Again, you are ignoring that Rome has justified due to sanctification (state of holiness) in the beginning and thus have souls seeking to obtain that sanctification in the end. Except in reality this is not merely being forgiven, by attaining a level of perfection of character.
This is spoken to a group of believers, those who had come to Jesus Christ. Yet, sanctification is stated as something ongoing, something yet to be perfectly attained. And "the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord" indicates a standard - a level of perfection -- that is necessary.
Wrong. It says nothing about a level of perfection, nor to seek "the sanctification" without which no one will see the Lord - as there is not "the" as if to denote a certain level - but simply to follow after holiness in general, which is indeed a necessary fruit salvific faith.
Paul himself testified that he was not already perfect, (Phil. 3:12) yet was cught up to the 3rd Heaven, "into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." (2 Corinthians 12:4) And expressed that he, along with other believers, would be with Lord once absent from the body. (2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:21-23).
Intrinsic righteousness isn't a "false premise." You plucked out one line from the Catholic Encyclopedia; following that it lays out the Scriptural bases for that view.
It is indeed a false premise, nor did i misrepresent what the CE said, as i stated this was initially via infused holiness via baptism, while in purgatory it is thru fiery torments. The falsity is that it one gain entrance into Heaven by moral perfection, versus faith which is imputed for righteousness, through they are washed but not morally perfect in character, just as sin was imputed to Christ, though He was perfect in character.
For one, you must assume that all the Thessalonians (and believers) had attained perfection in character in the 1st c. since if the Lord returned then they would ever be with the Lord. (1Thes. 4:17)
And in speaking to the problematic Corinthians he basically states the same thing, with no mention at all of their next stop being purgatory, though if any believers of these letters needed it, then it was them.
And it can hardly be presumed that the contrite criminal attained this same perfection of character in just a few hours on the cross. More penitence and suffering does not make one perfect in character, as only Christ was, as it requires testing of faith under various kinds of temptation, which Scripture incontrovertibly only presents this world as providing. Thus the Lord Himself was made "perfect" here, in the sense of being tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. 4:15)
If a such postmortem purification was necessary for most all, then we would certainly see it clearly taught, saving Catholics from "it could be," arguments and extrapolations
Adam was created in an original state of holiness and justice with God.
There is no "and." Adam was holy as one who was undefiled.
Baptism, which effects an infusion of grace, restores us to that state of original justice and holiness first enjoyed by Adam. So in that sense, baptism both justifies and sanctifies the recipient. But the inclination toward sin resulting from Adam persists, and ongoing sin is defiling. Hence, the lifelong struggle for sanctification.
But in reality, the baptized is justified by this holiness/sanctification. Which means he must usually regain it in the end of his salvation system.
Of course, there is inconsistency here.
That inconsistency is simply a function of your misunderstanding the Catholic point of view.
A mere assertion, but in fact there is inconsistency, as you have the newly baptized fit for Heaven with no further refinement at baptism, though he may have a multitude of character flaws that will show up. And then you demand not simply atonement and the washing of sins, but a level of perfection of character to see the Lord/enter Heaven.
"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224 )
But that souls must attain moral perfection is what RCs teach.
Yes, as that is what Scripture indicates: "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt. 5:48. The heavenly Father (like Jesus) is not merely 'covered' in righteousness; he is morally perfect, entirely free of any element of sin.
Which is a classic proof-text proffered by purgatory polemicists, which examples isolationist superficial exegesis of Scripture. For in context the Lord was giving an exhortation to be like God, perfect, as in treating enemies as He does, referring to a kind of excellence, working toward a degree of excellence.
And likewise the apostles states, "Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children," (Ephesians 5:1) but which is not a command to be perfect in order to become a child of God (v. 45) and or see Heaven, which being born again is, (not "Verily verily, "I say unto you, unless you become perfect as your Heaven Father, you shall in no wise see the kingdom of God"), which neither this nor the rest of Scripture where it plainly speaks of the postmortem or postterrestrial place or experience of believers will support. From the contrite criminal to the Corinthians to the Thessalonians etc. the next stop is always with the Lord.
Instead, RCs must rely on texts which refer either to this life or the lost, or the judgment seat of Christ, or to holiness being a necessary fruit of saving faith, but not earning it or requiring one to be as perfect as God in order to see Heaven.
Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God." 2 Cor. 7:1 This is another instance where Scripture indicates that there is an ongoing need for sanctification, an ongoing pursuit to "make holiness perfect."
Of course true faith means pursuit of holiness, which is an evidence of true faith, but it is not that of requiring moral perfection to be saved, or saved in the full sense, which basically places one back under the Law, with justification being attained by practical purity and performance, just will more help given. Salvation by grace thru works.
Paul has already told these Corinthians that We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:8) and that when the Lord returns then that is when they would experience their bodily change,
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality (1 Corinthians 15:51-53)
And that they would then face the judgment seat of Christ, (1Cor. 3:8ff), which not about making postmortem expiation for sin and or being purified, but about receiving or losing rewards, with fire consuming any false building material one used for building the church (tares vs. wheat), directly or indirectly i assume. But with the only suffering being the consequential suffering of loss of rewards, (1Cor. 3:15) and thus also (implicitly) the grievous disapproval of the Lord.
Yet one is not saved because of this consumption of dead fruit, but despite of it. And which only takes place after His return. (2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev. 11:18)
However, what Caths do, since they hope to merit their way into Heaven, is presume every call to holiness is a call to moral perfection of character, which is contrary to what Scripture clearly reveals.
Paul himself testified that was not yet perfect, yet expressed thatr he would be with the Lord, not purgatory, if he left and became absent from the body.
You should be ashamed to trot out that standard poor paraphrase: We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 2 Cor. 5:8 Nothing in that text precludes a notion of a "final sanctification."
What? It is you who should be ashamed of taking away and adding to the word of God! He distinctively states that out of two options, to stay or leave, his next stop if choosing the latter is to be with the Lord,
. It's like me saying "I'd rather be away from the office and at home with my wife." Does that mean the instant I step out of the office I'll be at home?"
No, it is like you saying, To be absent from the office is to be at home with my wife," and in this case your office is essentially next store as it is possible for you to be there instantly. You need to take that polemic back to Catholic Answers for a refund. At best what you are doing is reading into the text a possibility based upon what you want the grammar to allow for, but the plain import is that to be absent from my body, is to be with the Lord.
And which the context supports, as thus Paul labored that he would receive "Well done" at the judgment seat of Christ (2Cor. 5:9,10) i referred to above, which was the next event on Paul's calendar, versus laboring in order to escape purgatory.
In any case, since Purgatory is the final application of Jesus's sanctifying grace, I see no reason to view it as an "absence" from the Lord. To the contrary, it could be seen as a rather intense encounter with Him, as a Father disciplines a child (see Heb. 12).
Now that is by necessity creative. To be absent is to have an encounter? Rather, to be absent from the Lord means not to be with Him, while to be with the Lord means to be with the Lord, which Scripture promises believers after this leaving life.
Only intense encounter with the Lord after this life is that of the judgment seat of Christ described above, but they are indeed with the Lord.
RCs can imagine that one can be justified yet not fit to enter Heaven, but that is simply not the plain teaching of Scripture.
To the contrary, Scripture contains repeated warnings against ongoing sin and the converse exhortations to make holiness perfect. And Scripture indicates a standard ("Be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect;" "nothing unclean shall enter")
Which conclusion simply does not follow from the premise, for of course Scripture warns against ongoing sin, which is a denial of faith, (Heb. 3:6,12,14; 10:26-39; Gal. 5:1-4) and exhorts to seek perfection which pursuit is consistent with saving faith, but not the latter as a condition for salvation, for which Scripture clearly states is appropriated by effectual faith, and immediately makes one accepted in the Beloved and seated with Christ in heavenly places, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and who will be with the Lord at death or at His return, whichever comes first.
Such faith is characterized by "things which accompany salvation," Godly character, esp. love of the brethren, (Heb. 6:9,10) and pursuit of practical holiness, and repentance when convicted of sin. Thus one who impenitently sins will-fully after receiving "the knowledge of the truth" (a synonym for believing the gospel: Ti. 2:4) is one who is drawing back to perdition.
Conversely, since saving faith is characterized by works of faith, those who manifest such are judged to be saved, and fit to be rewarded under grace, (Heb. 10:35; Rv 3:4) which faith God rewards souls for in recognition if its effects even though they owe all to Him, and their wages for sin really means Hell. (Rm. 6:23)
But it remains that what made them counted as righteous and accepted in the Beloved in the first place was not their holiness, and Abraham was a good man before Gn. 15:6, but faith as imputed as righteousness, at the same time they are enabled to live thusly.
Abraham was counted as righteous for believing that God could so what he utterly could not, and likewise one can never become good enough to be with an infinitely holy God.
However, Caths see grace as a means of becoming holy enough in actual character to be with God, as if Christ only provided an atonement, yet which does deliver them from postmortem atonement torment, and explain away the examples of believers going to be with the Lord at death or the Lord's return as pertaining a class of believers non-Scripturally distinctively titled "saints."
Nothing unclean shall enter Heaven, but believers are not the unclean, but washed, sanctified and justified, and made to sit with Christ, and are told they will be with the Lord at death or His return .
You (like many) see one verse you like and stop there.
Nice trry but it is you who are relying upon interpretive texts in isolation and not on what the NT collectively teaches wherever it clearly refers to the believers next stop after this life. And i expect more of the same.
LOL. Given the Protestant objection to Purgatory is the absence of what they see as a clear positive Scriptural confirmation of such, their posture is mostly "an argument from silence." You're funny.
Your recourse to sarcasm only examples your sophistry, as it is clear that the Protestant objection to Purgatory is not simply the absence of what they see as a clear positive Scriptural confirmation of such, but it is primarily the fact that wherever the Scriptures manifestly speak of the believers place in the next life, they only teach of believers being with the Lord. You can only wish you had the same for your mythical place.
OK. How about this? 25 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; 26 truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny. Matt. 5:25-26 The verses come in the context of many that speak to judgment and eternity. So the context is eschatological. The 'judge' is clearly God. Our 'accuser' is Divine Justice. If we have not satisfied our accuser before being judged (through atonement while on earth), then we are not 'released' from that obligation in the afterlife until atonement is complete ('paying the last penny'). Which incredibly is the best you have, yet even this fails to provide what you desperately need to counteract the clear texts to the contrary of your extrapolated conclusion, and instead you must declare as fact that this pertains to suffering in purgatory in the afterlife. However, first note immediate context is that of settling accounts with your brother who has a valid charge against you, "Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift," (Matthew 5:24) which otherwise is the adversary. It reasonably follows that this serves as a warning to settle accounts lest you face Divine justice. but not with the adversary being Divine justice, but the one who has something against you, be it individual or body, else the Lord Jesus, who shall judge living and dead, shall send His officer/servant to deal with thee. Not that this describes an impenitent man, not some forgetful saint or one merely with some character flaws, and the punishment here is retributive, not for refinement of character such as Job endured. Looking for application of this, we this manner of judgment in this life, as in the case of the incestuous man in 1Cor. 5, whom the Lord, thru Paul and the church, pressing charges and delivering an impenitent man over to the devil for the destruction of his flesh, until he is brought to repentance. Apart from chastisement in this life, the only other application is that of the judgment of the impenitent lost, The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:41-42) In this case the "till [heōs an] thou hast paid the uttermost farthing" - to the utmost extremity - refer to as if it were possible, but which really denotes hopelessness, as for the impenitent, "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." (Hebrews 10:26-27) RCs themselves contend heōs (at least by itself) can denote ongoing. The Ethiopic version reads it, "till thou hast exactly paid all"; which seems to express the inexorableness of the creditor, and the impossibility of the debtor's release. (Gill) Thus while you attempt to build your building upon this interpretive verse, it fails to manifestly teach purgatory, both by failing to establish this as pertaining to the afterlife and by being contrary to the manner of persons it is for.
In my prior post, I showed where Tertullian (writing in 203 C.E.) utilizes this same passage in much the same sense. No medieval invention here. Which does not help, as neither Rome nor myself esp. hold the fathers as determinative in doctrine, nor do they universally all agree with themselves or Rome.
n contrast is being justified by faith, a faith which effects obedience which justifies one a being a true saved believe, and fit to be rewarded under grace, though in justice what he actually deserves is Hell.
That is the contrast Protestants set up, though I find much Scriptural warrant for the Catholic view of intrinsic righteousness. By contrast, the notion that "faith effects obedience" isn't as clearly borne out. Protestants very often seem to exhibit this view that once one pushes the "faith" button, that obedience and good works will automatically roll off the assembly line. Scripture doesn't state that obedience automatically follows faith.
What Bible are you misunderstanding? Scripture does indeed teach that true faith always effects obedience, given opportunity, and thus it calls them saved who do obey. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12) We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; (2 Corinthians 4:13) What you do always manifests what you really believe, even if at that moment, while failure to act according to what you profess shows you do not really believe it. Thus James says,
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:18)
Hence, the frequent warnings in Scripture to the faithful not to be overconfident, not to relax into sin, to urge the faithful to obey the commandment to love. In fact, Paul has a whole segment on "if I have faith, but have not _____" Believers exhibit obedience to widely varying degrees.
Which are exhortations to continue in the faith, and warnings against unbelief. If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; (Colossians 1:23)
Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. (Hebrews 3:12) Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. (Hebrews 10:35)
Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Hebrews 10:38-39)
aspects of purgatorial belief and practice find precedent in pre-Christian Jewish thought and practice. OK, that was the point I was making.
As do all sorts of nonsense and other myths. That was the point I was making
C'mon, be serious. How on earth do you think appealing to the E.O. helps you here? All you're doing is showing again how Protestantism is a departure from historic Christianity.
Oh, rather quotes as "The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional," (Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135) example how 2 tradition-based competitors for the title "one true church" can significantly (even if their purgatory is close), while the deformity of both from NT historic Christianity is clearly evident , more so in Rome.
And at some point, perhaps, we'll have occasion to consider the response of Patriarch Jeremiah II to the Lutheran Theologians. (Short answer: "stop misreading the Church Fathers; get out of here with your noveau theology.")
Oh i am sure there are some here that could get into that with you, but even with their variety they tend to more serve as an example of how errors of tradition can be perpetuated, and even Rome judges them more than they judge her.
And finally, purgatory remains wanting to be proved, while what is clear is that they next stop for believers - if they are true holiness seeking believers - is with the Lord in spirit. With the only future change besides that being at Lord's return ,
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. (Philippians 3:21) Which is not in purgatory.
This was Adam's initial state. The CC adheres to that. At baptism, justification and sanctification are coterminous. They are not necessarily so beyond throughout the believer's lifetime. When I speak of conflating justification and sanctification, the point is that -- regardless whether you agree or disagree on the Catholic view on the formal cause of justification -- purgatory still has nothing to do with justification (souls undergoing purgatory are already justified, by definition). If you want to argue the Catholic view on sanctification is wrong, OK. But when you keep bringing justification into the picture it leaves me wondering that you appreciate the distinction in those terms as Catholics see it.
Wrong. It says nothing about a level of perfection, nor to seek "the sanctification" without which no one will see the Lord - as there is not "the" as if to denote a certain level -
Apart from whether "the" is proper to make the reading and meaning proper in English (various translations include it (e.g, NASB, RSV), the sentence as a whole signifies that (see following point).
. . .but simply to follow after holiness in general,
Oh, the twisting. The text doesn't say "follow holiness in general." It speaks of holiness to be pursued and (contrary to your mental rewrite) designates a standard "without which no one will see the Lord." So you see a phrase that is inconvenient to your position and you simply read it to be saying something else. How Protestant of you.
Scripture here (as with 2 Cor. 7:1) speaks of a holiness to be pursued. Under your view, it seems, sanctification has already fully and finally been accomplished on account of "faith." I see a disconnect between how you picture sanctification and how the Bible does.
Paul himself testified that he was not already perfect, (Phil. 3:12) yet was cught up to the 3rd Heaven, "into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." (2 Corinthians 12:4)
And whether this signifies a bodily ascension into Heaven or more akin to the vision of Isaiah (Is. 6) can be debated. Though, interestingly, Isaiah experienced a bit of purgation:
5 "Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty."6 Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar.7 With it he touched my mouth and said, "See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for." Is. 6:5-7.
Purifying fire? There you have it.
The falsity is that it one gain entrance into Heaven by moral perfection, versus faith which is imputed for righteousness
How tiring it gets beating back the Protestant "either/or" mentality.
It's not moral perfection "versus" faith, as if these are in opposition. It's being made perfect through faith.
And come clean here (pun intended). Is sanctification in your view personal and intrinsic? Or imputed? You took issue with the "snow covered dungheaps" phrase I used earlier. (And the linked article contains a great Scriptural example of the personal/intrinsic view of sanctification: "Psa 51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.")
And now here you're back to "imputed." So which is it? Protestants are adamant there is no Purgatory (no need for any further sanctification), but pinning them down on what sanctification is, how it's attained (or lost), is a bit the proverbial "like nailing jello to a wall."
For one, you must assume that all the Thessalonians (and believers) had attained perfection in character in the 1st c. since if the Lord returned then they would ever be with the Lord. (1Thes. 4:17)
I don't have to assume they were all yet perfectly sanctified, since Paul indicates otherwise (2 Cor. 7:1). Nor do I have to assume that "being with the lord" somehow precludes an element of final purification. Here, you're still stuck on the same "absent from the body" fallacy you suffered from earlier.
And in speaking to the problematic Corinthians he basically states the same thing, with no mention at all of their next stop being purgatory, though if any believers of these letters needed it, then it was them.
So, in your view, it's "let us cleanse ourselves of every defilement in body and spirit and make holiness perfect, but if we don't, there's really no consequence at all". Not only is your "no mention of purgatory" a weak argument from silence, you further have Paul exhorting them for no apparent reason. I'll stick with the Catholic view here, thank you.
And it can hardly be presumed that the contrite criminal attained this same perfection of character in just a few hours on the cross.
Of course, having (twice) hauled out the fallacious "absent from the body" bit, it was inevitable you'd try the even more fallacious appeal to the Good Thief.
The thief died under the Old Covenant. He was not "born of water and the spirit" (John 3:5) either(whether you view that as a reference to baptism or simply the conversion experience), as Pentecost was yet in the future and the Holy Spirit had not yet descended. And we know that Jesus did not immediately ascend to heaven, but descended to "preach to the spirits in prison" (1 Pet. 3:19). Even casting this into a NT framework, the thief could most certainly have undergone such purification as necessary when the moment came for Jesus to enter Heaven with the OT righteous.
More penitence and suffering does not make one perfect in character, as only Christ was, as it requires testing of faith under various kinds of temptation, which Scripture incontrovertibly only presents this world as providing.
Your opinion is noted.
If a such postmortem purification was necessary for most all, then we would certainly see it clearly taught, saving Catholics from "it could be," arguments and extrapolations.
Well, at last we get to your ultimate fall-back assumption -- that a thing would have been clearly stated in writing. I, of course, don't share that assumption. Purgatory is implicit, or deducible, from Scriptural principles, much as the Trinity (itself not clearly elucidated in Scripture, but deducible from it). Given that Jesus instructs the Apostles "go and teach," rather than "first go write it down" makes your assumption a dubious proposition at the outset. That both Catholic and the E.O., which have consciously sought to "hold fast to the teachings" handed down from the Apostles, accept a notion of a postmortem temporary state for atonement for sin is strong indication that the concept has Apostolic origins.
"Adam was created in an original state of holiness and justice with God."
There is no "and." Adam was holy as one who was undefiled
There is most certainly an "and," unless you think that Adam did not enjoy an original justified state with God. But he did. He enjoyed an original state of holiness AND justice.
[re: 2 Cor. 7:1]Of course true faith means pursuit of holiness, which is an evidence of true faith, but it is not that of requiring moral perfection to be saved, or saved in the full sense . . .
You're just winging it here. Again, as with Heb. 12:14 (where you take "holiness without which no one will see the Lord" and water it down to signify a vague "holiness in general") here you take "make holiness perfect" and argue that it isn't talking about any type of perfection. Ridiculous. Here is but one of many examples where I find the Catholic view of sanctification borne out by a more natural read on applicable verses.
which basically places one back under the Law, with justification being attained by practical purity and performance,
Boy, you really can't stop yourself from bootlegging justification into the discussion. I know you desperately need to take any verse which speaks of the need for ongoing sanctification and cast it back into a framework of "it's just talking about the sign of a true faith" or "believers are already have holiness imputed through faith." This is just more of the same twisted exegesis Catholics get treated to when we bring up James 2 (which, similarly, as a Catholic I can read the verses in a much more straightforward manner).
I've already addressed your "absent from the body" verse. I guess it makes you feel good to restate the same point.
And why you think 1 Cor. 15 and the future resurrection of the body has applicability to discussion of a present question of sanctification is indeed a "mystery."
And that they would then face the judgment seat of Christ, (1Cor. 3:8ff), which not about making postmortem expiation for sin and or being purified, but about receiving or losing rewards,
I hadn't brought up 1 Cor. 3:15 (other than it's referenced in the Orthodox commentary I linked). Verses 10-15 speak on a primary level to the church at large and the role of church leaders like Paul who build up the body. But then in v. 16, Paul applies the temple/body image to the individual person. So can v. 15 "saved as through fire" be applied in a secondary sense to the individual believer? St. Augustine (among many others) says "yes" and very directly applies this in the sense of a 'purifying fire.' You say "no."
The difficult in making the argument that v. 15 CANNOT be read in Augustine's sense is that the metaphor of the purifying fire is SO consistent throughout the Scriptures:
“when he has tried me, I shall come forth as gold” (Job 23:10)
“thou, O God, hast tested us; thou hast tried us as silver is tried” (Ps 66:10)
“The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the LORD tries hearts” (Prov 17:3)
“I will turn my hand against you and will smelt away your dross as with lye and remove all your alloy” (Is 1:25)
“I have refined you, . . . I have tried you in the furnace of affliction” (Is 48:10)
“I will refine them and test them” (Jer 9:7)
“I will put this third into the fire, and refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested” (Zech 13:9)
“he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap; he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them like gold and silver” (Mal 3:2-3)
“. . . your faith, more precious than gold which though perishable is tested by fire” (1 Pet 1:6-7)
Once the notion of the "eternal fire" is excluded (and "saved as through . . ." certainly eliminates eternal damnation from view), then an understanding of "fire" in v. 15 that denies a notion of purification becomes something of an exception to a general rule. The "it doesn't mean this" argument is difficult to sustain.
However, what Caths do, since they hope to merit their way into Heaven,
That phrasing I take as nothing other than a deliberate distortion of the Catholic view. "Meriting one's way into Heaven" is Pelagianism, which the Catholic Church has expressly condemned.
No, it is like you saying, To be absent from the office is to be at home with my wife,"
So you take the bad paraphrase you make of the Scripture and paraphrase my example accordingly. Brilliant.
To be absent is to have an encounter? Rather, to be absent from the Lord
You're getting lost here. The verse in question says "we'd rather be absent from the body." I'm saying Purgatory (the final application of God's sanctifying grace) can be understood as a very intense "being present" with the Lord once we are absent from the body. So you're frequent appeal to 2 Cor. 5:8 is misplaced (though, no doubt, you've heard it so often held up as a supposed refutation to Purgatory it's not an easy one to let go).
which faith God rewards souls for in recognition if its effects even though they owe all to Him
Actually, in every depiction or statement on how we will be judged, the criterion of reward (or reprobation) is that of "works" (e.g., Matt. 16:27, 25:14-30, 31-46; Luke 3:9, John 5:26-29, Rom 2:6-8, 1 Cor. 3:8-9, 2 Cor. 5:10, Heb. 6:7-8, 2 Pet. 3:10-14, Rev. 2:23, 22:12). Paul explicitly states that God will render (reward) eternal life in accordance with works (Rom. 2:6-7). It's one of those verses as a Catholic I can read more straightforwardly (correctly understanding the "works" in view) than can Protestants (who have to do more textual manipulation).
Which incredibly is the best you have,
Only when trying to hold this discussion under your restricted frame of authority. The better support I have is a church Jesus constituted with a true teaching authority (this can be Scripturally demonstrated), which was instructed to "pass on" the teachings given from Jesus to the Apostles, these teachings were said to be passed on both by writing and orally (this can be Scripturally demonstrated) and this church is the one that we see in the early centuries centered in the Apostolic sees of Rome, Antioch, Ephesus, and Jerusalem, which church canonized the NT over the first four centuries, and which Church fought heresies on all fronts, defining the core of the faith in the creeds. This church is the clear heir of the Apostolic church (there is no other serious historic contender). And this church accepted as true that there is postmortem forgiveness of sin, which is temporary, which entails some element of deprivation, and for which prayers, the Eucharist and deeds of charity aid in the liberation of the soul ("indulgences" by the Latin name).
I find that to be a good authority. If I can trust (as I do, and you do implicitly) they correctly recognixed the Scriptural books, I can for the same reasons accept they preserved correctly the basics of this afterlife notion.
thus it calls them saved who do obey.
Right. And there are constant exhortations to believers to obey; obedience is not an automatic thing following faith. Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. "He who perseveres till the end will be saved" is how Scripture phrases it. Not "he who believes is saved and thus will persevere till the end."
As do all sorts of nonsense and other myths. That was the point I was making.
And the more fanciful examples from the Talmud you gave were not such that were carried forward, if ever they had acceptance in the Apostolic years. It's a wheat and chaff sort of thing which the Spirit guides.
Oh, rather quotes as "The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional,"
There is a difference in view on the primacy of the Roman see, though agreement on the basic hierarchy of bishop. presbyter (priest), and deacon. And agreement on a conciliar model of church government (which is entirely Biblical -- see Acts 15). There is agreement on the Eucharistic sacrifice, a corporeal Real Presence, 7 sacraments, an intrinsic view of righteousness and rejection of a Reformation notion of sola fide. There agreement on a 3-fold authority of Scripture, Tradition, and Church. There is agreement on intercessory prayer, Mary's Perpetual Virginity. These and a host of other things.
You raise the Papacy as significant, but that goes to church polity. So tell me, which is the NT view on polity? Episcopal? Presbyterian? Congregational? I keep getting different answers from "Bible believers." And on what principle do you toss out a conciliar model of governance when that is explicitly illustrated in Scripture, while claiming to be following Scripture?
Or, that is to say, how do you purport to measure departure from "NT historic Christianity" when you don't know what that is?