Posted on 08/12/2007 7:03:32 AM PDT by Ottofire
Seems I indirectly started a series on the Scriptures (and assumed “Scripture” verses) which are alleged to support purgatory. I think I will stay on this subject for awhile. I figure that if a refutation of the doctrine is to be made, it starts with the Scriptures Catholics claim imply a purgatory. With this in mind we go to 2 Timothy 1:16-19 which reads:
May the Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me, and he was not ashamed of my chain, but having come to Rome, he more diligently sought and found me. May the Lord give to him to find mercy from the Lord in that Day. And in what things he served in Ephesus, you know very well.
The argument usually goes like this:
From the context, it seems certain that Onesiphorus is dead (This is also the opinion of the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible; vol 3; p 603). Paul praises his Christian friend, Onesiphorus, for his good work, but notice Paul does not presume immediate entrance into heaven for his dear friend (Even if Onesiphorus is not dead, Paul still asks the Lord to be merciful). Why be merciful, if all Christians go straight to heaven? We either have Paul praying for a dead person, or we have him interceding for him for mercy on his judgment day. In either case, purgatory alone can explain such thoughts of Paul. If there is no purgatory, then Christians go straight to heaven, which is the popular Protestant belief. If this is so, then Paul's remarks are totally off base; it would be meaningless to ask mercy for Onesiphorus. Purgatory alone makes the passage coherent (see here Purgatory).
Onesiphorus was very faithful. In spite of Paul’s situation (remember Paul was chained to a soldier), he not only sought him out, but did so diligently. Paul was very thankful for his faithful disciple and bestowed his blessing upon him and his family. The context of the passage doesn’t really reveal if Onesiphorus is alive or dead. Paul could have easily stated the same if Onesiphorus was away or jailed; thus he bestows these blessing upon his family residing in Ephesus. The Roman Catholic priest who wrote this allows for the possibility that Onesiphorus is alive, which is a rarity considering many do not waver and claim he is dead. Yet, Catholic tradition state that Onesiphorus died in 81 A.D. (see here: St. Onesiphorus) and considering that these sources place Paul’s death at around 67 A.D. (see here: St. Paul) this would place Onesiphorus’ death some 14 years AFTER Paul. For those who insist that Onesiphorus is dead in the passage, this would be a case where a Catholic tradition contradicts Catholic apologetics.
Yet, the writer assumes that a purgatory is implied even if Onesiphorus is alive and he bases this on Paul’s prayer for mercy on “that Day.” This is a leap in logic considering that God can grant mercy at the general Judgment without the need for a purgatory. This would entail reading purgatory into the verse. There is no reason to jump this far considering that the fact that God allows us into heaven is based on His mercy. But why did Paul specifically pray for mercy upon Onesiphorus, especially if there was no reason to? It can be gathered from the context of the verse that Paul was merely being reciprocal to the house of Onesiphorus. In other words, he prays for mercy upon Onesiphorus because Onesiphorus had mercy on him with his visits. There is no need to inflict purgatory into the verses when there is nothing which lends to it.
In closing, I must mention that, according to Rome, the majority of us will endure purgatory. Only the saints and those who die in martyrdom will bypass it. Scripture evidently speaks of a heaven and a hell, but for purgatory, where the majority will go, it’s odd that the writers can only muster “implications.” That's quite an oversight. Indeed, it is odd that one could only muster implications considering its importance in the afterlife. Asides from its absence in Scripture, we realize that for almost two centuries there was nothing which even remotely resembled afterlife purgatorial thought, Origen and Clement of Alexandria being the first to indulge a concept of it with its fruition coming in the 12th century.
Posted by Churchmouse at 8:05 PM 4 comments
I think Paul was just bestowing gratitude to a generous host, using his typically-inspired prose and courtesy.
I don’t know enough about RCC theology to even wade into that battle.
Bless you a thousand times! I scarcely know enough to try to defend it, but it is very nice to read when a brother says he’d like to find out what’s wrong with it before he attacks it.
Why thank you. May He bless and keep you and yours.
I noticed a reference to the “Apocryphal” book of Maccabees (I think there are two books). I have an Oxford Bible, but have only read the Daniel-era non-canonized books. Great literature, Divine or not.
For just reading purposes, I love Tobit.
Would love to scout out Judith. Tough read.
If you have a couple bucks laying around, try the “Gnostic Gospels” - Thomas, Mary, etc.
Um...what were you reading?
I am not a supporter of the apostate Roman Church, thanks. And my good works will only be judged after all the dust is settled in glory, and has nothing to do with my salvation. My good works are all that will be left after the fire, not a sign that I must be purged from the residue of sin, something which I cannot find in the bible at all...
I am not a supporter of the apostate Roman Church, thanks.
Cool! Me neither! I'm a Catholic.
There. Fixed it!
;-)
I read a lot of that gnostic stuff back in seminary days. Its primary effect on me was to lead me to praise the Holy Spirit in His guidance of the Church as she decided what books to canonize. They're fun. I'm partial to the acts of Pilate, but when compared to the real deal ....
Where do you make the leap of logic to infer that Onesiphorus was dead? Sounds like Paul was just praying for the Lord’s blessing over his family, since he was a good friend. Then to extrapolate a Purgatory doctrine? oh brother.
They died under the Abrahamic covenant. When Christ died, He descended to the grave (Sheol) and led captivity captive, freeing them. This is not a big mystery.
Not sure what you are talking about in your post all Im saying is you have to quit caring what some organisation brings from out of the depths of their own doctrine, and you must look to SCRIPTURE and SCRIPTURE only!!!!!! There is no purgatory or second chance!!!!!! Absolutly nowhere is that teaching in scripture!!!! but what is, is Christ said that those who do not believe who I say I am you shall surely DIE IN YOUR SINS!!!!!! better not forget that one!!!!! He also said after death was the JUDGEMENT, NOT a second chance not purgatory (which was made up by church dogma) SCRIPTURE and SCRIPTURE ONLY!!!!!!
They sleep in the grave (sheol) awaiting resurrection:
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1Co 15:51 Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 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.
Mary is no one to be recognised but only for the fact that she was chosen as the one to give birth to Christ our savior, she was NOT sinless, nor was Rahab, nor was anyone in the line of Christ, Mary does not save you protect you nor does she endow gifts to you, she is to be honored but not looked to in any way shape or form for salvation, that kind of doctrine is purly made up by men!!!!!! Mary herself would tell you to quit crossing yourself and start weeping on your knees!!!!! Mary herself would tell you to quit saying all these hail Marys and realise it is Christ and Christ ALONE!!!!! YOU are NOT going to save yourself with rituals!!!!!! Believing in Christ is OBEYING CHRIST!!!!!!! THIS means forsake-—— FORNICATION-—ADULTERY-—— COVETOUSNESS——— GREED—— LUSTS OF ALL SORTS-—— SETTING BAD EXAMPLES -—— etc...etc..etc... Do you think you can do what you want and then say a few hail marys and cross oneself and then think you are all good!!!!! Salvation is of no PRIVATE interpretation!!!! Christ said those who LOVE me and Those who believe in me are those who KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS!!!!!!! Peace!!!!
well maybe Im wrong but I think some think of purgatory as a second chance place, where thay can do what they want here on earth but they think they are good enough to be saved and if there was some things they indulged in well purgatory will take care of it, you asee that is a round about way of thinking it as a second chance.
Second of all Im not here to bash Catholics, I believe many are honest and they are still on the overall side of Christ which makes them on ourside, we can be in eror in many things even us as protestants, but we should all take on the mentality that we must look to scripture and not traditions and mens doctrines, to draw nearer to our Lord Jesus Christ, we should be willing to work together as the one unity of all those who acknowledge Christ as the one and only savior and then work out the differences as brothers and sisters IN CHRIST!!!!! Remember when Christ said those who are not against us are for us!!!!! Never the less ottofire well said my Brother or Sister whichever you are in Christ!!!! Peace!!!!
Purgatory is not a “second chance.” The very name means a place of purgation. The person there is already “saved’. Another way of looking at it is as a place of reconciliation, where we meet God with full knowledge now of how we have offended him. We are the prodigal son. Think how he burned with shame as he approached the Father.
Whenever a Protestant insists that something is true "according to Rome," make it a point to say, "and your source is ... ???".
You'll usually discover that they're talking out of their hat.
I'm aware of no passage in the catechism, in Ott's Fundamentals, or in any other Catholic source I know of which asserts what this author claims to know "according to Rome".
The custom of prayer for the dead goes back to Jewish practice, long before Christ. Nothing "medieval" about it.
It was practiced by the early Christians.
It is practiced today by all Christians except Protestants.
Prayer for the dead presupposes that there is a state or condition in which our prayers can help them. That cannot be heaven (where they don't need our help), and it cannot be hell (where we can't help them).
That isn't what Catholics believe at all.
Only the saved go to purgatory.
There is no "second chance".
As a matter of fact, that is NOT all you are saying. What you actually wrote included:
... there is no second chance nonsense ...Now, the teaching about purgatory has nothing whatsoever to do with any idea of any kind that after death you get a second chance. So,
- If you are hijacking the thread, why?
- But if you are arguing against something we do not teach, with whom are you arguing? We agree there is no second chance.
So that's what I was saying. Instead of making an argument, you say some need to stop fooling themselves. Fine. Let's start with knowing what the doctrine we're condemning is. If you think you know what we teach when you don't who is fooling himself? If somebody comes up to me and tells me I'm fooling myself because I believe such-and-such when I do NOT believe such-and-such, what am I to think or to do? How can I proceed
When I look at Scripture I find: Who is this that darkens counsel with words without knowledge? - Isaiah 24
And allow me to suggest that exclamation points and capital letters do not make an effective substitute for thoughtful discussion or a smidgen of research and are not persuasive.
So when you go on to characterize the body of Christ as "some organization" and the guidance of the Holy Spirit as "brings out of the depth of their own doctrine", you've already made it seem like, well, like it's going to be hard to reach the point where was can actually converse. I see no interest in knowing what we think and consequently no ability to criticize it.
Kindly excuse the bluntness. You began the exchange by suggesting that those who believe something that you don't believe are fooling themselves. Maybe it's time for a do-over, huh?
Did you read the article? It was an argument AGAINST purgatory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.