You are avoiding the problem. You rejected my statement that "this myth is based upon a false premise of justification" (based on one's own level of holiness), by stating purgatory pertains to sanctification, yet In baptism one is justified due to his holy sanctified state, and thus is fit to enter Heaven. However, having lost that level of sanctification then he ends up in purgatory until he once again attains to the level of sanctification by which he was justified - though actually he must surpass his baptismal condition and finally attain a perfection of character - to be perfect as God is - which even Adam did not have, else he would not have sinned.
Thus it remains that purgatory is based upon the false premise of justification being originally attained by one's own holiness making him acceptable to God. For even if this sanctifying holiness was originally infused, the principle at work in both in Cath justification and purgatory is that one must actually become perfectly holy to be accepted by God and thus be with Him. In effect is it salvation by grace thru works, that by God';s grace i practically become perfect in character as God is.
Which is in stark contrast with than God regenerating and "purifying their hearts by faith," (Acts 15:9) which faith justifies the unGodly by being counted for righteousness (since Christ was accounted guilty, being made sin for us), so that they are always accepted in the Beloved, on Christ's account. (Rm. 3:25-5-1; Eph. 1:6) And thus, if they die in faith, will go to be with God at death or the Lord's return, which is what Scripture most plainly teaches. (LK. 23:39-43; Acts 7:59; Phil. 1:21-23; 2Cor. 5:8; 1Thes. 4:17)
And with holiness being an essential consequential fruit of faith, and the basis for one being judged to be a believer and fit for rewards, but not the means or basis by which he obtains justification and entrance into Heaven.
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.
Oh, the twisting indeed! It does NOT point to a certain level of holiness, as it does NOT say "the" holiness as if this was a certain supreme level (perfect as God) you read into Scripture, but instead it simply says to "follow peace with all, and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord," (Heb. 12:14) Thus the holiness is a general term, not a specific level of holiness.
Nor does it infer hope of a future purification for those who do not seek holiness. Either one has this fruit of faith or he is not of faith, such as fornicators and Essau whom it goes on to warn again being like.
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.
Regardless of what you see, i never said or inferred sanctification has already fully and finally been accomplished on account of "faith," as instead i affirmed "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," not something one practically attains at conversion.
And whether this [2 Corinthians 12:4] signifies a bodily ascension into Heaven or more akin to the vision of Isaiah (Is. 6) can be debated.
Debated?! Caught up to the third Heaven, to Paradise? So now not only must "absent" from the Lord mean encounter, but paradise means purgatory?
Though, interestingly, Isaiah experienced a bit of purgation:...Purifying fire? There you have it.
Certainly it can mean that, yet besides being only a vision, it occurred to Isaiah in this life, and was over in a moment. But while you must now describe being with the Lord as being in purgatory for potentially thousands of years in purifying torment , the only "with the Lord" fire the saints will face in Scripture is that of the judgement seat of Christ, which awaits His return.
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.
Once again resorting to sarcasm for want of refutation. Wherever the Bible clearly speaks of the next place for believers after this life then it is with the Lord, while Rome has almost all believers going to purgatory, for which she must attempt to extrapolate it out of a few interpretive texts which do not state this, and has even a criminal attaining perfection of character thru a few hours on the cross.
And come clean here (pun intended). Is sanctification in your view personal and intrinsic? Or imputed?
Imputed to those whose hearts are purified by faith. Was Christ actually a sinner, or were our sins placed upon Him in imputed guilt? Therefore the repeated call to believers is to live out what they are in Christ, with the resurrection doing away with this vile body with its affections.
For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: 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 3:20-21)
Which motivates one to seek to be as much like Christ as they can be now (i do want what purgatory promises), but . But not as attaining this in order that they may be with Christ.
(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.")
Which is what we uphold takes place in conversion, yet this does not constitute perfection of character, which takes testings and temptations, and which the Scripture only clearly shows taking place in this life. And the ambiguous Scriptures must conform to to and be understood by the clear ones.
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."
Rather, here the problem is that RCs cannot only see what their Roman mind meld allows them. I have said before that it is that "chastisement [and experience] in this world, with its temptations and trials, is where moral growth in character takes place," like as with Job. And evangelicals have much much teaching on practical growth in holiness, with many groups named for their devotion to this.
I don't have to assume they were all yet perfectly sanctified, since Paul indicates otherwise (2 Cor. 7:1).
You do indeed, as the apostle teaches that all believers are going to be with the Lord at His return, and which they expected in their own imperfect lifetimes. And adding i adding error to error, you take a call to perfection of holiness and read into that a requirement for being in Heaven, in order to negate all believers going to be in Heaven.
Nor do I have to assume that "being with the lord" somehow precludes an element of final purification. So your second objection is means you have to come up with a texts which shows a element of final purification in the presence of the Lord, which is what i provided, (1Co. 3:8ff) and which disallows it from being purgatory!
Here, you're still stuck on the same "absent from the body" fallacy you suffered from earlier.
"Fallacy?" Rather it was your example that was manifest to be in error, with your false analogy! It being better to be "absent from the body and be present with the Lord" denote one event meaning another, and does not infer choosing to suffer purifying torments for perhaps thousands of years. It is incongruous in the light of Scripture that such a events like this would even be left out of such a statements.
So, in your view, it's "let us cleanse ourselves of every defilement in body and spirit and make holiness perfect, [(2 Cor. 7:1] but if we don't, there's really no consequence at all".
Wrong, as you are reading into my response what i did not say, and not what i did say, which for one is that one will suffer "loss of rewards, (1Cor. 3:15) and thus also (implicitly) the grievous disapproval of the Lord." For realizing the Lord's "Well done" is to be the motivation of a believer, versus being ashamed. And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. (1 John 2:28,29)
Thus Paul, after expressing "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) does not presenting hope of a future purification, but speaks of the next event, that of the judgment seat of Christ, and finding the Lord's complete approval then.
Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him, and fearing His displeasure with their fruit. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Corinthians 5:9,10)
The word for accepted, "euarestos" means "fully agreeable," "wellpleasing" in Phi_4:18, Heb_13:21 and "acceptable in Rom_12:1-2 (2), Rom_14:18, Eph_5:10. " And the apostles next adds, "Knowing therefore the terror [phobos=fear] of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences." (2 Corinthians 5:11)
Thus the only postmortem suffering is that of the judgment seat of Christ at His return, and which should be the focus. And which is only for the saved, and which suffering is the loss of rewards by corrupt fruit being burned up and thus the Lord's grievous displeasure, but which consumption is not a means of their sanctification in iorder to see God, but they are saved despite this loss.
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.
Of course, the invisible major event interval who place btwn "absent" and "present" is what is fallacious.
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),
Regardless, the principle is the same. If one needs to "be perfect even as your Heavenly Father is perfect" to see/be with God in paradise, then then OT believers as the contrite criminal here must have a postmortem purification, or else such perfection of character can be achieved by just suffering on a cross, which is a means of atonement, not moral perfection.
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.
"Most certainly" means "most certainly' RCs must read that into the text as a reality to convince themselves as the text most certainly does not state or infer that, and the only revelation we have of the postmortem condition of OT believers is that of rest and being comforted. not tormented - now he is comforted, and thou art tormented." (Luke 16:25)
Moreover, the souls the Lord preached to are said to be those who were "disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah," (1Pt. 3:20) which would be that of preaching judgment to them, that by rejecting Noah then they rejected Him. Likewise does every unbeliever who rejects the light given them, which if obeyed would lead them to Christ.
It being"not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (Hebrews 10:4) then "the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing," (Hebrews 9:8) and thus believers when to paradise, Abraham's Bosom. (Lk. 16:23) But at the moment of the Lord's death when Christ made complete atonement for sin, crying "It is finished," (Jn. 19:30) then that veil which stood before the holiest of all "was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent," (Matthew 27:51) and thus many OT believers "even came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." (Matthew 27:53) For while the Lord preached judgment to the lost, He set those in Abraham's bosom free, and poured out the Spirit (Jn. 7:39; 15:26; 16:7) and gave gifts to men from the Father, from whom every good and perfect gift comes. (Ja. 1:17)
Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? (Ephesians 4:8-9)
Abraham's Bosom being emptied, paradise is now the third Heaven, (2Cor. 12:4) not purgatory, and thus the contrite criminal, the "good thief" (Scripture does not actually say he was a thief) went with the Lord to Abraham's Bosom, which is not even inferred to be a place of fiery purgation, and then to Heaven.
Well, at last we get to your ultimate fall-back assumption -- that a thing would have been clearly stated in writing....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.
That is your fundamental error, as first of all you are attempting to support this tradition from Scripture, which provides clear revelation of Heaven and Hell, and of souls going to one or the other, while a place and experience most every believer must endure is must be argued as "deducible from Scriptural principles," yet even this fails to establish it and contradicts what is clearly stated about the next event for believers after this life.
And in reality, the claim to "hold fast to the teachings" handed down from the Apostles via amorphous oral tradition, includes the novel premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility, which means Rome can make a binding doctrine out of something that is not in Scripture, and leads to what is contrary to what is (saints are only crowned at the Lord's return), and is lacking in evidential early historical support . But under her premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility, Rome can potentially claim to "remember" whatever she wants. And which is the rest basis for the veracity of RC doctrine.
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Thus,
“the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
Purgatory is implicit, or deducible, from Scriptural principles, much as the Trinity
But the latter rests upon clear statements of the deity of each person ("the Word was God," "my Lord and my God" "the Spirit of the Lord hath made me," "the Lord is that Spirit" etc.) and of them possessing attributes of personality and uniquely Divine attributes, titles and glory (which i have shown - by God's grace - for Christ in particular). And of God referring to Himself in the plural, all which define "one" and in complimentary totality of necessity reveal God as a trinity of 3 persons of one being and nature.
The challenge of the Trinity doctrine is really not that is lacks explicit statements of Deity and of uniquely Divine attributes for more than one person, but of reconciling this to "one God," but it is shown that one can mean a composite unity.
In contrast to Heaven and Hell, as well as the Trinity, purgatory has no clear statements such that another place exists which the majority (lets be realistic) of believers go to, but is first based upon the premise that perfection of character is essential to be with God in Heaven. But which is contrary to clear statements that the next stop for all NT believers after this life in to be with the Lord, and which is set forth as the permanent state. While the only revelation we have for the postmortem status of OT believers before the resurrection was that id that of rest and comfort.
And it is contrary to the fact that all believers now are washed, sanctified and justified, and accepted in the Beloved, and made to sit together with Christ in heaven, from where they await full conformity with Christ at His coming, and with the only suffering being that of bad fruit being consumed and thus the Lord's displeasure and loss of rewards at the judgment seat of Christ at His return. (1Cor. 3:8ff) Secondarily purgatory is based upon statements of chastisement which are ambiguous as to where this takes place, and do not speak of attaining perfection of character but of punishment, while in Scripture the only manifest realization of these descriptions is in this life, or the judgment seat of Christ or in Hell. Thus none demand Cath purgatory.
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.
There is no contradiction, for Adam was holy as in undefiled, as innocent, and without a sin nature, and thus was justified by his holiness. Yet while being a perfect creation, meaning undefiled and able to make moral chooses, he did not have perfection of character s God does. And angels which choose not to follow Lucifer did better than him.
[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.
Rather, consistent with your inability to see what refutes Rome while seeing what is not there in order to justify your source of security, Heb. 12:14 does not say "the holiness" as if referring to a certain supreme level of holiness, while here i did not argue 2Cor. 7:1 was not talking about any type of perfection, but of perfecting holiness as a requirement to be be saved, or saved in the full sense. Which this does not say, but which RCs insist upon reading into most every exhortation to holiness.
Instead, imperfect Paul has already told these believers (if they were believers) of their going to be with the Lord at His coming, at the last trump, even if it happened in their lifetime, (1Co. 15:51,52; cf. 1Ths. 4:17) and of his willingness "to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord," with the only event after being absent being that of the judgment seat of Christ. You must insist upon making this mean being with the Lord in purgatory, and which major event Paul forgot to include of thought was superflous to mention!
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.
There is no bootlegging, for in reality since Cath justification is based upon having a certain level of actual perfect holiness, then so in the end they must again attain it. While in Scripture to be justified is to be accepted in the Beloved and seated with Christ, and looking for His return and being glorified and made as totally like Him as we can be, (1Jn,. 3:2) while the only other camp is in the lake of fire, in Catholicism one can be justified but not fit for Heaven or Hell, as one is not good enough for the former and not bad enough (mortal sin) for the latter and thus a third state must be invented.
I've already addressed your "absent from the body" verse. I guess it makes you feel good to restate the same point.
Since your address is a dead end then it remains a refutation.
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."
It is not mystery was a RC may not see this due to their blinders, but it is clearly stated that when the Lord returns then believers shall "ever be with the Lord," (1Thes. 4:17) but which your must read as some being be with the Lord in purgatory, even though this is an eternal position, and it is incongruous the apostle would leave out potentially eons of years in suffering for the majority. But RCs can see what they need to for Rome.
I hadn't brought up 1 Cor. 3:15
Yet that is a fairly standard "proof text" and supposedly yet absurdly a clincher in the dispute with the Orthodox (another example of the poor light of such).
So can v. 15 "saved as through fire" be applied in a secondary sense to the individual believer?
Indeed, Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour." "If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.." (1 Corinthians 3:8,14)
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:
What? I nowhere say it was not a purifying fire as in burning up corrupt combustibles, but actually affirmed this. And which is indeed a consistent metaphor throughout the Scriptures. But what you somehow do not see is that the undesirable combustibles burned up her are the works one used in trying to build the church with (directly or indirectly i would surmise).
And which is not a means of attaining perfection of character, but of testing fruit with the consequential loss or gaining of rewards (i think all will realize at least some rewards).
Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 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. (1 Corinthians 3:12-13)
The overall context of chapters 3-5 is what manner of men the Corinthians were following and building His church with, and the Corinthians were, like as Rome promotes, thinking of instruments of God “above what it written” (1Cor. 4:6, and “written” almost always refers to Scripture), and also counting manifestly gross sinners as members, which Paul proceeds to chasten them for. (1Cor. 5) Seeing as the fire of 1 Cor. 3 would exclude such, so were they to exclude such now. (1Cor. 5:11-13)
The fire burns up the fake stones, which like the tares of Mt. 13:40 at the end, are represented here as wood, hay or stubble, while the precious stones with fire-tried faith (1Pt. 1:7) endure, and gain rewards for the instruments of their faithfulness. Thus Paul says to the Thessalonians, "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming? " (1 Thess. 2:19; cf. Rv. 3:11) And to the Corinthians, “we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 2Cor. 1:14) And to the Philippians, that being “my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.” (Phil. 4:1)
And which texts and others also reveal that the judgment of believers which 1 Cor. 3 describes only takes place at His return, (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) versus purgatory, which has souls suffering upon death. This fact alone disallows 1 Cor. 3 from referring to purgatory.
Those who lack characteristic practical holiness in the obedience of faith, which (like David) includes repentance when convicted of sin, (1Jn. 1:7-9) but who assent to a different gospel (such as based upon morally earning it: Gal. 5:1-4) or who deny the faith (1Tim. 5:8) by knowingly continuing impenitently in sin, departing from the living God, (Heb. 3:6,12,14; 10:25-39) evidence they have rejected true faith (or never had it) and will be lost if they die in that state, and not go to purgatory.
"Meriting one's way into Heaven" is Pelagianism, which the Catholic Church has expressly condemned.
Then if you think teaches being one being saved by faith, not on the basis of the merit of works, (Eph. 2:8,9) but judged to be a true believer (Heb. 6:9) and fit to be rewarded for works, (Mt. 25:31-40; Rv. 3:4) versus having "truly merited eternal life" as Trent states, and that the good works that one performs by the grace of God merits the attainment of eternal life itself, with "merit” meaning recompense which is owed, then whatever distinction is missed by the masses.
So you take the bad paraphrase you make of the Scripture and paraphrase my example accordingly. Brilliant.
Rather, that is more recourse to sarcasm faced with a losing argument on your part, as the second was not a paraphrase (saying the same thing with different words), but a rendition that showed what consistency with the text would warrant, while the first was an accurate summation, that Paul "yet expressed that he would be with the Lord, not purgatory, if he left and became absent from the body," as he provides two contrasting either/or mutually exclusive possibilities, not even inferring a major event which most all will experience according to your doctrine.
And which follows from the mutually exclusive scenario of 2Co 5:6: "Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord."
While you would also read into this a third alternative by analogy if needed to defend Rome, instead the more you defend your denial of what Scripture most clearly says then the more your sophistry is revealed. Brilliant.
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
No, it i not misplaced, as instead purgatory is mis-placed if it did exist, as the only place of suffering after this life is with the Lord at the judgment seat of Christ, as heretofore described, at His return, not an ongoing perfection of character commencing at death.
Paul explicitly states that God will render (reward) eternal life in accordance with works (Rom. 2:6-7)
Which i have affirmed, and which does not all militate against what i said. 'By their fruit ye shall know them," as God does.
. 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).
No more than a Mormon can read more straightforwardly read Scripture as showing God having many human body appendages as an exalted man. Until they get to the feathers by which logic He would be a bird).
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
Which incredibly is the best you have, an autocratic church under which tradition, Scripture and history only means what she says in any dispute, and which cannot be allowed to contradict her. Brilliant.
(this can be Scripturally demonstrated),
No, it cannot be, as the claim is not simply historical continuity, at whatever cost, and which can be debated, but that of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility (EPMI), under which the evidence means what she says. For which the argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16, etc.)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.
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.
Do you really understand want to know where this logic leads to?
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.
But which is determined by a self-proclaimed autocratic entity which can presume to call things that were not of God as if they were. As thru "spirit guides" indeed.
Besides others , the Holy Spirit provides over 200 hundred prayers by believers in Scripture, but absolutely zero are addressed to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, with the only offerings and supplications being any else is by pagans such as to the only Queen of Heaven" in Scripture.
Nor are any created beings shown able to hear and respond to so many prayers addressed to them (elders and angels offering prayers as a memorial at the end do not constitute that) , or of any conversation btwn created beings that did not require them to both be in the same realm.
Yet this is a most basic practice we are to believe was part of the common life of believers, and all else failing as it does, support is extrapolated out of human relationship, but which ignores the separation of realms in which only God is shown being addressed in prayer to Heaven and and able to hear multitudinous prayers to Heaven.
There is a difference in view on the primacy of the Roman see,
Typical understatement. Rejecting ensured papal infallibility is no small difference, and in Rome the authority of the bishops themselves flows from that.
You raise the Papacy as significant, but that goes to church polity.
The papacy is significant as purporting that the NT church looked to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme in Rome as their exalted head, which is invisible in the NT. You Joseph Smith's googles to see it.
Also presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) denote the same office, (Titus 1:5-7) though one may have oversight over more than one church. You can disagree on the exact model of church government, which should actually work toward a central magisterium of manifest male presbuteros of God and spiritual power, as in Scripture it was not by institutionalized forms but the manifest moving of and empowerment by God the leadership was established by. And not as in the Romanized system, whose pseudoPetrine successors lack both the requirements and credentials of apostles. (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12)
What exact model befita this should be another thread as it warrants extended definitions and examination.
Or, that is to say, how do you purport to measure departure from "NT historic Christianity" when you don't know what that is?
That is absurd, as this refers to a number of manifest main and plain things which Rome in particular stands in stark contrast to, while it is RCs who evidence they do not know or do not care what Scripture says to the contrary, as what Rome says is the supreme law, as it must be for you. This the primary issue is the premise of her ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
Enough said.
You are avoiding the problem. You rejected my statement that "this myth is based upon a false premise of justification" (based on one's own level of holiness), by stating purgatory pertains to sanctification, yet In baptism one is justified due to his holy sanctified state, and thus is fit to enter Heaven. However, having lost that level of sanctification then he ends up in purgatory until he once again attains to the level of sanctification by which he was justified - though actually he must surpass his baptismal condition and finally attain a perfection of character - to be perfect as God is - which even Adam did not have, else he would not have sinned.
This is the third iteration on this point, and I'm not sure still where the objection or question lays.
Purgatory (as Latin Catholics describe it) is premised off our views on the nature of justification and sanctification (i.e, infused, inherent righteousness and holiness). So I'm not sure if it's a) you're simply objecting to that Catholic view (in which case the discussion first needs to focus on the nature of justification) or b) you're saying that Purgatory is somehow inconsistent with this fundamental Catholic view on justification/sanctification (in which case you need to do a better job of explaining that, as clearly I see no such inconsistency).
Thus it remains that purgatory is based upon the false premise of justification being originally attained by one's own holiness making him acceptable to God. For even if this sanctifying holiness was originally infused, the principle at work in both in Cath justification and purgatory is that one must actually become perfectly holy to be accepted by God and thus be with Him.
Case in point: the first sentence here sounds like you're making point "a)" above; the second sentence makes it sound like you're making point "b)".
Yes, the Catholic view on "sanctifying grace" posits that justification is not merely some external, imputed/forensic act, but a true transformation. The baptized believer is a "new creation," not just the old creation viewed with a different attitude by God. That being the case, then ongoing sin affects that state of holiness, and the possible need for a "final sanctification" comes into play.
As to the second sentence, we believe that true union with God and joining in His Divine nature in His Kingdom entails the very type of moral perfection that "you must be perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect" and "make holiness perfect" and "sanctification without which no one will see the Lord" indicate. You don't think that level of perfection is necessary. OK. But I maintain that Catholic theory here is internally consistent.
Me: And come clean here (pun intended). Is sanctification in your view personal and intrinsic? Or imputed?
You: Imputed to those whose hearts are purified by faith.
If you take the view that we don't need to be intrinsically holy, then the discussion on Purgatory simply is one of talking about differing premises.
Was Christ actually a sinner, or were our sins placed upon Him in imputed guilt?
They were imparted. But making this comparison actually validates the Catholic view. Jesus Christ, by His Divine nature, could not actually become a sinner. Sin in any sense and His Divine nature cannot co-exist.
But so, too, for us to become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4) and join in perfect unity with the Divine in heaven, our souls need to be objectively holy.
Me: 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."
You: Rather, here the problem is that RCs cannot only see what their Roman mind meld allows them. I have said before that it is that "chastisement [and experience] in this world, with its temptations and trials, is where moral growth in character takes place," like as with Job.
You're proving my point. Earlier, when I asked directly, you said sanctification is "imputed" (in contrast to personal and intrinsic). Now, you're talking in vague terms about "growth in character." Does that pertain to personal holiness? What about ongoing sin? Does that affect holiness?
Others I may talk to speak of "progressive sanctification" in terms of actual, personal holiness. Here's an example pulled somewhat at random:
Progressive sanctification is a daily dealing with our sins and growth in holiness. This progressive sanctification will culminate in perfect sanctification when we see Jesus and become eternally like Him. Growth in holiness should follow conversion (Eph. 1:4; Phil. 3:12). * * * * This process of sanctification never ends during this earthly life. It will be consummated in glorification when the believer through the death and resurrection or at the Rapture stands in the presence of the Lord God conformed to the likeness of Jesus. Source
The amusing thing is I can get some to the point of agreeing that sanctification isn't necessarily complete while we remain in the body, but who will then strenuously assert "there is no Purgatory!!!" I submit it would be perfectly acceptable for Catholic to conceive of that "final sanctification," that final transformative event, to occur when we standing in the presence of the Almightty (as awe-striking, terrifying, uncomfortable, shameful, amazing, etc., as that moment may be). Judgment depictions (e.g., Matt. 25) have that encounter before God occurring before He says "enter into the inheritance awaiting you." Purgatory as the "ante-room" of Heaven is a perfectly fine understanding. Now, in the Catholic view, that General Judgment at the End of Days is preceded by the Particular Judgment which awaits us individually (e.g., Heb. 9:27). The first encounter could be a bit more rigorous experience.
That is your fundamental error, as first of all you are attempting to support this tradition from Scripture, which provides clear revelation of Heaven and Hell, and of souls going to one or the other, while a place and experience most every believer must endure is must be argued as "deducible from Scriptural principles,"
Heaven and hell being the permanent states, they are brought forth more explicitly. I have no problem with deducting the principle of a final purification, given that even more vital concepts (like the Trinity) are not elucidated explicitly but must be deduced. Yes, there is more to draw upon for the Trinity (but it's also a more vital doctrine). And, as I'm sure you've heard stated, Scripture itself scarcely hints of a "new testament" to come.
The Tradition that proves a 27 book NT is to me the same Tradition that proves acceptance of a postmortem state of temporarl atonement and purification.
Secondarily purgatory is based upon statements of chastisement which are ambiguous as to where this takes place, and do not speak of attaining perfection of character but of punishment,
But the point is the idea of chastisement or deprivation leading to perfection of character and holiness is a a very Scriptural principle. For example:
8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Heb 12:8-12
Purgatory isn't necessarily a "place," and certainly not in the earthly sense of a dimensional space. It's a state a purification. Nor is there necessarily a "time" element. It's a state of existence, ontological and experiential, not temporal in the earthly sense.
which means Rome can make a binding doctrine out of something that is not in Scripture, and leads to what is contrary to what is (saints are only crowned at the Lord's return), and is lacking in evidential early historical support
The Second Epistle of Peter lacks early evidential historical support. There's no truly clear evidence of it being cited until the 4th century. Notwithstanding, after a slight period of stated uncertainty, we observe wide acceptance from the latter part of the 4th century onward.
The Assumption of Mary ("Dormition of Mary" in the East) first is noted in the written records about the 6th century. But after that we can observe wide acceptance both East and West, celebrated liturgically by the 7th century.
With both of these examples, the absence of written record prior to the stated date is just that: silence. But the ensuing acceptance without much controversy indicates that there was already knowledge and acceptance before such appears in the extant written records.
i think all will realize at least some rewards
The "reward" is "eternal life" (Rom. 2:6-7; Matt. 25:31ff).
versus having "truly merited eternal life" as Trent states, and that the good works that one performs by the grace of God merits the attainment of eternal life itself, with "merit” meaning recompense which is owed,
Recompense which is "promised" is how I've understood it.
then whatever distinction is missed by the masses.
A good number of the masses, if asked, would likely confuse the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. And I can't begin to count how many wild and crazy things I've been treated to in discussions with "sola scripturists" through the years. I'm not sure what your point is. Trent (and the Catechism) explicate the issue correctly. That some may not understand every detail may be a pastoral failure or simply a failure of diligence on the part of the individual. "Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with God" is a good shorthand for the Catholic teaching I've heard throughout my lifetime. Accurate enough.
expressed that he would be
Correction, that "he would rather be." You and so many like you leave that word out. The text as written doesn't necessarily imply the immediacy you keep impressing onto it.
Which incredibly is the best you have, an autocratic church under which tradition, Scripture and history only means what she says in any dispute, and which cannot be allowed to contradict her.
Scripture says of the church it is the "pillar and foundation of truth." Jesus says He "will send the Spirit to lead into all truth." Paul speaks of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." So viewed historically it's a proof problem. Where is that church found in each age that is the authentic heir of the Apostolic church? I think I know the answer. The choice is a narrow one, I must grant much to my Eastern brethren, but I still come back to Rome.
And your alternative throughout all of this? To treat me to your exalted expertise on Scripture. As you say "Brilliant."
Do you really understand want to know where this logic leads to?
Try me.
But which is determined by a self-proclaimed autocratic entity which can presume to call things that were not of God as if they were
A true church has authority, one which I am commanded to obey:
17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. Heb. 13:17
Here's a question I've asked many, many times of "Bible believers." And as many times as I've asked, I've yet to get an answer. Who are my leaders? (This clearly isn't talking about secular leaders, as these are said to "keep watch over my soul.") If I have leaders teaching me one thing, and you (or someone else) instructing another way, who am I supposed to obey and grant authority?
Besides others ,
That's quite an amalgam of stuff. More Jason Engwer selective quotes, oh, boy.
The thing I notice about this is that on the early part on supposed doctrinal deviations, there's very little historical commentary; then when it moves on to the papacy suddenly the Orthodox historians and others are called in.
Well, this has taken far more of my day than I wished.