http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/05/the-uncertain-future-of-protestantism

Other interesting phrases
“Reformational Catholic churches”
“Trinitarian evangelicalism”
“Word-centered pastoral ministry rooted in the whole Christian tradition”

I dont think it is about whether one should convert to protestanism/Catholocism immediately. Rather, I think it is about people following the truth to where it leads them and eventually converting when and where God is calling them.

As you know, Protestanism is Catholocism stripped down. The corollary would be that Catholicism is protestantism with more stuff. Some come to see the necessity of this extra stuff while others thing it is a nice benefit but not necessary. And yet others think it is unChristian and should be avoided all together.

John and I have been discussing over email that one may be able to have a more deep and personal relationship with Jesus by allowing him to have a relationship with you through his very own body. Question is, which body?

John,
I highly doubt it. The Church has made some exceptions for protestants who have communion provided that they believe in the real presence. This is though a perfect example of one of the many gifts by which you can have a more personal relationship with Jesus.

I do however see reunification happening with the Orthodox within the next 30 years given the increase approach of radical islam and secularization of the world. One the one hand, i think that this Pope can do it since he emphases his unity with the other bishops. On the otherhand, I worry that Pope francis lack of emphasis on liturgy may slow down ecumenical efforts.

It will be interesting how Catholics will respond to the day when Pope Francis opens up communion to “separated Brethren” (Protestants) who believe in the real presence of Christ even though their understanding of “real presence” may not be the typical Catholic understanding. If I see where things are headed, either this Pope or the next ones will head this way.

There. I did it. Guaranteeing hundreds of more comments on this article, hopefully.

I have read many accounts that suggest one of the most tall tale signs of a protestant who is interested but reluctant to convert is an interest in ecumenism.

I have also read that another huge stumbling block for protestants (especially pastors) is their conviction that God had previously called them to a particular mission within a protestant Church. Many converts reflect that this calling was difficult for them to process in light of their new calling to join the Catholic Church.

Another shameless attempt to bring GerardoR out of hiding, and of course, to add more views and comments to this page :)

Anyway as an outlaw preacher, I just have some random thoughts:

1. I cannot think of anyone who deserves hell.
2. If you ask me who will be in hell, I can’t answer.
3. I know a lot of people who should be beaten senseless.
4. I believe hell exists.
5. I believe heaven exists.

I hold a traditionalist view so I would be happy to take that position (via John Paul).

I have a knee jerk reaction to view Universalism as heresy but I would be willing to play the role of a universalist if someone want’s to take on the traditional role.

John? Brian? Any takers?

While I personally found the documentary disingenuous, I think it highlighted the need for genuine discussion on this issue. Or maybe someone can write a movie review.

For the love of the game. Trying to rise in the rankings.

I have to admit, I have always had a lot of trouble with the idea of limbo. Emotionally, I protest. While at the same time, I can’t seem to intellectually wrap my mind around the idea that babies go straight to heaven given original sin.

One thing is for sure in my heart, I whole heartily disagree with some theologians who speculated that babies would go to hell. In my reasoning, if pagans who have never heard of the name of Jesus can be saved, why not babies? They are the most despised, innocent and cruelly killed in our society. Their lives reflect Jesus own death more than any other human population in my mind. Hence, in my heart, they receive the all saving mercy of God in a great abundance soon after death.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Something that definitely has kept me up a few nights.

Here is a response I read to that piece. I thought it was very good =)
 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/too-catholic-to-be-catholic-a-response-to-peter-leithart/ 

1) JohnY clicks on the page every day and refreshes the page to increase the views as a means of promoting friendly ecumenical dialog. JohnY has actually mentioned doing this on multiple occasions if you read the comments above.  

2) People (even good Christians) like to watch a good fight and review a good fight. I think this is supported by the fact that most of the articles that critique UBF and other Churches are the most popular.  Why they would not join in on this particular discussion? I do not know. Like I said before, it is curious that this article is the most viewed but least commented on.

3) Your still fuming about the good ol Catholic biblical smack-down I gave you and can’t help but reread this article over and over in anger. This is my preferred explanation. ; )

4) The evangelical members of this forum are baffled how much biblical support there is for those whacky catholic teachings – even if they dont buy the argument. 

5) I myself do something to increase the views of this article in an effort to promote Catholicism. This is a half truth. I do indeed share articles and make comments an effort to promote Catholicism (both consciously and unconsciously).  But why wouldnt I? Everyone in this website tries to endorse their religious framework even if they dont realize. Dr. Toh inadvertently tries to promote a non-denominational framework; JohnY, Dr. Toh and Joe promote ecumenicism; you promote reformation theology and anti-Catholicism. So I agree, I do try to promote Catholicism. We all try to endorse our views whether we realize it or not. There is no such thing as “denomination free” or neutral Christian dialogue. However, I do not click on this website over and over to try to increase the views. I can hear you saying, “those whilly papist will do anything to take away the bible from good Christians.”

I want people to comment on this article because they are interested not because of something as silly as views. JohnY, I think we should write a follow up article. It has been over a year since this article was published and I think the world of UBFriends is ready to hear more about the adventures of Luther Van Calvin and john Paul.  ^_^ 
 

It is titled: There are no protestants in the marathon. Don’t take it too seriously =)

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/there-are-no-protestants-in-the-marathon

Hi Everyone,
This thread is slowing down so I thought I would formalize the argument in a  succinct manner that will make it easy to dialog and hopefully finally come to some conclusions.    
I hope you will all agree that the following three premises are fair:  

PREMISES
1. Jesus forgives us for our sins if we repent from our sin and accept him as our Savior.  
2. But clearly, even though some of us are forgiven and some of us may never sin again after accepting Jesus, we still have the inclination towards sin (Concupiscence).
3. Hence, even though we are justified, Christ works towards  sanctifying  us throughout our life time.  
4. However, when we die, most of us die with the inclination  towards sin.  
5. But we are told that nothing unclean can enter heaven (Revelations 21:27)

Conclusion
6. Therefore, when we die, God completes his work of  sanctification by somehow  making us perfect. After all, Hebrews 12:23 talks about the souls of *JUST* men “made perfect.”

Would this be a fair summary? If so, my question to you, my fellow Christian brethren is, why not purgatory? I feel my summary is logical and biblically supported so I am  genuinely  confused at this point as to why not purgatory?  

Is it fear that giving into one thing might lead you into accepted other  questionable  doctrine via the ol foot in the door technique  (i.e., indulgenses, praying to the saints)? You dont have to accept the teaching on indulgences  or praying to the saints if you accept purgatory.  

Or is it that you still just cant see why purgatory is biblical. if so, I would love to hear what part of my argument summary you disagree with.  

Please let me hear what you guys think, especially you JohnY! And dont give me the ol “meh.. perhaps but it is not essential” argument. You always use that against me. =D
I am not asking if it it is essentially or not I am asking if the teaching seems reasonable and biblically supported despite your hesitation.  

Also, if it is not essential and it is not offensive, then shouldnt that be more reason why one should feel free to embrace the doctrine? I want to hear either :
1) Sure, I guess purgatory makes sense and i can see it’s validity though

OR

2) NO! I still dont agree because I object against premise #….  

Is anyone on here (who previously didnt believe) convinced?
God Bless!

Even if it is not scriptural evidence for purgatory, I have always wondered how protestants understand this parable.  

Also, I dont think we ever had a good discussion explicit discussion on 1 Corinthinas 1:10-14. I brought it up before but purposely left it out of discussion. But now I am curious how you all would understand this passage.

I should point out that Saint Dismas feast day was yesterday (March 25th) and a couple of interesting facts according to wikipedia:
According to tradition, the Good Thief was crucified to Jesus’ right hand and the other thief was crucified to his left. For this reason, depictions of the crucifixion often show Jesus’ head inclined to his right, showing his acceptance of the Good Thief. In the Russian Orthodox Church, both crucifixes and crosses are usually made with three bars: the top one, representing the titulus (the inscription that Pontius Pilate wrote and was nailed above Jesus’ head); the longer crossbar on which Jesus’ hands were nailed; and a slanted bar at the bottom representing the footrest to which Jesus’ feet were nailed. The footrest is slanted, pointing up towards the Good Thief, and pointing down towards the other.

God bless.

However, the Church also teaches that it is a process and we can see both of these as true even in a single verse: For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified (Heb 10:14).Part of the reason why I think the Church teaches that we have it and are in a process of fully obtaining it is because of the sacraments. Anglicans (and I think Lutherans) share this with Catholics in believing that the sacraments are sanctification channels.

I think the confession example is excellent. Why should you or me feel any shame? From our conception, we are about to have our sins forgiven by Christ through a priest who either knows our sins already or cant even see us. But I think approaching that moment of  preparation  when we are getting ready to receive Christ grace is painful in light of the good we know we failed to do. I think this sentiment is capture well by Paul when he said  work out your salvation with fear and trembling for it is God working in you (Phil 2:12).

Perhaps that is what purgatory is like. God showing us the full measure of his Love for us and we realizing the full measure of it. I mean, he showed us that in his cross but how many of us cry every time we think of that? I imagine there are no barriers to fully realizing who we are and who Christ is and did for us in purgatory.  I mean, I think we can all imagine that first time when we were hit deeply by the realization that Christ died for us and we can all remember how painful that is in light of our own sins. It is not a one time thing so if f anyone hasnt, they are bound to experience within their life time. My point is that those moments are a small reflection of the full scale bomb that will go off when we compare the deapths of Gods Love against our own wickedness. Peter Kreeft often likes to suggest that when we realize that we will beg God that he purge us first.

It’s true that what i’ve described above happens during this life, but I don’t think the sanctification can end here. After we die, we see the result of all our actions to their farthest consequences. I don’t think I can even imagine what that would be like. I get glimpses when I sit in a chapel preparing for Confession. As I reflect on the things I have done or failed to do, the shame is often overwhelming. An outsider might say that my sins are not very serious, and maybe they are not by contemporary social standards, but through prayer the Holy Spirit reveals them as they truly are in the sight of God and that’s enough to send chills down my spine. Just as we cannot imagine or fathom God’s brilliance, neither can we fathom the effects of our every action. And it is probably by God’s mercy that we cannot

The Bible shows how many times God revealed himself in fire to his people in order to renew his covenant with them: as a ‘fire pot and flaming torch’ with Abraham in Genesis 15; in the burning bush with Moses in Exodus 3; in the pillar of fire with Israel in Numbers 9; in the heavenly fire which consumed the altar sacrifices with Solomon and Elijah in I Kings 8 and 18; in the ‘tongues of fire’ with the apostles at Pentecost in Acts 2 …

When Hebrews 12:29 describes God as ‘a consuming fire’, it isn’t necessarily referring to his anger. There’s the fire of hell, but there’s infinitely hotter fire in heaven; it’s God himself. So fire refers to God’s infinite love even more than his eternal wrath. God’s nature is like a raging inferno of fiery love. In other words, heaven must be hotter than hell.
No wonder Scripture refers to the angels who are closest to God as the Seraphim, which literally means ‘the burning ones’ in Hebrew. That’s also why Saint Paul can describe in I Corinthians 3:13 how all the saints must pass through a fiery judgment in which ‘each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire
Clearly, he’s not talking about the fire of hell, since they’re saints who are being judged. He’s talking about a fire that prepares them for eternal life with God in heaven; so the purpose of the fire is manifest: to reveal whether their works are pure (‘gold and silver’) or impure (‘wood, hay, and straw’).
Verse 15 makes it clear that some saints who are destined for heaven will pass through fire and suffer: ‘If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.’ The fire is there for the purpose of purging saints. That means it is a purgatorial fire; one that purifies and prepares the saints to be enveloped in the consuming fire of God’s loving presence forever.

What are your thoughts on this?

I guess that is the distinction I am trying to make. Sin (say lust) vs. stain of sin (inclination to lust) and eternal punishment (hell) vs. temporal punishment (purgatory).  

The Catechism has an interesting definition of  concupiscence:  
“Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the “spirit.” Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.”

I think you would atleast grant that even after we are forgiven, we are still inclined to sin correct?
I think we can use that as common ground right?  

You mentioned God can recreate us without an intermediate step. I agree. But that recreation process is  in itself  a step after we initially accept Jesus Christ.  I would assume you would then agree that God, after we die, does something that even our inclination to sin is removed. I would agree with that statement and would call that something santification from life and after death (purgatory).  

While I agree that some people place their faith in Jesus and are instantly transformed to never be inclined to sin, I would say that is quite rare. Thus, I think sanctification process is something that happends throughout our life and after death. You seem to think it only happends during life. I respect that. It shows that we are in agreement that a santification process happends but that we disagree on whether it continues in the after life.

Another related thought. I know that God lives in eternity, with him a thousand years are no different from a day, etc. But it seems to me that human beings are not like God in that respect. We were made to inhabit bodies and live in space-time. That limitation is intrinsic to what we are. The second coming of Christ will mark the end of the present era of world history and the beginning of another, but until that moment the clocks keep ticking, and I see no evidence in the Bible that time will not continue without interruption into the new era and thereafter. I have heard many people speak of human afterlife and eternity as if time itself will disappear from human experience. But where does that idea come from? Where’s the evidence?

My hunch is that the post-resurrection life and world will be a lot more similar to the present than many people now think. This earth is a beautiful place, custom made for human beings, and human beings were custom made for earth. All has been damaged by sin, of course, but much goodness remains, and I think God wants to restore, refurbish and perfect what remains, rather than wiping out everything and making something entirely different.

But my point is this, once God freed people from Egypt, they were happy for a while but began to grumble and complain and wish they were back in egypt. This is indicative of our own life when we are saved from our sins by Christ, we are tempted to “go back” to bondage. So the fact that God rescued them from bondage of egypt and yet they still wanted to go back suggests this to me: That God  got them out of egypt (ie., saved them) but he had not gotten egypt out of them (they still held  Concupiscence or an internal desire to return to sin).

Hence, we are told that those who endure TILL THE END will be saved (Matthew 24:13; 1Corinthians 24-27). This tells us that certantly God works with us to remove the desire to return to sin across our life time. And one might say that this process stops once we are dead. But the teaching on purgatory is essentially telling us that God continues to work in us even after we die. He wants to get  Egypt  out of our heart by purging us with the fires of his Love.

Another way of thinking about it is this: Imagine your dating a girl who is in Love with a prior man she dated but she remains faithful to you. Well on the one hand, its great she never returned to the man but on the other, something is just not right if she keeps feeling inclined to do so. This is especially true if you are going to marry her (the marriage feast of the lamb). If you are getting married, then you want her to definately not think of this other man. Hence, God in purgatory shines us with his Love so as to burn away all of prior love to sin. We are his now and we will soon join him in the wedding feast so it is vitally important that we no longer hold on to our prior inclinations so that we can wear the right outfit for the wedding.  

Sorry if I give so many goofy examples. I just feel that it is important to highlight that there is a vital distinction between sin (mortal/venial) and the inclination to sin. And for that matter, also the temporal punishment due to sin. I know this can be issues evangelicals are not use to considering but I think we know from experience that they exist. We know that despite being saved from sin, we are still inclined to sin. I think purgatory gives an excellent account of how God prepares us for the wedding feast during AND after our earthly life.

So again, i think we should really get away from thinking that purgatory is such and such years. Indulgences “pay for days in purgatory” but the word “days” are used very loosely. Because we have no other word to describe a specific experience without  referring  to time.  I guess we might say, our stay in purgatory is an experience that diffrent people will experience differently depending on your attachment to sin. But that makes it sound as if purgatory is something qualitatively diffrent for each person. Words just fail to describe the qualia of the afterlife.

In response to your question, I think that the shedding of the old sinful self is not accomplish when we die precisely because there is a soul. If we, as Christians, believed in dualism we might say that we leave behind the corrupt body and free the  radiant  spirit that was been enslaved to the sin of the body. And indeed, there are many gnostics who believed this precise thing. But as Christians, we believe in a  mysterious  union between the body and the soul which is why they will be reunited on the last day. Hence, if a sinful man dies and leaves behind his body, why should we expect him to “leave behind the old sinful self? The soul is the self as well. If he was a sinner while a live, he is also a sinner when his spirit is  separated  from his body.

Ofcourse, when we bring Christ into the picture, we are presented with a sinful man whose sins are forgiven, hence, his soul is also white as snow. However, the problem is that forgiven man whose sins are forgiven, might still have an inclination to sin while he is alive. Therefore, if he has this inclination to sin while he is alive, he will carry this with him into the after life which is what purgatory is meant to free him of. Again, we do not leave behind sin or the inclination to sin since our soul is immortal and there is a union between body and soul.  

So I have a question for you. Why do you think that the shedding of the old, sinful, false self is not fully accomplished when we die and leave this world? I guess this is a question about the nature of the human being, about soul versus body, etc.

I am beginning to realize that a great deal of what needs to be put off — the sinful, corrupt nature — is not just found in  me as an individual, but is present in my relationships with others, in the church, in society and even the physical world. The three stages of salvation — justification, sanctification, and glorification — are not just about me, but about the world. It’s getting harder and harder for me to think about these things at a purely individual level. The picture of single, disembodied souls suffering in purgatory seems — well, it seems so darned individualistic that it misses a great deal of what the gospel and God’s redemptive history are really about.

Sure, we might say that while I sinned even on the day of my death, Christ has payed for my sins, but that doesnt change the fact that we have sinned against our savior and  redeemer who shed his precious blood on the cross.  

Also, the fact that we continue to have an inclination to sin suggests that something is incomplete in us. While you may think that after death (outside of purgatory), Christ glorifies us and completes that process, I am more inclined to think that Christ completes that work by inviting us into that intersection where suffering and love collide. Inviting us into the deep mystery of the cross through purgatory.  

C.S. Lewis has an amazing visual image of this. Although he may not have been think of purgatory when he wrote this, I think it applies quite well:

“We are to be re-made. All the rabbit in us is to disappear—the worried, conscientious, ethical rabbit as well as the cowardly and sensual rabbit. We shall bleed and squeal as the handfuls of fur come out; and then, surprisingly, we shall find underneath it all a thing we have never yet imagined: a real Man, an ageless god, a son of God, strong, radiant, wise, beautiful, and drenched in joy.”
(from the essay Man or Rabbit).

This, I think, captures the essence of purgatory. When the redeemed child of God is finally complete and his old clothes are removed and prepared with new clothes made of glory.

Speaking for myself, I am very thankful that God loves me as I am, that he has accepted me as I am, a very weak and corrupt person. The fact that he loves me right now, in the state that I am in, is the starting point of my relationship with God.

But I know that I won’t be fully happy until I am changed and purified of my sins; until I shed this mortal body of flesh and am given a new resurrection body; until those whom I love are changed also, so we can enjoy relationships with one another in the fullness of love without sin; and until this world is also purged of its sin and decay and recreated in the glory that God intends.

So the answer to your question is: No, I would not be comfortable at the wedding supper of the Lamb unless I were wearing proper attire, unless everyone is wearing proper attire, and unless the whole environment were as beautiful as it ought to be.

So the next question is: What is the process by which God will bring this about? Will the glorification of myself, of all the saints, and of the world to come be brought about by a fiery process of suffering and purging, or will it be a sudden gift, or will it be some of both? Suffering-based sanctification is taking place in our lives right now. Will that suffering, combined with the shedding of our mortal bodies at death, be the point where God draws the line and says, “Enough sanctification, now I am ready to glorify”? Personally I think so, and I cannot find much evidence in the Bible to the contrary. But I am open to other opinions.

Your question alludes to the parable of the wedding banquest in Matthew 22. In that parable, I  heard that  it is generally assumed (because of the custom of the times) that the wedding clothes were provided by the king. The people invited off the street didn’t have to pay for them. All they had to do was be willing to take off their own clothes and receive the new clothes from the king as the gift. I see that as a powerful analogy for what God wants to do for me. All my life I have built up a persona for myself based on my own achievements, wealth, efforts, and self-generated aura of holiness  . That was my false identity, my false religious self, that needs to be shed. Although I still cling to those things, God wants me to take them off and put on the clothes that he provides, a new identity and sense of self-worth that comes only from the fact that I am his creation, a child of God whom he loves. To the extent that I allow God to take those old clothes off of me and put on my new clothes in this life, it will a good thing. But all those old clothes will be completely taken off when I die. Because, as they say, “You can’t take it with you.”  Won’t death itself rid me of that stuff?  The only things that we can carry into the world to come are, as Paul says, faith, hope and love, and the greatest of them is love (1Co 13:13).

If a close friend invited you to a wedding feast, would you feel  comfortable  attending with only a wedding invitation but not the right attire? Or would you rather have the invitation and the proper clothing to wear to such a wonderful event?  
God Bless

1) The thief on the cross. The passage says that Jesus said to him: “I tell you the truth today you will be with me in paradise.” Notice that there is no comma after the word truth. Meaning that it is equally likely that the passage could have said, “I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise.” Also, if the thief was with Jesus that very day with him in paradise, then why is it that Jesus said to Mary in John 20:17 that he had not yet ascended to the Father on the third day? Didnt he promise the thief that he would be with him on the very day of the crucifixion and not three days later? Lastly, just because it might be the ordinary way for some people to go through purgatory before entering heaven, doesnt mean that God cant take extraordinary exceptions. He can do whatever he wants. How do you get to Alaska? You will would probably answer “flying ofcourse.” That doesnt mean you can’t take an extraordinary way there, say.. driving. God is not bound by the means that we are made aware of. I hope this makes sense.

Now let me quickly respond to your other questions but I hope we can continue this conversation through email.

When I refer to the Pope’s teaching authority I am referring to what has been dogmatically defined and proclaimed ex cathedra. How do you know what meet’s this criteria? Look at all the ecumenical councils and the Cathechism. If you try to find bad teaching the best you will be able to do is SPECULATE on 1-2 incidents in the course of the Church’s 2,000 year teaching history. That alone should be enough to make you pause and convince you that it has been protected by the Holy Spirit. I agree, there have been some terrible Popes!

We know of no other means of salvation outside the Catholic church. This does not mean that one has to be a baptized Catholic to be saved. It means that all salvation is accomplished by Christ through his church – which is his body. “Through him, with him and in him.” But this is really a mystery that goes beyond my immediate understanding. Please see the Catechism on the topic of baptism by desire for more info.

Are non Catholics, such as yourself, a part of the Church? Yes, provided that you keep the Faith and Love Christ.

But how is this possible since you are not Catholic? Again, it goes beyond my understanding. See the Catechism.

Are you a heretic for not being Catholic? No. Archbishop Fulton Sheen said that 99% of people hate the Catholic church for what they THINK it teaches. Only 1% hate it for what it actually teaches. You and I have a long way before we properly understand what the Catholic church teaches. Please email me and we will continue this conversation. God Bless you and your curious search for answers.

I also take issue with your claim that 1Timothy 3:15 is talking about the Roman Catholic Church. I am sure that you would admit, there have been bad Popes even unbelieving Popes in history, no? Pope Urban VI complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured! Pope Paul IV who reigned as pope during the time of “Bloody Mary” in England taught the following about the Jews: “As it is completely absurd and improper in the utmost that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal servitude, can under the pretext that pious Christians must accept them and sustain their habitation, are so ungrateful to Christians, as, instead of thanks for gracious treatment, they return contumely, and among themselves, instead of the slavery, which they deserve…”

Now, I know that Luther and others also said very bad things about the Jews, but we Protestants do not say that everything Luther teaches is infallible, Should Pope Paul IV’s words still be thought of as inspired teaching?

Wouldnt you agree that the Church is made up of all believers in Christ and not just the Roman Catholic ones? When a church continues in Christ’s word, it keeps its identity as His church, but when it fails to abide in His word, it is not longer regarded as His Church. Let me ask you a question that I would love for you to answer openly, Do you believe that salvation is found only within the Catholic Church? And if so, do you consider the non-catholics here to be heretics or pagans?

Oh, one more thing, sorry to be long winded and scattered, but you never addressed my point about the theif on the cross being in Heaven the same day he died, ok thats it for now!

In many respects, the agnosticism expressed by Luther Van Calvin is quite healthy in speculate points like purgatory or guardian angels. Personally, I am a bit confused as to why purgatory should be such a difficult topic to accept. What does it really mean to accept purgatory? The doctrine does not take anyway away from the existence of heaven, one’s salvation or the merits that Christ gained for us. All it really says is that in order to enter the wedding banquet, one must be made clean (which Christ’s blood does) and and not have the desire/tendency to sin (which purgatory does). Even Saint Paul admitted that he struggled with the prospect of sin. I doubt that anyone would argue that Saint Paul is not in heaven. And yet, I wonder if Saint Paul did not rejoice at the prospect that God’s consuming fire would burn away his remaining desire to sin.

My intent in this article was to show that many Catholic beliefs are indeed quite biblically supported. Whether one believes a particular biblical interpretation is another thing but I really don’t like it when people assume that certain doctrines are unbiblical. Like when people say, “where in the bible does it say that we should confess our sins to a priest?!” When I hear this, I always wonder how people could possibly overlook John 19:21-22.

I really doubt such a silly article such as this would really change anyone’s mind on purgatory. =)

Like you said, it is not that big a deal. However, I do hope that this article will atleast encourage people to look up a Catholic response to why we believe such and such instead of automatically assuming that certain beliefs are not biblically supported or to assume that their faith tradition is the norm and Catholics are the weird one’s.

Sola scriptura is definitely a difficult one for me to grasp as well. Maybe the Pope will extend an invitation to evangelical protestants who are fed up with all the divisions to join the Catholic church but keep their faith tradition. =)
If he did it for Anglicans, why not for evangelicals? Think about it, as a bible loving evangelical, you would be joining the original “bible church”. =)

Plus, your bible would be so much bigger! All your evangelical friends would be so jealous that you get to read extra books. In exchange, evangelicals could introduce better music. We Catholics can’t sing. =(

I see that since I co-authored this post I should take some responsibility and comment. I actually don’t care either way whether there is a Purgatory. Well, I hope its obvious that my opinions are best expressed by Mr. Luther van Calvin above. My original intent with this post is how Christians from various traditions can get beyond the well-worn theological debates (like Purgatory) in which we each spout bible verses at each other with great passion and emotion, and instead to look for commonalities in which we can advance the Church’s mission on earth, despite our diverse Christian traditions. But the problem I keep facing is how one mediates the differences that originate from differing interpretations of the same Scripture. It keeps vexing me and makes me re-think the doctrine of sola Scriptura, but not necessarily throwing me back into the arms of the Catholic Church.

In either case, this issue is a discussion for another day. But true unity begins with what you just exemplified with your last post, Gerardo. A humility to recognize where we’ve fallen short, a commitment to seek peace among brothers, and a resolve to fully understand even more than trying to be understood (to paraphrase St. Francis’ famous prayer).

1) See Hebrews 11:35b as a reference to 2 Maccabees 7:1-29. I can give you more if you would like. Jews did not consider the “apocryphal” books to be inspired UNTIL 100AD (Council of Jamnia). This was not the case before. Apparently Martin Luther took it upon his own authority to reject and remove several of the books of the Cannon that were held as sacred scripture for 1200 years. Go figure..I guess the Pope is not infallible but Martin Luther is. Anyone who tells you that the Catholic Church added books to the Cannon is lying to you. Please read reliable history and avoid believing Chick tracts.

2) See John 5:16-17 “If you see your brother or sister committing what is not a mortal sin, you will ask, and God will give life to such a one – to those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin that is mortal; I do not say you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal.”

Also, we are told by the Bible that some sin will merit greater punishment than others (see Matthew 11:22, 24; Luke 10:12, 14). I am sure you have your own interpretation. But you cannot say that scripture does not teach (what strongly appears to be) a differentiation of sin.

3) How is this possible? If anything, the story of the rich man and Lazarus AFFIRMS purgatory or at the very least a place separate from heaven. Please read the passage again.

4) Paul also neglected to say that the God is composed of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Shall we apply your reasoning here as well?

5) See Colossians 1:24 “Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the Church.”

6. Selling indulgences was a sin committed by SOME clergy. More reason why I am grateful that our Lord, the Holy Spirit, has preserve the Catholic Church from teaching error. The Catholic Church’s teaching authority is immaculate as indicated by 1 Timothy 3:15. You should be grateful for this authority the next time you read your Bible. But the topic of papal infallibility is really off topic so I wont address your insulting comments any further.

7) Amen and Amen. I have no qualms with this. Again, it is the Catholic Church’s infallible teaching Authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, that allowed you to quote Hebrews and not the gospel of Thomas.

1) No where in the New Testament is the Apocrypha quoted, and it is not in the Jewish canon either for good reason, the Jews did not consider those books to be inspired OT literature.

2) The doctrine of purgatory necessitates a dividing of particular sins into venial and mortal in God’s eyes, but this is not taught in Scripture. James 2:10 says, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking ALL of it.” And in Romans 6:23 “The wages of sin is DEATH…” not temporary purgatory. “The soul who sins is the one who will DIE” -Ezekiel 18:4 Therefore if Jesus hasnt forgiven you of ALL of your sin, you will not suffer temporarily but permanently in hell.

3)Purgatory denies the accounts in the Bible of what happened to the Rich man and Lazarus (who was taken to heaven by the angels when he died without any reference to purgatory, and one would think that if such a place existed, Jesus might have mentioned it explicitly there), and also the account of the thief on the cross next to Jesus, whom Jesus told would be in heaven that same day.

4)Paul said that he wished to depart and be with Christ which is better by far…he also neglected to say “but after 15 years or so of hellish burning first.”

5)Jesus bore ALL of the punishment for our sins on the cross “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the PUNISHMENT that brought us PEACE was on him,and by his wounds we are healed.” -Isaiah 53:5…And that is why “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” -Romans 8:1

6) The selling of indulgences to escape from purgatory in the 16th century (And at other times) was a most terrible sin of the Catholic church, because they tried to sell the Grace of God for money, not to mention with the full blessing of the “infallible” pope on top of it as well. (and another question, who decides how much time each venial sin will land you? Is it by the imagination of the particular priest? Or how is that quantified and defended Biblically?)

7) Hebrews 9:22 says, “…the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Like John said above, it is the blood of Jesus that cleans us from our sins, I have been cleansed by the Blood of the Lamb who took my punishment completely when he died on the cross for me. His Punishment brought me peace with God! As Charitie Bancroft wrote: “Before the throne of God above, I have a strong and perfect plea, the Great High Priest whose name is Love, who ever lives and pleads for me. My name is graven on his hands, my name is written on his heart, I know that while in Heaven he stands, no tongue and bid me thence depart! Behold him there the Risen Lamb, my perfect spotless righteousness, the Great unchangeable I Am, the King of Glory and of Grace. One in Himself I cannot die, my soul is purchased by his blood, my life is hid with Christ on high, with Christ my Savior and my God!”

This two-way conversation between us has gotten to be very long, and I would rather not continue it here on UBFriends, because I don’t want to dominate the discussion board with my own comments; I would much prefer to hear what other people have to say.

Because you asked me a very specific question, however, I fear it would be impolite not to answer. The question is about what Jesus meant when he spoke about paying back every last penny.

In the parable of the unmerciful servant (Mt 18:21-35), Jesus’ main point is that we have to grant forgiveness to others as God has forgiven us. The number of times that Jesus said we are to forgive (whether it is 77 times, or 70×7=490 times) is so large that it means we are to forgive without limit. The amount of money owed by the wicked servant (10,000 talents) was an unimaginably huge sum of money which could never, ever be repaid. Jesus is using a hyperbole to indicate that God forgives without limit, and by receiving his grace we are compelled to extend the same kind of unlimited grace to others. Unforgiving attitudes, holding grudges, and keeping score of others’ wrongs are antithetical to the gospel and hinder our relationship with God. The end of the parable, in which the wicked servant is turned over to jailers to be tortured, is a minor detail which adds urgency and color; it is part of vivid storytelling, but it is not necessarily teaching doctrine; not every detail of every parable is meant to be turned into doctrine. Or it could reflect the fate of a person who is truly unsaved because he has rejected the gospel of grace, as evidenced by his unmerciful behavior toward others.

The other two passages you mentioned (Mt 5:25-26 and Lk 12:58-59), which are very similar to each other, are not necessarily allegorical. Jesus is telling us in a very straightforward way to settle our conflicts with other people as soon as possible, granting and receiving forgiveness in his name, and to be reconciled to them. Refusing to do so hinders our relationship with God and limits our ability to experience his forgiveness.

These passages all teach the same basic truth: forgiving others and being forgiven by God are so inextricably linked that we cannot have one without the other. The same gospel that restores our vertical relationship with God must also restore our horizontal relationships with one another. This is the same truth that is taught in the Lord’s Prayer: “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.”

His point is that, if we are truly Christian, we are compelled to pursue reconciliation and love for others in this present world as our first priority. Reconciliation with others is an even higher priority than worship (Mt 5:23-24). Using these passages to build a doctrine of Purgatory goes way beyond that context and, in my opinion, deflects attention from the actual teaching that Jesus wanted his audience to receive.

Thanks again for the stimulating discussion. I will refrain from posting more comments now. God be with you.

I would be interested in getting your view on what Jesus meant when he said that everyone would pay every last penny before they got out. I mean, Jesus indeed pays for our sins but if we die with venial sin, without confession or making an act of contrition, how can we expect to get into heaven if nothing unclean can enter it? If I commit a venial sin, I am clearly unclean. In fact, I am more unclean because I commited the sin in full knowledge of the Love of Christ and his sacrifice for my past transgressions.

So it seems we have #1 passages that speak about Jesus paying the price and #2 passages where Jesus (the savior) himself, say’s there will be a suffering process we will have to go through in order to get out. Obviously there is no escape from hell and heaven is not a prison. How do you reconcile these considering that Jesus himself who knew what he would do for man, said it.

Consider for example, 2 Samuel 12:13-14 where David – though forgiven – is still punished. Clearly forgiveness and a lack of punishment are not synonymous. When we punish our children after we forgive them, we do it because we think there must be some good in it do we not? What parent would hit there kid just to relieve their anger. Instead, he hit’s or punishes their kid because he see’s some inherent good in that. Say for example, your son breaks your neighber’s window. As a good father, you take him over to his house and make him apologize for breaking the window. And after he receives forgiveness, you might even encourage him to mow his lawn or something. Or say your son steals your car. You may forgive him, but you still expect him to bring back the car! So I think this is more in line with what the Catholic church teaches the purging fires of purgatory are meant to do. They are to burn away your temporal punishment. They don’t secure your salvation. Christ has already done that. The mere fact that one is in purgatory is proof that you they are saved by the blood of Christ. But one still incurs temporal punishment and Purgatory is meant to perfect souls by paying this temporal punishment through suffering – and being united with Christ in his passion. And purgatory is also meant to remove their inclination to sin.

Many, but not all the church Fathers spoke about purgatory indirectly. Not that they said, “there is this and that place.. where this and that takes place.” But that many of the church Father’s spoke about praying for souls who had passed away. Why pray for them if they are joined with Christ? In fact, some of the early Christian Catacombs have prayers on the walls that talk about praying to Christ for the dead. Again, what is the function of this if one is either in hell already or in heaven already?

Thank you for this reply. I appreciated the fact that, in your original article, you did not try to build the arguments for Purgatory on that short passage from 2 Maccabees. That’s one of the main arguments that I had heard from the Roman Catholic church in the past. But that passage from 2 Maccabees doesn’t explicitly talk about Purgatory, and it’s found in a book that Protestants do not regard as canonical.

I did not say, nor did I wish to suggest, that Purgatory was made up by rascal bishops who wanted to make money. I do think that the doctrine was an honest attempt to explain some difficult concepts. But I still think that it’s an extrapolation beyond what the Bible explicitly teaches.

Is it really fair to say that Purgatory had “wide acceptance by some of the earliest leaders of the church”? Some (John Henry Newman, for example) claimed that the *essence* of the idea was taught by some church fathers, including Origen. But no one seems to have spoken of Purgatory as a place distinct from heaven and hell until the 11th century. At least that’s what Wikipedia says.

Thanks again for a stimulating discussion.

To say that the Catholic position on the afterlife is too legalistic is to say that the bible’s description of the afterlife is too legalistic. The Catholic Church has strongly emphasized the familial language of the bible and the relationship between God and man, while at the same time, conserving the legalistic language as well. So the Roman church latched onto both views but did not exclude any.

By contrast, it seems me that the reformers ignored many of the passages that spoke about a type of punishment in the afterlife (e.g. the book of Maccabees) because it did not mesh well with 15th century reformer theology. As for the Orthodox church, it denies purgatory but it would be rather unfair to say that that they don’t believe there is a middle place between heaven and earth. The Orthodox church has been rather inconsistent in its way of putting forth its belief. It has always talked about this middle place between heaven and earth precisely because they did not know how to reconcile some of the passages presented above and those in 2 Maccabees 12:43-46. They refused to call this middle place purgatory or acknowledge there is a purification by fire but they don’t deny a middle place.

So it seems to me that the reformers deny certain biblical passages that are inconsistent with their beliefs, the Orthodox church is inconsistent in it’s teaching a middle place and the Catholic Church affirms those passages that appear to support and deny a belief in purgatory. It combines them in an amazing way which balances the legalistic and familial elements of the bible. For example, some say the view of purgatory is too legalistic but the Catholic Church’s view on praying for the dead (which is intrically tied to purgatory) is too familial. Many believe there are two bodies of Christ one on earth and another in heaven. Whereas the Catholic Church has always affirmed the intimacy shared among all those who are saved by Christ whether living or dead.

Also, while the doctrine of Purgatory was not formulated until the middle ages, it was widely believed by some of the earliest bishops of the church. Origin wrote, “For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (1 Corinthians 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 (P.G., XIII, col. 445, 448).”

The fact that purgatory had such wide acceptance by some of the earliest leaders of the church does not prove the veracity of the doctrine of course, but it does give one a historical context for this belief. It wasn’t made up by some rascal bishops in the middle ages who wanted to make money. Also, the doctrine itself did not “bear bitter fruit.” The teaching on indulgences is quite biblical and held a long tradition in the Catholic church – I wont get into the details here. Just because certain bishops inappropriately used the doctrine does not make the doctrine bad. One has to separate bad or perverse application of doctrine from bad doctrine. Just because man abuses his free will to sin doesn’t mean that the doctrine of free will is false. We can’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

But I like the way John decided to end the debate. By affirming that both positions use a biblical argument. So who has the last say? I would answer that it would be the very group that had the authority to put the bible together in the first place. But that is a debate for a different day..

As I understand it, the idea of purgatory was not formulated until the 13th century. After the first millennium, the medieval western church developed a legal/forensic understanding of the gospel based on the idea that every sin committed incurs a fixed amount of wrath, a spiritual debt that must somehow be paid before a soul can enter paradise. The roots of this understanding come from the Bible — mainly from Romans, but also from the parables mentioned in this article. The Bible presents many views of the gospel. The gospel is a multifaceted jewel, and it deserves to be examined and re-examined from every angle. For reasons that I do not understand, the western church latched on to one particluar view of the gospel to the exclusion of the others. They developed complex ideas of divine retributive justice that included purgatory, limbo, and levels/stages of hell as described by Dante. They took some genuinely biblical ideas and extrapolated way too far, building a theological structure that could no longer be supported by plain reading of the whole Bible. And that theological system bore bitter fruit in the form of abusive practices of the Roman church in the late middle ages, such as the selling of indulgences. The eastern Orthodox church never accepted the idea of Purgatory, and the Protestant Reformers rejected it as well.

Few people whom I know are asking whether Purgatory exists. But many (including many sincere and highly dedicated Christians) are wrestling with the more basic idea of hell. They are wondering how it is possible for an all-knowing and all-loving God to create people, knowing that some of them will be consigned to eternal punishment. That is not a simple question, and the quick/easy answers that we like to give are not satisfying to thoughtful people who genuinely agonize over this issue.

In my opinion, there is a great deal of misunderstanding of what the Bible actually teaches about the afterlife, due in part to the limitations of the English language and problems of translation. Jesus used two different words — Hades and Gehenna — which have very different connotations. Gehenna carries the imagery of fiery punishment, and Hades does not. But the KJV rendered both of these Greek words as “hell,” and our understanding of that English word is colored by Dante and medieval systems of thought which were not known to the authors of the New Testament.

A very interesting video by New Testament scholar N.T. Wright on this subject can be found here:

http://www.outofur.com/archives/2010/01/ur_video_nt_wri_1.html