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
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
I think this is a characterization which takes a while to grow on one. I know when I was at VTS I was much taken with the Pro-Luther/anti-Filthy Papist argument that the Rabbis at Jamnia had produced the real deal. The notion that Paul, many of the evangelists and even our Lord Himself seem to quote the LXX rather than the MT was something I learned here on FR.
But I mean to say I can see the power of sort of the echt, vrai,sho' 'nuff OT being what is presented as the "older" version, the Hebrew one. It fits with the Protestant sense that the real deal for Christianity was the early, early to the point of being beyond our historical reach as far as details are concerned, Church.
It interests me that I think all the major schools of the Buddhadharma assume that the teaching will grow corrupt and that sooner or later a new Buddha will have to come and help out the bodhisattvas in restoring the saddharma (or what I am technically calling 'the real deal'.) Similarly in Hinduism there are at least a few strands which maintain the Vishnu has to be incarnated every once in a while (a long while, to be sure) to restore things spiritually.
To believe that the Holy Spirit has continued to work with the extremely and obviously earthen vessels (in my view vessels fit in themselves only for the most unmentionable uses) in not only preserving but guiding the development and refinement of Christian teaching is to take a stand quite contrary to that of many if not most religious attitudes.
On the one hand, One of the things that makes me glad to be Catholic is that I have a sense of gift piled upon gift, wonder upon wonder, grace upon grace, shaken down, pressed together, running over. NOT only did He actually pitch His tents among us, but he STILL guides us. Not only was a girl of an insignificant part of a tributary, barely iron age, tribal people the Mother of God, but a bunch of corrupt Italians, and even Poles, Germans, and - gasp! - French (St. Catherine Laboure, forgive me and pray for me! It is such a wonderful comeuppance for me that one of my friends would turn out to be a French Peasant girl!) people can be astonishing witnesses to His love and teachers of His Gospel.
I think the Gospel is never, or rarely at any rate, what one expects, but always an astonishment, and always better than one would have dared to hope.
I am sorry that one apology was not enough. I will refrain communication with Mad Dawg.
SOME may indeed think of Purgatory as you describe it. But I'd bet a lot, if not most of those (as long as we're speculating about what "some may" do) are Protestants who use that misunderstanding as an excuse to disbelieve in Purgatory and to castigate those who do believe in quite a different doctrine.
My own guess would be that anybody who thinks he's "good enough to be saved" is in trouble.
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!!!!!
Barring my allergy to exclamation points, I'd agree. Since this is a verbal medium, I think the careful and mindful use of words and language matters a lot. You say "some need to quit fooling themselves," and I guess we'd all agree that self-deceit is harmful to everyone involved.
But, you know, arguments can be made from Scripture that not all traditions are "traditions of men", and not all teachings are "men's doctrines". Now you might not agree with those arguments, but there are reasonable and intelligent people of good and pious will who do agree with them.
To characterize such people as "fooling themselves" and then to address and denounce a doctrine of purgatory which is most definitely NOT that taught by the Church -- do you think that is "working together" or "working out the differences as brothers and sisters in Christ"? I would agree with you that those who are counting on a "second chance" after they die are in grave peril. Can we also agree that even the forgiven still have scars on their souls left by the self-inflicted damage of their sins?
I hear what you are saying BUT! Christ already paid the price, there is no self righteous purgation. You are to accept Christ fully by obeying His commands in life not by thinking the rest will be purged, if you are save already then what is a need for a purgation? makes absolutly no sense my friend, and is absolutly not scriptual. We are to cease from our everyday foolishness of lusts and receive Christs grace of forgiveness for those who take on His name. There is no need for purgatory. Christs blood purges all things, not feel good Im ok as long as I repeat rituals, now when does the bar open so I can pick up some ladies, and then Ill just go to confesion or say some hail marys and Ill be all good then later Ill be able to purge out the rest. You see it dont work like that. Peace!
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.