' and it does.
55 And when the south wind blows, you say, 'It's going to be hot,' and it is.
56 Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don't know how to interpret this present time?
57 Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?
58 As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way, or he may drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison.
59 I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.[/color]

Christ is speaking of the end times here, and he's talking about the magistrate throwing you into prison if you aren't reconciled with your adversary! This isn't speaking of any sort of afterlife concept at all - the reference to paying every last penny is just that - you won't get out till you've paid off the debt you owe to your adversary for whatever claim you had against him! Using this verse to support Purgatory is insane...


[quote][b]2 Macc 12:43 [/b]
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;
[b]44 [/b]for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.
[b]45 [/b]
But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.
[b]46 [/b]Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

If we make it to Heaven, we don't need atonement. If we go to Hell, there is no atonement.... There must be Purgatory  [/quote]

Three points here:

1. This work is apocryphal, and was not officially finalised as part of the canon, at an Ecumenical Council (Hippo, Rome, and Carthage III and IV were not ecumenical councils) until Trent.

2. It is not accepted as Scripture by orthodox Jews, who never accepted the books as Scripture

3. Christ's blood, not money or good works, atones for sins, for it is written "22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Hebrews 9:22)

[quote][b]1 Peter 1:6[/b]
  In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials,
[b]7[/b] so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. [/quote] Yes, we are tested by fire, but we are tested by fire for our sanctification here on Earth! It is completed in glorification, however.

[quote][b]Job 1:5[/b]
And when each feast had run its course, Job would send for them and sanctify them, rising early and offering holocausts for every one of them. For Job said, "It may be that my sons have sinned and blasphemed God in their hearts." This Job did habitually. [/quote] Yes - they were purified by those sacrifices, however, I don't see how this purgation need continue after Death.

[quote][b]1032 [/b]This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:[/quote] Apocryphal

[quote]God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary
iron monk[/quote] May the grace of Christ purify you from all Roman error,
Ryan

[Hananiah]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jun 16 2004, 06:28 PM'] Jesus' blood purges our sins when we are justified, and no stain of them remains. You are mis-exegeting this verse. As the famous hymn goes, so does the way in which Christ effects our salvation. Purgatory is an unbiblical myth.

"My sin! O, the thought of this glorious thing!
My sin, [b]not in part[/b], [i]but the whole[/i]!
Is nailed to the Cross, and I bear it no more!
He hath shed His own blood for my soul!" [/QUOTE]
You'll have to substantiate your claim about the nature of justification. Until then I'm going to stick with Jesus's advice to the rich young man (Matt 19, Mark 10).

[QUOTE]You are clearly pulling a trick that many Roman Catholics like to do with Scripture - [b]eis[/b]egesis - reading a doctrine into the text that simply isn't there. Christ is emphasizing that they who blaspheme against the Spirit will never be forgiven, not that 'some sins are forgiven now, some later'. Your conclusion is absurd.[/QUOTE]
If all He wanted to say was that blasphemy against Spirit will never be forgiven, He could have stopped there. But he didn't. He said that it will not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come. If no sins will be forgiven in the age to come, the statement is meaningless.

[QUOTE]Augustine says that this sin is 'to forsake, even unto death, the faith which worketh by love' ([i]De Correpcione et Gratia[/i], XXXV). The sin unto death is not to wank off, nor to eat meat on Fridays, nor to use birth control - it is final, obstinate rejection of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.[/QUOTE]
Prior to setting up the antithesis between sin unto death and sin not unto death, St. John speaks of [b]seeing[/b] one's [b]brother[/b] sinning. The "brother" is a fellow memer of the Christian community, and given that "sin not unto death" obviously refers to visible, physical actions, and that St. John had just spoken of seeing one's brother sinning, most likely "sin unto death" also refers to visible, physical actions.

[QUOTE]James 2:1-13 KJV

[color=blue]My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 [b]For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.[/b]11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.[/color][/QUOTE]
Catholic theology makes a distinction between approaching God through law and through grace. If one tries to approach God on a system of law, wherein one seeks to legally obligate God to reward one with heaven for external obediece to His written code (a system highly conducive to boasting), then the legalist's beloved law will only turn around and expose how very many times he failed to live up to its standards, and condemn him. Since no one is perfect, no one can be saved under law. Therefore we must seek to be judged by a law of liberty. We must trust in God's infinite mercy, won for us by Christ on the Cross, humbly repent of our faults, and internalize His written law and obey it from the heart, not seeking a reward, but only seeking to please our beloved Father. One who is judged by the law of liberty is under grace, has a relationship of filial love with his father, and like human father-son relationships, it takes a [b]big[/b] sin to break this relationship. This is what St. John calls a "sin unto death."

[QUOTE]I dealt with the Isaiah passage and the 1 John passage above.[/QUOTE]
"Dealt." That's funny.

[QUOTE]It is true that nothing unclean can enter Heaven - that's why GOD DOESN'T PERMIT UNREGENERATES INTO HIS KINGDOM!!! - because they are still dead in their filth and sin!![/QUOTE]
But according to your theology they can enter His kingdom while remaining ontologically sinful, so long as they have been accredited with the alien righteousness of Christ. The quote speaks of deeds (abominations, lies) and thus is about ontological wickedness/righteousness, not legal standing.

[QUOTE][color=blue]According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 [b]Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.[/b]14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.[/color]

So clearly, the fire will try man's WORKS, not the person themselves - the person will be saved, even at the judgement where honour is awarded according to our works, but only through having his works burnt up through fire. This verse does not teach purgatory.[/QUOTE]
The adverb [i]houtws[/i] which is translated "yet so as" means "in the same way" (cf. Matt 17:12; Luke 15:7,10; 17:10; Rom 6:11; 1 Cor 2:11). This means that the fire does the same thing to the individual as it does to the works i.e. purifies and refines.

[QUOTE]1. This work is apocryphal, and was not officially finalised as part of the canon, at an Ecumenical Council (Hippo, Rome, and Carthage III and IV were not ecumenical councils) until Trent.[/quote]
So no one believed in the Trinity until Nicaea?

2. It is not accepted as Scripture by orthodox Jews, who never accepted the books as Scripture[/QUOTE]
Depends where. Ethiopian Jews accept it as Scripture. The Jews who wrote the Talmud acepted Sirach as Scripture. Given the widespread use and acceptance of the Septuagint throughout the ancient world, most likely many Palestinian Jews accepted the Deuterocanon in its entirety until their nationalistic backlash at Jamnia.

[QUOTE]3. Christ's blood, not money or good works, atones for sins, for it is written "22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Hebrews 9:22)[/QUOTE]
You're stretching this verse too far. It teaches that blood is a necessary condition for the remission of sins. It does not says whether or not it is all that is needed, for example a heart willing to be washed might also be required.

Edited June 17, 2004 by Hananiah

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Bruce,
[quote]the erroneous MAN MADE doctrine of purgatory, NEGATES everything that Christ and Paul taught.[/quote]
Did [url="http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_purgatory.htm"]these guys[/url] invent purgatory?

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Previously' date=' I']Jesus' blood purges our sins when we are justified, and no stain of them remains. You are mis-exegeting this verse. As the famous hymn goes, so does the way in which Christ effects our salvation. Purgatory is an unbiblical myth.

"My sin! O, the thought of this glorious thing!
My sin, not in part, but the whole!
Is nailed to the Cross, and I bear it no more!
He hath shed His own blood for my soul!" [/quote][quote name='Hananiah']You'll have to substantiate your claim about the nature of justification.  Until then I'm going to stick with Jesus's advice to the rich young man (Matt 19, Mark 10).[/quote]

(the following is from [url="http://www.wrfnet.org/articles/printarticle.asp?ID=141)"]http://www.wrfnet.org/articles/printarticle.asp?ID=141)[/url]

I will only give two typical illustrations from the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 25, verses 1-3, Moses says that, if there is a dispute between men and they go to court to have their case decided, the judge is obliged to “justify the righteous and condemn the wicked.” Justice requires that the innocent be justified and the guilty condemned. Now it is certainly true that, in the act of pronouncing the court’s judgment, the guilt or innocence, the righteousness or the lack thereof of the one being judged, is a paramount concern. However, so far as the meaning and the significance of the term, “to justify,” is concerned, it does not mean to make the one justified just. It means to declare him so, to declare him to be in the right, to be without guilt.

The other example is in Proverbs 17:15, where we read, “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” Here again the idea cannot be that the judge, when justifying the wicked or condemning the righteous, makes the wicked righteous or makes the righteous wicked. It is the verdict of the judge, the declaration pronounced in the court of law, that is at issue. Almost all the instances of the verb “to justify” in the Old Testament have this sense or meaning, namely, that a judicial declaration has been made regarding the guilt or innocence of someone.

God clearly [i]declares[/i] sinners righteous, and credits to them Christ's righteousness, covering their sin from view. He then goes on to renew their inner selves from the inside out - sanctification.

Romans 4:4-25

[color=blue]For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was [b]credited to him[/b] as righteousness." 3
4
A worker's wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due.
5
But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is [b]credited[/b] as righteousness.
6
So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7
"Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are [b]covered.[/b]
8
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not record."
9
Does this blessedness 4 apply only to the circumcised, or to the uncircumcised as well? Now we assert that "faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness."
10
Under what circumstances was it credited? Was he circumcised or not? He was not circumcised, but uncircumcised.
11
And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal on the righteousness received through faith while he was uncircumcised. Thus he was to be the father of all the uncircumcised who believe, so that to them (also) righteousness might be credited,
12
as well as the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised, but also follow the path of faith that our father Abraham walked while still uncircumcised.
13
It was not through the law that the promise was made to Abraham and his descendants that he would inherit the world, but through the righteousness that comes from faith.
14
For if those who adhere to the law are the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.
15
For the law produces wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation. 5
16
For this reason, it depends on faith, so that it may be a gift, and the promise may be guaranteed to all his descendants, not to those who only adhere to the law but to those who follow the faith of Abraham, who is the father of all of us,
17
as it is written, "I have made you father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into being what does not exist.
18
He believed, hoping against hope, that he would become "the father of many nations," according to what was said, "Thus shall your descendants be."
19
He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body as (already) dead (for he was almost a hundred years old) and the dead womb of Sarah.
20
He did not doubt God's promise in unbelief; 6 rather, he was empowered by faith and gave glory to God
21
and was fully convinced that what he had promised he was also able to do.
22
That is why "it was credited to him as righteousness."
23
But it was not for him alone that it was written that "it was credited to him";
24
it was also for us, to whom it will be credited, who believe in the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
25
who was handed over for our transgressions and was raised for our justification. [/color]

Scripture uses the language of 'covering' of sin - not of making a person inwardly righteous so they can trust in their own righteousness, but of crediting an alien righteousness - Christ's - to their account.

[quote]If all He wanted to say was that blasphemy against Spirit will never be forgiven, He could have stopped there.  But he didn't.  He said that it will not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come.  If no sins will be forgiven in the age to come, the statement is meaningless.[/quote] No, saying that a sin will not be forgiven either in this age or the age to come implies no such thing, as said above. It simply means that in this age, the sin will not be forgiven, nor will it be forgiven in the next - not implying that some sins can be forgiven in the next. Besides, you are equivocating the word 'age' with the concept of a 'lifetime'. You would like Jesus to say "It will not be forgiven, either in this lifetime or the life to come" But that is not what the text says! Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary has this to say about it:

[quote]What the sentence is that is passed upon it; It shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. As in the then present state of the Jewish church, there was no sacrifice of expiation for the soul that sinned presumptuously; [b]so neither under the dispensation of gospel grace[/b], which is often in scripture called the world to come, shall there be any pardon to such as tread underfoot the blood of the covenant, and do despite to the Spirit of grace: there is no cure for a sin so directly against the remedy. It was a rule in our old law, No sanctuary for sacrilege. Or, It shall be forgiven neither now, in the sinner's own conscience, nor in the great day, when the pardon shall be published. [b]Or, this is a sin that exposes the sinner both to temporal and eternal punishment, both to present wrath and the wrath to come.[/b][/quote]

[quote]Prior to setting up the antithesis between sin unto death and sin not unto death, St. John speaks of [b]seeing[/b] one's [b]brother[/b] sinning.  The "brother" is a fellow memer of the Christian community, and given that "sin not unto death" obviously refers to visible, physical actions, and that St. John had just spoken of seeing one's brother sinning, most likely "sin unto death" also refers to visible, physical actions.[/quote] But one can just as easily [i]see[/i] one's brother repudiate the Faith, as well! If he, for instance, forsakes the Assembly and curses God, then he is commiting, in all his actions, the sin of apostasy!

[quote name='Previously' date=' I']It is true that nothing unclean can enter Heaven - that's why GOD DOESN'T PERMIT UNREGENERATES INTO HIS KINGDOM!!! - because they are still dead in their filth and sin!![/quote]
[quote]But according to your theology they can enter His kingdom while remaining ontologically sinful, so long as they have been accredited with the alien righteousness of Christ.  The quote speaks of deeds (abominations, lies) and thus is about ontological wickedness/righteousness, not legal standing.[/quote] Yes, that's true! But Christians - those who have been taken from darkness into light and credited with Christ's righteousness - don't do those things! If they do, their conversion was false.

[quote]So no one believed in the Trinity until Nicaea?[/quote]

Yes, they did, but the Ecumenical council defined it as such. I don't see how this is relevant, however.

[quote]Depends where.  Ethiopian Jews accept it as Scripture.  The Jews who wrote the Talmud acepted Sirach as Scripture.  Given the widespread use and acceptance of the Septuagint throughout the ancient world, most likely many Palestinian Jews accepted the Deuterocanon in its entirety until their nationalistic backlash at Jamnia.[/quote] I'm not familiar with Jamnia. Care to fill me in?

[quote]You're stretching this verse too far.  It teaches that blood is a necessary condition for the remission of sins.  It does not says whether or not it is all that is needed, for example a heart willing to be washed might also be required.[/quote] Of course - and God provides this, through the regeneration of His Spirit!

[Crusader_4]

Jamnia Ichtus, was a Jewish held council where they decided the canon of the palestianian Jews circa 90 ad i think as well many of the members were ex members of the Sanhedrin when it dissovled. At Jamnia they declared the Gospels and Christian writtens not to be considered canonical as well as the deuterocanicals as it supported Christianity and since the Christians were using the spetuginat (greek version). So we as christians must ask our selves who do we take our scritpure from the Jewish council at this time that had no authority what soever to chose as this is seen by their rejection of the christian writtings or the Christians.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I would also like to post some follow-up comments on this issue Icthus. We should all try to understand the context of the time, that we might gain a more full understanding of the power of the word of God. In the time period from around 33(34) AD - 70 AD, the Christians were using the Temple in Jerusalem for worship. They would gather there on Sunday and read from scripture in the manner they were accustomed to (ie, they would worship in the same way as the Jews). After this worship in the Temple, they would return to one or two people's houses in order to "break the bread" (celebrate the eucharist). Now there was much dissent amongst the Sadducees and the Pharisees as to what to do about these Jews who were using the Temple for worship. Ultimately, the decision was made to kick them out (we read about that in Acts).

Then 70 AD came along, and the Romans destroyed the Temple. You have to understand the significance of this. The Temple was the spiritual [i]center[/i] of Jewish life. For Jews, the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant are irrevocably linked to each other (the "Holiest of Holies" in the Temple being the intended restingplace of the Ark). Ever since the Ark was lost, the Holiest of Holies remained empty, causing the Jews to look towards the coming of the Messiah and the restoration of the Kingdom of David. Every single synagog has a "Holiest of Holies" but with one difference. The HoH in synagogs [i]point to[/i] the HoH in the Temple, symbolically unifying the Jews as one Nation.

Then the Temple was destroyed. The Jewish center: gone. The resting place for the Ark of the Covenant: sacked. The symbol of their covenant with God: burned to the ground.

For the Jews, this, in combination with the group of people they were starting to call "Christians" was like watching the world come tumbling down around them. Nothing like this had even been dreamed of. It was as if the whole cosmos was falling apart.

Desperate times begot desperate measures. Without the Temple to define and unite them as a people, and with the Christians growing in droves, they had to find some way to re-establish themselves, to be able to point and say "this is what makes us the chosen people of Israel."

In order to do this, they went back and looked at scripture. They decided to do away with many of the books. (one might note, though it may add bias into what has up until now been a more objective historical account, that they through out a lot of the books that pretty solidly support Christ as the Messiah).

I would like to point out that a distinction must be made. At this time, and for a lot of Jewish history, there were books that only certain groups believed were Inspired (such as 3rd and 4th Maccabees). While these were some of the books taken into consideration at this council, they were not the ones that were "thrown out" they were mearly established as not being legitimate. Many Jews still believed that they were (hence the Greek Orthodox have 3/4 Macc. in their bible). However, there were also books that the vast majority of Jews believed in that were thrown out (1&2 Macc., etc). That were thrown out at this time.

THESE caused a rift, and the many Jewish groups talked about above came into existence. Some Jews just could not accept the doing away with of Scriptures that had, up until then, been universally accepted.

The Christians, however, stuck with what had always been (warning, bias ahead). No "Torah 2.0" They did not need to "redefine" themselves by cutting scripture. Christ had already given them a new meaning and a new path to walk.

So whats that mean? Maccabees isn't apocryphal, its Inspired, as the Jews that still hold on to the oldest ways will be the first to tell you.

Also, I would like to point out, on a completely different note, that with regards to your (Icthus') interpretation of [quote]And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
[/quote]

As I have said in many past posts, Scripture is [i]the word of God[/i], phrases are not used idly like when you and I talk. That is one of the defining marks of what makes the Bible so holy. EVERY phrase, EVERY story can be delved into, and more Truth can always be found in it. To say that [quote]Christ is emphasizing that they who blaspheme against the Spirit will never be forgiven, not that 'some sins are forgiven now, some later'[/quote] is to say "What Jesus [i]meant[/i] was ______" That just doesn't work. Yes, take it in context. No, don't isolate a phrase from the rest of the passage and draw conclusions from it. But that is not what is happening

Just the opposite, in fact. This passage is speaking of sins, and the nature of forgiveness. There is a wealth of information in there, for those with ears to hear. One such piece of information is the fact that sins CAN be forgiven in the next age, and thank God for it. We shouldn't just delete or ignore things that we don't want to hear...

Also

Just to get those awesome quotes of thedude's on the post in writing:

[quote]Clement of Alexandria

The believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God's righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, "yet" etc. (Patres Groeci. IX, col. 332 [A.D. 150-215]).

Origen

If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter. For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (I Cor., 3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works. (Patres Groeci. XIII, col. 445, 448 [A.D. 185-232]).

Abercius


The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed; truly I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius (Epitaph of Abercius [A.D. 190]).


Tertullian


That allegory of the Lord [Matt. 5:25-26] . . . is extremely clear and simple in its meaning . . . [beware lest as] a transgressor of your agreement, before God the judge . . . and lest this judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation? (The Soul 35 [A.D. 210]).

The faithful widow prays for the soul of her husband, and begs for him in the interim repose, and participation in the first resurrection, and offers prayers on the anniversary of his death (Monogamy 10 [A.D. 213]).

Cyprian

It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the Day of Judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition, next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep. For we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn sacrifice is laid out (Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 [A.D. 350]).

John Chrysostom


Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice [Job l:5), why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 (A.D. 392)).

Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned .is worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf (Homilies on Philippians 3:9-10 [A.D. 402]).

Ambrose of Milan


Give perfect rest to thy servant Theodosius, that rest which thou hast prepared for thy saints… I have loved him, and therefore will I follow him into the land of the living; nor will I leave him until by tears and prayers I shall lead him wither his merits summon him, unto the holy mountain of the Lord (Funeral Sermon of Theodosius 36-37 [A.D. 395]).

Augustine


There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).

That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity l8:69 [A.D. 421]).[/quote]

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Jun 16 2004, 10:20 AM'] the erroneous MAN MADE doctrine of purgatory, NEGATES everything that Christ and Paul taught.

The "good theif" was a massive sinner, one that was being executed for his life of crime.

But the GT, was in heaven, THAT DAY, because he believed in Christ.

That is the prime example, of the mistaken doctrine, one that was used by the Catholic Church to extract massive wealth from bereaved and grieving relatives. [/quote]
Bruce,

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

The good theif was not in Heaven. Christ was not in Heaven. They went to Paradise, also known as Abraham's Bosum.

Christ decended to Hell (Hades - the abode of the dead; not in Gehenna-lake of fire and not in Heaven) preached to the spirits in prison (Abraham's Bosum, aka Paradise), and THEN He was risen on the third day, He stayed with the Apostles for 40 days - and NO ONE could go to Heaven UNTIL Christ did.

Go back and read the first thread... Purgatory is NOT man made. Purgatory is described in the Bible... Christ believed in it - He was a good Jew... ALL Jews have believed in it thousands of years BEFORE Christ.

The Catholic Church ONLY gave it a name.

Doesn't matter if you like it or not, it's real, your arguement is destroyed by the bible.


May you find Christ,
ironmonk

[Guest JeffCR07]

ironmonk, I'm not positive that you're right with regards to the Paradise thing. You may very well be, I'd just like to see your source.

The explanation that I have always heard is that (consistant with Jewish/Catholic teaching) it is a different kind of time that is being referred to. Time is different in Purgatory, and non-existent in Heaven and Hell. As such, Jesus would not have lied to the thief when he said "this day" if we understand heaven to be the Eternal Day. Think about it, that is the only way that it makes sense. If one were to believe that Christ meant "before earth completes its rotation, you will be with me in Paradise" then you are saying that Heaven is bound within Time, which it is not.

Moreover, one could argue that "on that day" we will ALL be with him in Paradise, for that day is the day of salvation. The completion of the covenant between God and man that is eternal in Heaven.

The concept of Heaven being "outside" of time is a difficult one, but that doesn't mean that we should stick our heads in the sand with regards to it.

[ironmonk]

Ichtus,

"devil's advocate" with no logic? Why play DA - what good does it do but cast stones infront of others who do not have the logic to draw the conclusions?

Stop listening to circle.

How do you know context? - Circle certainly doesn't.

Nothing any anti-Catholic says can take away the fact that THIS IS NOT A Catholic Doctrine!

This has come from the Jews!

It's very simple... pride keeps anti-Catholics from accepting it. When they accept Christ, they must accept it once they hear the truth.

I wish people would actually verify things before they commented.

[quote]1. This work is apocryphal, and was not officially finalised as part of the canon, at an Ecumenical Council (Hippo, Rome, and Carthage III and IV were not ecumenical councils) until Trent.

2. It is not accepted as Scripture by orthodox Jews, who never accepted the books as Scripture

3. Christ's blood, not money or good works, atones for sins, for it is written "22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Hebrews 9:22) [/quote]


You've spouted off a lot without verifying anything.

Macc. is NOT apocryphal. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage determined the NEW Testament Canon.

The Jews DID accept the books... UNTIL 90 AD - 57 years AFTER Christ took away their authority to do anything.

EVERY Christian accepted them until well after 1517 AD.

At the time of Christ and the Apostles, it was considered Scripture.... not apocrapha. Look up "Septuagint".



On any one point anti-Catholics can validate something in their own mind, but when looking at ALL the facts... anti-Catholics loose, and will always loose. If you reject the one's that Christ sent, you reject Christ.


God Bless.
ironmonk

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jun 17 2004, 02:40 PM'] He stayed with the Apostles for 40 days - and NO ONE could go to Heaven UNTIL Christ did.

Go back and read the first thread... Purgatory is NOT man made. Purgatory is described in the Bible... Christ believed in it - He was a good Jew... ALL Jews have believed in it thousands of years BEFORE Christ.

The Catholic Church ONLY gave it a name.

Doesn't matter if you like it or not, it's real, your arguement is destroyed by the bible. [/quote]
I'm not so sure you are right Ironmonk.

4 Kings 2:11

"[color=red]And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold a fiery chariot, and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.[/color]"

What you said is essentially correct, no-one gets into heaven before Jesus did. But Jesus, according to the Nicene Creed,( I underline the bit I will emphasize);

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
[u]eternally begotten[/u] of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
[u]Through him all things were made.[/u]
For us and for our salvation
[u]he came down from heaven:[/u] ([i]i.e. he was already in heaven[/i])
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose [u]again[/u]
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

So you could say that he could well have been in heaven at creation.

And Heaven was created pretty early on in history:

Genesis 1:1

"[color=red]In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.[/color]"

"[color=blue]In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.[/color]"

(DRV --> red, KJV --> Blue)
And one last point with an explanation: Praise god for blessing us with Einstein.

He came up with the idea that space and time are linked symbiotically. Without space, no time and vice-versa. So before the Big Bang, where space was defined, time was also defined, so there was literally nothing before the Big Bang, so that's Genesis 1:2 proved

Also, according to the theory, heaven (outside space) is also, hence, outside time.

Take that secular humanists!

Edited June 17, 2004 by RandomProddy

[ironmonk]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 17 2004, 09:51 AM'] ironmonk, I'm not positive that you're right with regards to the Paradise thing. You may very well be, I'd just like to see your source.

The explanation that I have always heard is that (consistant with Jewish/Catholic teaching) it is a different kind of time that is being referred to. Time is different in Purgatory, and non-existent in Heaven and Hell. As such, Jesus would not have lied to the thief when he said "this day" if we understand heaven to be the Eternal Day. Think about it, that is the only way that it makes sense. If one were to believe that Christ meant "before earth completes its rotation, you will be with me in Paradise" then you are saying that Heaven is bound within Time, which it is not.

Moreover, one could argue that "on that day" we will ALL be with him in Paradise, for that day is the day of salvation. The completion of the covenant between God and man that is eternal in Heaven.

The concept of Heaven being "outside" of time is a difficult one, but that doesn't mean that we should stick our heads in the sand with regards to it. [/quote]
I am right.

My source is Scripture.... and basic logic.
i.e...
No one could enter Heaven until Christ went to Heaven. Christ didn't go to Heaven until Pentacost.

That alone proves that Paradise is not Heaven.

If you need more then that, please look it up [url="http://www.NewAdvent.org"]http://www.NewAdvent.org[/url]

Time has nothing to do with the good thief being in Paradise. This has to do with no one going to Heaven until Christ does.

This has to do with the Scriptures telling us that Christ preached to the souls in prison... decending to hell... etc...


Does that help?

God Bless,
ironmonk