Sungenis Claims: "the Church did not receive any divine revelation on the nature of Purgatory"

Thoughts of Francis Turretine ^ | July 03, 2010 | Turretinfan

[RnMomof7]

Sungenis Claims: "the Church did not receive any divine revelation on the nature of Purgatory"

In a recent (2009) response to Dr. White, Robert Sungenis made some interesting admissions regarding the absence of knowledge of what Purgatory is in Roman Catholic theology:

Since the Church did not receive any divine revelation on the nature of Purgatory, and since the Church declined to make any official statements on its nature, it is only natural that people of different eras are going to come to different views of what precisely constitutes the Purgatorial experience.

... we have not settled on the nature of Purgatory ...

... the nature of Purgatory is an admitted area of unsettled knowledge in the Catholic Church ...

After we have already admitted that being in the 15% area of unsettled doctrine
the nature of Purgatory continues to be debated among “modern Roman Catholic advocates,” the truth is, it really doesn’t matter a whole lot. The fact is, Purgatory exists. It can be shown from Scripture, the Patristics, the medievals, and the Magisterium. Whether it is “days” or some other measurement is not really a make-or-break issue.

(Source: Sungenis' article oddly titled: James White, Alive but Still Struggling)

The underlying problem here, though, is that Sungenis has not fully identified the reason for the lack of common assent regarding the nature of Purgatory. While it is true that God has not revealed the nature of "Purgatory," the primary reason for the lack of common assent regarding the nature of Purgatory is that (a) Purgatory is a fiction and (b) Purgatory is a relatively new fiction. The medieval era in the West is where we really see the development of a view of Purgatory. There is no mention of any "Purgatory" in the fathers.

As Jacques Le Goff explains, "Until the end of the twelfth century the noun purgatorium did not exist: the Purgatory had not yet been born." (Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, p. 3 - see also, Appendix II: "Purgatorium," the History of a Word)(emphasize is Le Goff's) There may well have been vague concepts of purgation either upon death or at the day of judgment (or the like) but the idea of a third state or place given the name "Purgatory" was a long time in development from some vague comments about purging by Augustine in the 5th century (I'll leave the debate over those comments for another post).

But there is an interesting background against which Sungenis is making his claim. Benedict XV praised Dante Alighieri's work (The Divine Comedy: Inferno, Purgatorio, Paradisio) this way:

It is thus that, according to the Divine Revelation, in this poem shines out the majesty of God One and Three, the Redemption of the human race operated by the Word of God made Man, the supreme loving-kindness and charity of Mary, Virgin and Mother, Queen of Heaven, and lastly the glory on high of Angels, Saints and men; then the terrible contrast to this, the pains of the impious in Hell; then the middle world, so to speak, between Heaven and Hell, Purgatory, the Ladder of souls destined after expiation to supreme beatitude. It is indeed marvellous how he was able to weave into all three poems these three dogmas with truly wrought design.

- Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum, Section 4, 30 April 1921

Dante Alighieri lived from about 1265 to 1321. His work on the subject of the afterlife, including Purgatory, is one whose influence in the late medieval period, particularly in Italy, is hard to overstate. He is referred to both as the Supreme Poet of Italy and the Father of the Italian language.

His work makes clear that his view of Purgatory is that it is a place like Heaven or Hell in that it is a place having space and time. It is, for Dante, a Mountain that is to be climbed. We also see a similar view of Purgatory as a definite place in the works of Thomas Aquinas:

Article 2. Whether it is the same place where souls are cleansed, and the damned punished?

Objection 1. It would seem that it is not the same place where souls are cleansed and the damned punished. For the punishment of the damned is eternal, according to Matthew 25:46, "These shall go into everlasting punishment [Vulgate: 'fire']." But the fire of Purgatory is temporary, as the Master says (Sent. iv, D, 21). Therefore the former and the latter are not punished together in the same place: and consequently these places must needs be distinct.

Objection 2. The punishment of hell is called by various names, as in Psalm 10:7, "Fire and brimstone, and storms of winds," etc., whereas the punishment of Purgatory is called by one name only, namely fire. Therefore they are not punished with the same fire and in the same place.

Objection 3. Further, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii, 16): "It is probable that they are punished in the very places where they sinned." And Gregory relates (Dial. iv, 40) that Germanus, Bishop of Capua, found Paschasius being cleansed in the baths. Therefore they are not cleansed in the same place as hell, but in this world.

On the contrary, Gregory says [The quotation is from St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei i, 8)]: "Even as in the same fire gold glistens and straw smokes, so in the same fire the sinner burns and the elect is cleansed." Therefore the fire of Purgatory is the same as the fire of hell: and hence they are in the same place.

Further, the holy fathers; before the coming of Christ, were in a more worthy place than that wherein souls are now cleansed after death, since there was no pain of sense there. Yet that place was joined to hell, or the same as hell: otherwise Christ when descending into Limbo would not be said to have descended into hell. Therefore Purgatory is either close to, or the same place as, hell.

I answer that, Nothing is clearly stated in Scripture about the situation of Purgatory, nor is it possible to offer convincing arguments on this question. It is probable, however, and more in keeping with the statements of holy men and the revelations made to many, that there is a twofold place of Purgatory. One, according to the common law; and thus the place of Purgatory is situated below and in proximity to hell, so that it is the same fire which torments the damned in hell and cleanses the just in Purgatory; although the damned being lower in merit, are to be consigned to a lower place. Another place of Purgatory is according to dispensation: and thus sometimes, as we read, some are punished in various places, either that the living may learn, or that the dead may be succored, seeing that their punishment being made known to the living may be mitigated through the prayers of the Church.

Some say, however, that according to the common law the place of Purgatory is where man sins. This does not seem probable, since a man may be punished at the same time for sins committed in various places. And others say that according to the common law they are punished above us, because they are between us and God, as regards their state. But this is of no account, for they are not punished for being above us, but for that which is lowest in them, namely sin.

Reply to Objection 1. The fire of Purgatory is eternal in its substance, but temporary in its cleansing effect.

Reply to Objection 2. The punishment of hell is for the purpose of affliction, wherefore it is called by the names of things that are wont to afflict us here. But the chief purpose of the punishment of Purgatory is to cleanse us from the remains of sin; and consequently the pain of fire only is ascribed to Purgatory, because fire cleanses and consumes.

Reply to Objection 3. This argument considers the point of special dispensation and not that of the common law.

- Thomas Aquinas (as completed by Reginald of Piperno), Summa Theologica, Supplement to the Third Part, Appendix 2, Article 2 (Although Reginald is given credit for adding this material to the Summa Theologica, the material is essentially taken word for word from Thomas Aquinas' Commentary on [Peter Lombard's] Sentences, Book IV, Distinction 21, Article 1, with some omissions of the materials found there, but no obvious insertions that affect the meaning)

Notice that in this discussion, Thomas Aquinas (lived about 1225 - 1274) suggests that Purgatory occupies two places: one place is in or below Hell - the other is at various specific times in other places for particular purposes.

Notice as well that Thomas Aquinas concedes that Scripture does not tell us about the "situation" (that is, the place where it is sited - it's location) of Purgatory. Thus, he's not willing to be dogmatic about it. However, Thomas Aquinas does believe that there were "revelations made to many" about Purgatory.

The bottom line is that, as Le Goff said, the Purgatory is something born in the 12th century. It is something that took shape as a definite place in the writings of folks like Dante and Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Yet it is something that one today hears promoted as simply a state, not a place, from sources like EWTN (example) based on comments such as the following from John Paul II:

Purification must be complete, and indeed this is precisely what is meant by the Church's teaching on purgatory. The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence.

- John Paul II, General Audience, 4 August 1999, Section 5

So, while we certainly agree with Mr. Sungenis that Rome has not received divine revelation about the nature of Purgatory, we would simply take that a step further and note that the current teachings one gets from Rome (whether from the pope or anyone else) lack the authority of divine revelation generally. Scripture does not speak of a Purgatory, and there is no good reason for accepting the changing traditions of Rome on this subject. Waving ones hands and saying that the things that are not known are not important doesn't really address the issue behind the fact that Roman Catholics cannot even tell us with certainty whether Thomas Aquinas or John Paul II is right, when it comes to Purgatory.

-TurretinFan

N.B. As an aside, Mr. Sungenis makes reference to the idea that there is a "15% area of unsettled doctrine" in his religion. He made this number up out of thin air. He has no way of knowing how much additional doctrine his church will define this century or the next, and consequently he has no way of knowing whether the real number is 15% or 0.000001%. All he can really say is that his church makes more dogmatic statements than most other churches do.

[daniel1212]

Since Purgatory pertains to sanctification -- not justification -- I'll grant there's a false premise being interjected into the discussion.

Rather, the idea that one gains Heaven by attaining to a certain level of sanctification flows from the false premise of justification being based upon ones own holiness, as the newly baptized would be able to enter Heaven because he is justified by his sanctified state. In other words, holiness both justifies and gains one entrance into Heaven..

Of course, there is inconsistency here. For if being merely washed and rendered innocent is enough to gain one entrance into the presence of God, then purgatory would only be to atone for sins in order to be fully forgiven, but while instead they are also there to attain moral perfection, yet which being baptized does attain. Christ was not only innocent from sin, but was was perfect in character so that He never sinned despite being tempted in all points like as we are as men. Thanks be to God!

But that souls must attain moral perfection is what RCs teach.

Being such [called a saint] means of course they are called to moral perfection. But of course, not all have reached it in this world. - Fr. William G. Most, http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura1.htm

If we're not perfect saints by the time we die, Purgatory is how we become fully ready for Heaven. - http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/stevehemler/lifeslittlelearnings/28.asp

Again this is based upon the erroneous belief that it is holiness which justifies and gains one entrance into Heaven, rather than holiness being a necessary fruit of faith, but it is faith that justifies the unGodly, which also works to make him Godly.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (Romans 4:5-6)

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: (Hebrews 12:14)

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.

RCs can imagine that one can be justified yet not fit to enter Heaven, but that is simply not the plain teaching of Scripture. All the believers in the NT would go to be with the Lord at death or at His return, as wherever the NT clearly refers to a post-earth existence then it is with the Lord.

Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:6-8)

For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. (Philippians 1:23-24)

And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luke 23:42-43)

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: 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. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

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. (1 Corinthians 15:51-52)

"Nothing unclean shall enter." (Rev. 21:27). In our view, "snow covered dungheaps" don't enter heaven. Only souls which are inherently righteous and clean enter. If the necessary cleansing isn't effected while the soul remains attached to the body, then God is merciful and provides that "final sanctification" (Purgatory) so that the justified soul can enter.

Which pertains to your fundamental error, as indeed nothing unclean shall enter the Heavenly City, and under sola fide souls are washed, sanctified and justified (1Co. 6:11) in conversion, God "purifying their hearts by faith," (Acts 15:9) not leaving them "snow covered dungheaps" as per the parroted papist polemic (even attributing the quote to Luther).

However, conversion does not leave them morally perfect as purgatory requires, nor is it the was washing of sins that justified, or one's holiness, as Abraham had done good works before Gn. 15:6, but God counted his faith for righteousness, and it was not because he just became born again and was washed.

Other texts either refer to present chastisement . .

While this certainly encompasses earthly discipline, I see nothing in the text (or others like it) that indicate such is necessarily limited to our earthly sojourn.

Which is an argument silence, when what you need is a clear teaching of postmortem suffering outside of Hell, and your argument presumes the Holy Spirit cares not to provide any while clearly teaching that chastisement in this world, with its temptations and trials, is where moral growth in character takes place. Which is where even Christ was made perfect in overcoming all points of temptations.

and as justification is based one one's own holiness,

No, no, no, NO, NO!!! Strawman alert!! Justification is wrought by God's grace; we are justified by what God by his grace does through us.

No, no, no, NO, NO!!! There is not strawman at all unless you ignore what i wrote.

one is "formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace) Which is normally initially "infused" via regeneration effected by the act itself of sprinkling of water (ex opere operato),.. then..the RC (the EOs reject the purgatory of Rome) typically must endure postmortem "purifying torments" for an indeterminate time in purgatory until they atone for sins and once again become good enough to enter Heaven.

And regarding those who cooperated with this system, Trent concludes that, "nothing further is wanting to the justified [baptized and faithful], to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life." (Trent, Chapter XVI; The Sixth Session Decree on justification, 1547)

And every soul has nothing he has not originally received by grace, and unde under Roman soteriology "saved by grace" means that by the grace of God i atone for my sins and merit Heaven by becoming good enough. Which is akin to salvation under the law, requiring practical perfection to gain the reward, but with more grace to do so.

In 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.

I'll grant those verses are consonant with the idea of Purgatory, though not alone proving it.

Rather, they are more contrary to than consonant with the idea of Purgatory as this is a place for those of venial sins,and for which prayers are offered to gain them early release, while 2 Maccabees 12:43ff is about those slain as idolators (special pleading aside), so that they may realize the resurrection unto life.

But, that said, the idea of an after-life purification is Jewish in origin. For example:

Resorting to which is actually an argument against purgatory, as fables, tales, nonsense and false beliefs abound extraBiblical Jewish literature, esp. after the close of the Hebrew OT.

French historian Jacques Le Goff states,

“It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus - around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period - prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews.” — Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, p. 45, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Thus it was for good reason that Paul warned,

Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. (Titus 1:14)

Consider some of the many superstitions recorded in the Talmud:

If you do happen to drink an even number of cups of wine and so leave yourself a target for demons, there is a way to protect yourself: “He should take his right thumb in his left hand, and his left thumb in his right hand, and say as follows: ‘You, my thumbs, and I are three, which is not a pair.’ ” If a demon should overhear this and try to turn the tables by adding, “You and I are four”—which is an even number—then you can do him one better by saying, “You and I are five.” If the demon says six, you say seven, and so on indefinitely: On one occasion, the Gemara relates, “there was an incident in which someone kept counting after the demon until he reached a hundred and one, and the demon burst in anger.”

And there are other ways to defeat a demon. One man was tricked by his vengeful ex-wife into drinking an even number of cups of wine—after he drank 16 cups, he lost count, understandably enough—and so he was bewitched. He solved the problem by hugging a palm tree, whereupon the demon was transferred to the tree, which dried up and burst. (According to an alternative interpretation, however, it was the man himself who burst.) -http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/148936/daf-yomi-54 [Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 110a; http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Pesachim.pdf]

the EOs reject the purgatory of Rome

There are some differences of viewpoint, but the E.O. are in agreement with the essential notion of a temporary punishment for sin which is imposed in the afterlife.

In which narrative the Latin's "especial defence was founded on the words of the Apostle S. Paul (I Cor. iii. 11, 15)," which does not occur until the Lord's return! Either desperate or ignorant, i know not which.

Meanwhile, though the difference then infers a unified EO concept, they are less unified and precise in doctrine than Latins, which they criticize as being too technical in matters, and presently can make clear their denial of Rome's purgatory.

►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.

►Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church.. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

►The Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory (a place of purging), that is, the inter-mediate state after death in which the souls of the saved (those who have not received temporal punishment for their sins) are purified of all taint preparatory to entering into Heaven, where every soul is perfect and fit to see God.

Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in indulgences as remissions from purgatoral punishment. Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church, and when they were enforced and applied they brought about evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church. If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner, it is unknown to the Church of Christ. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

[CpnHook]

Rather, the idea that one gains Heaven by attaining to a certain level of sanctification flows from the false premise of justification being based upon ones own holiness,

Again, you're conflating sanctification and justification and erecting much the same strawman for which I chided you earlier.

"Pursue peace with all men and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord." Heb. 12:14.

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.

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.

as the newly baptized would be able to enter Heaven because he is justified by his sanctified state. In other words, holiness both justifies and gains one entrance into Heaven..

I'm feeling the need to back up to the beginning here. Adam was created in an original state of holiness and justice with God. Adam sinned. That original state was lost; hence, the expression "the fall from grace." As a result of Adam's fall, all humankind since (with one special exception - but that's for a different thread) was conceived and born lacking that state of grace.

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.

Of course, there is inconsistency here.

That inconsistency is simply a function of your misunderstanding the Catholic point of view.

Christ was not only innocent from sin, but was was perfect in character so that He never sinned despite being tempted in all points like as we are as men. Thanks be to God!
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.

"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." Purgatory is simply the answer to the question "what if holiness is not made perfect while we live?" Answer: God is merciful and supplies the "final purification" needed for Heaven.

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." Even if one insists on ascribing a "time" element to Purgatory (which I don't, as the afterlife by definition exists out of physical notions of time and space), the grammar structure doesn't preclude some interval. 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. Purgatory is in this analogy akin to picking up a few things along the way home needed so that I get a warm greeting when I arrive. :)

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).

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") that suggest such may not necessarily be attained while we remain in the body.

under sola fide souls are washed, sanctified and justified (1Co. 6:11) in conversion

Indeed, "you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." is a pretty good description of the effects of baptism. There Paul is describing the start of their journey in Christ. But in Paul's view, does ongoing sin have no effect on sanctification? NO!!! And we can know this by observing what he later states to the same peoples at Corinth: "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."

Yes, they were sanctified, and they still needed to be sanctified. Sin still happens, and it has an effect. That's the complete Scriptural view. You (like many) see one verse you like and stop there.

Which is an argument silence,

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.

when what you need is a clear teaching of postmortem suffering outside of Hell,

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').

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.

In 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. 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. Scripture recognizes that.

French historian Jacques Le Goff states,

LeGoff's point seems to be (hard to tell from that short excerpt) that aspects of purgatorial belief and practice find precedent in pre-Christian Jewish thought and practice. OK, that was the point I was making. That explains why we see these thoughts expressed so early in the immediate post-Apostolic period. And there's a logical connection: the Apostles were Jews.

make clear their denial of Rome's purgatory

Though the E.O. make clear their acceptance of the "Orthodox Dungeon" (I'll here coin a term that avoids "purge") -- 1) which occurs in the afterlife and is neither the glory of Heaven nor the eternal fire of Hell, 2) which is "a temporal punishment for sinful souls," 3) that occurs in "a place of darkness and sorrows," and 4) liberation of the departed soul is aided by the living "by means of prayers, the Holy Eucharist, and deeds of charity" (to which they cite to 2 Macc. 12:46 as Scriptural authority).

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. 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.")

[CynicalBear]

>>Again, you're conflating sanctification and justification and erecting much the same strawman for which I chided you earlier.<<

1 Corinthians 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Catholics can't seem to get that one straight. When you don't get that straight the rest of your post just isn't worth reading.

[daniel1212]

Again, you're conflating sanctification and justification and erecting much the same strawman for which I chided you earlier.

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.

[CpnHook]

Again, you are ignoring that Rome has justified due to sanctification (state of holiness) in the beginning

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?

[daniel1212]

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).

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.

[CpnHook]

Each iteration of post and reply is making this longer and longer. To reply without devoting a large chunk of my day I'm going to mostly select the newer things or those still unclarified. If there's something I don't address you think should be, you can add it back in.

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.

[daniel1212]

To reply without devoting a large chunk of my day I'm going to mostly select the newer things or those still unclarified

As you must.

This is the third iteration on this point, and I'm not sure still where the objection or question lays.

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

It is simply that while you reject my statement that "this myth is based upon a false premise of justification," since Purgatory has to with sanctification, the fact is that the RC justification is based upon sanctification. And that both justification and final sanctification is based upon the premise that souls must possess complete inherent holiness as the basis for acceptance by God and to be with Him in Heaven.

Furthermore, in reality to be with Him in Heaven requires not simply being as Adam before the Fall, but the perfection of character that God has.

Which is set in contrast "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5) As Abraham was when he believed God was willing and able to do what He promise, which was impossible for him and Sara, though he did not undergo a radical change of nature at that point and manifestly did not have the perfection of character that God has, nor do any via at baptism.

Not that Rm. 4 is not simply excluding full obedience to works of the Law as the basis for justification, and which are not mentioned in every reiteration of these statements, (Eph. 2:8,9) but the Law is mentioned because it is the standard for salvation via righteousness.

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (Galatians 3:21-22)

The penitent publican "man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18:14) Likewise everyone who humbles themselves as unworthy sinners before an infinitely holy God but who trust in His mercy in Christ are justified by His sinless shed blood, even if looking forward to it.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. (Romans 3:23-27)

Note that if James is speaking of justification in the same way as Paul is then he is both contradicting him and Moses, as both plainly declare it was faith which was counted for righteousness, not that they perfectly fulfilled the Law as only Christ did without fail, as He only had the perfection of God's character. Not Abraham nor any other justified person. Yet justificatory faith is only that which effects obedience, and it is those who manifest this that shall be justified in the end, as in being judged as being true believers in the light of their works.

But the Scriptures nowhere command developing the manner of comprehensive perfection of character which God has as a condition of acceptance with Him and being with Him in Heaven, but true believers will realize as a gift the conformity with Christ which they yearn for when He returns. (1Jn. 3:2)

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.

It is not, as it first makes one fit to enter glory based upon being as good as Adam, who was justified as one undefiled by sin, but who obviously had not developed the perfection of character which God only has, and who thus never sins. But then she requires "you must be perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect" as a prerequisite to being with God in Heaven.

In contrast, one who dies in faith has already been accepted in the Beloved, and is only clearly told that they will be with the Lord at death or at His return, which is the believers blessed hope, not purgatory.

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.

Indeed, but imputation does not mean actually becoming a sinner, nor does imputed righteousness mean sinners actually are made as righteousness as Christ in their character. All of mankind's sins were laid upon Christ, placed on His account, with Him taking responsibility for them, but as He was actually perfectly righteousness, then He could provide the atonement for our forgiveness.

If sins were imparted to Christ as righteousness is imparted to souls in Catholicism, then He actually become sinful.

However, if abased sinners are accounted as righteousness because Christ was accounted guilty, then they can be accepted by God in the Beloved, though practically they are not as holy as Christ, while at the same time they are washed from sins and given the Holy Spirit and grace so as to practically become what they are positionally.

And thus the appeal to do so is the constantly seen in the Epistles. The Corinthians had problems with aspects of carnality (though they were active in church) yet were told that they were sanctified, and that to be absent from their body here was to be present with the Lord. (1Co. 3:2; 2Co. 5:8; 6:11) Yet impenitent practitioners of sin were those which denied the faith. (2Cor. 12:21; 13:5)

And likewise they are accounted to have been buried with Christ and risen, though they actually were not, then they are thus called to live according to this position, and have "put on the new man."

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. (Colossians 3:1-4)

Again, the next even they were to look forward to was being with Christ in glory, which leads to the judgment seat of Christ for rewarding of works, which is not purgatory.

Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: (Colossians 3:9-10)

And as they have positionally been crucified with Christ and made to live in the Spirit then they are to live in the Spirit:

And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (Galatians 5:24-25)

And there are many more, all of which deal with believers which are already positionally sanctified made to sit with Christ in Heaven, and who thus are called to live it out, and none of which make perfection of character a condition to see God/be with Him in Heaven. Instead, apart their spirit being with the Lord upon death, the next event they were to look forward to was the Lord's return and being with Him in glory, which event would make them as much like Christ as they could be, (1Jn. 3:2) fulfilling the longing of the holy believer, versus having to attain perfection of character prior to seeing the Lord.

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.

Rather, this is another exhortation on growing in Godly character, to full maturity, in which saints reach various levels, but the text nowhere says this is the goal in order to be with God in Heaven, but that they "neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" and never fall, which is set in contrast to "But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins." (2 Peter 1:9)

Holiness as a fruit of faith is required, but as elsewhere in the context of the postmortem, or postterrestrial realization of true believers, utterly absent is any mention of purgatory, with only the suffering of loss of rewards and the Lord's approval at the judgment seat of Christ being what is manifestly taught.

. 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?

Seriously, what do you think after i have affirmed both imputed righteousness and that "true faith means pursuit of holiness" and that to seek perfection of character "is consistent with saving faith," "which takes testings and temptations"? And that Scripture says faith is counted for righteousness and thus all believers are sanctified "saints," though sinners, and thus calls them to live our practically what they are in Christ? Do you really think I must only hold to one aspect of sanctification or that practically holiness needed more precise definition?

Others I may talk to speak of "progressive sanctification" in terms of actual, personal holiness. Here's an example pulled somewhat at random:...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!!!"

There is no amusing contradiction as Scripture provides for believers being made as conformable to Christ as they can be, but not thru 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.

What is not amusing is that it is perfectly acceptable for Catholics. For rather than all true believers being saints and going to be with the Lord at death, or at His return, at which time they shall be made like Him, as they shall see Him as He is, (Jn. 3:2) and "appear with Him in glory," (Col. 3:4) and go thru the judgment seat of Christ for the recompensing of the manner workmanship they built the church with, and being saved despite loss, (1Co. 8:-17) instead you have souls enduring potentially eons suffering "purifying torments" commencing at death. And with

We both should want the same end, but presuming one is justified by suddenly intrinsic holiness but who then must attain perfection of character in being perfect as God here or endure postmortem torments in order to be with God in heaven is foreign to Scripture. But not to the need of overall holiness of character as Abraham had, who is justified by faith as he was, and the penitent publican, and the contrite criminal, and every believing Corinthian and believer, if such is to be judged to be a believer and appear with Him in glory. Thanks be to God.

Now, in the Catholic view, that General Judgment at the End of Days is preceded by the Particular Judgment ..Heb. 9:27

As there are two resurrections so it appears that there are there two judgments. Believers will see the resurrection of life,” (Jn. 5:29a; Rev. 20:6,7,14) and only face the judgment sat of Christ, which is only for believers. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Revelation 20:6) That would be the Particular Judgment.

After their literal 1,000 year reigns that Rome rejects, is the Great White Throne judgment, in which, like as all believers go to be with Lord at death or His return because they are believers, but then shall be rewarded for works they have done, so also all the lost go to Hell with the rich man in Lk. 16:19-31 because they are unredeemed lost sinners, but who will be "judged every man according to their works."

And the believers shall be as judges themselves here. The fuller eschatology, which is open to some interpretation, is that the "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: 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." (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

They shall go with the Lord to fight the Battle of Armageddon: "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints," (Jude 1:14) "And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean." (Revelation 19:14)

And after that shall reign with Him 1,000 years, the Lord ruling nations (unregenerate survivors of the tribulation) with a rod, (Rv. 19:15) during which time the devil is bound, and thus as under other situations (Eden=no sin nature) man is shown to choose sin, as when the devil is loosed after that period then the multitude follow the devil into rebellion "and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." (Revelation 20:9)

After which is the final judgment, of which the Lord says "when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel,' (Matthew 19:28) And Paul states, "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?" (1 Corinthians 6:2) To the glory of God.

Yes, there is more to draw upon for the Trinity (but it's also a more vital doctrine).

As far as the Being of God is concerned, but as regards the believers next realization event, it is incongruous, and untenable that with the majority of believers going to a place of fiery torments for perhaps eons (and as Scripture references our time so much we here) then Scripture would only speak clearly of souls going to be with the Lord upon death or His return, and so often and clearly about the next transformative event being that of the Lord's return and being with Him in glory. And in which believers are made as conformable to Christ as they can be.

. 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.

Not so, for as it is Scriptural that the people of God discerned manifestly men of God as being so in the light of their Scriptural substantiation and attestation, for as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, then likewise it is evident (Is. 8:20; Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) that they discerned writings as being of God, essentially due to their immediate and enduring Divine qualities and attestation, with complimentary conflative writings, which as the word of God were living and powerful, being made distinctive from those which were not.

Yet being the corporate stewards of Scripture does not mean all they hold are of God, as the Jews evidence.

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:

I was referring to texts such as the ones cited as pertaining to a postmortem experience, as there is a difference btwn being punished to pay off a debt versus undergoing suffering in order to bring one to repentance, and or in order to refine character.

Purgatory serves both to atone for sin and refine character, while again the only clear teaching of any postmortem suffering is at the judgment seat of Christ, and the suffering there is not to atone for sin or refine character, but to manifest what manner of workmanship one has built the church with, wheat or tares, and to reward each accordingly.

Or course, related to this is whether chastisement is atonement needed for forgiveness, versus chastisement as a consequence of sin working repentance for forgiveness and refinement of character.

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.

Such is the recourse to the metaphorical that could also be applied to Heaven and Hell, and it takes the teeth out of both the Biblical descriptions of eternal torment as well as the classic descriptions of purgatory, of which some ancients said it was worse than Hell, but not everlasting.

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.

True and a valid point; however the lack of support, esp. in the long term for it is hardly comparable to purgatory, of which Ratzinger writes: (emp. mine), Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

But,

subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [meaning the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word” [via amorphous oral tradition] - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.

The "reward" is "eternal life" (Rom. 2:6-7; Matt. 25:31ff).

Eternal life is a gift, (Rm. 6:23) yet faith has great recompense of reward and thus is not to be cast away, (Heb. 10:35) but 1Cor. 3 is not talking about gaining eternal life, else those whose work shall be burned and who shall suffer loss would not themselves be saved despite this. (1 Corinthians 3:15) Instead, there are various crowns given to believers (to cast at the feet of the Lord i think). And in the relation to being rewarded for how one built the church, Paul states, "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)

Recompense which is "promised" is how I've understood it. The CC says "owed."

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.

Rather, what the masses overall believe reflects what Rome effectually conveys, despite excuses. Her treating even publicly know impenitent proabortion prosodomite pols as members in life and in death sends the message that as long as you die a RC, your merits and those of the church will get you into glory, even if eventually. And i am a former very active RC.

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.

It does indeed imply the immediacy, despite the potentially eons of detour you must press into it, as being willing to be "absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord," and "having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better" presents one of only two mutually exclusive alternatives (strait betwixt two), with no inference of a state of prolonged purifying that sppsdly the majority of believers must endure. And he even goes to describe the only event that is purifying in the sense of burning up bad material, but which is subsequent to going to be with the Lord and only occurs at His return. What Caths read into this is simply not there by is disallowed.

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. Indeed there is, as Caths can only wish that a church of perpetual magisterial infallibility, even led by a papal office possessing the same, is what the Lord's promise of progressive revelation and 1Tim. 1:15 says, which they love to invoke, as unique to Rome (or the EOs). 1Tim. 1:15 (in the Greek) simply refers to the corporate house of God, the church of the living God being the support which both stulos and hedraiōma basically denote, the latter perhaps as foundation, but it is unseen in the LXX or Hellenistic Jewish or secular Greek, and i read that a Gk. edition of Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses paraphrased it as "pillar and support."

As " of the" (truth) is missing perhaps it could mean belonging to the truth, but in any case this is far from meaning the church must be the infallible standard for Truth above Scripture, and refers to the body of Christ, the household of faith (cf. Gal. 6:10; 1Pt. 4:17) in which every part works together to edify, evangelize, contend for the Truth, as evangelicals have historically been characterized for doing. (Romans 9:4-5)

Yet the visible church is an admixture of tares and wheat. And Scripturally an infallible magisterium has never been essential to provide and preserve Truth and faith, and what is said of Israel is what Rome claims for herself: "...because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers..."

Moreover, God has been progressively revealing Truth before the church, and though i do not see Him providing new public doctrinal revelation now yet He illuminates more from Scripture revealing Him and His Truth, and His revelation will be added to when He returns.

In addition, all those who are born again have "one Lord, one faith, one baptism," just as there is "one body, and one Spirit," and "one God and Father of all" as it says in context, as all in the body of Christ have been born again by that one Spirit, by the one basic faith in the Lord of the one gospel, and thus have been baptized into that one body, (1Co. 12:13) and are to be water baptized in identification with their Lord.

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

The answer is simple: just as in the OT, the people of God have always been manifested as a distinct people, even if as a remnant. Ideally this is under a centralized authoritative, if fallible, magisterium, yet when that failed the "holy nation" continued with God raising up leaders. By presuming the novel and unnecessary idea of perpetual magisterial veracity, with Rome in particular infallibly declaring she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula,and adopting Caesaropapism, along with other unScriptural accretions, and in addition to her moral declensions and recalcitrance when faced with rebuke, then she progressively disqualified herself from warranting the very veracity she presumed, and necessitated the Reformation and another formal division.

Even before the Reformation, Rome claims to have been the one true and visible church, even though as Ratzinger states,

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)

And today Catholicism exists in schisms and sects, with only limited doctrinal unity which is largely on paper, while with significant disagreements among Catholics in interpreting Rome as well as what is not officially interpreted.

What we have no is obviously not the ideal, but Rome if not alone is primarily to blame due to her arrogant deformation, while the body of Christ is far from invisible, as can be seen even in the focus of the liberal media on evangelicals as their primary threat due to them being the most conservative religious group (in contrast to the overall fruit of Rome) .

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?

Try me. Fine, it leads to requiring 1st century souls to submit to the Jews, since they were the ones who manifestly recognized as Scripture the very books which the NT established its Truth claims upon. When the Lord Himself quoted the Law, the Writings and the Prophets there no arguement over which they were, even if not every book was settled.

It took Rome herself over 1400 years after the last book was written - and after Luther died - to issue an infallible. indisputable canon, while scholarly disagreements continued thru the centuries and right into Trent. Contrary to RC propaganda.

A true church has authority, one which I am commanded to obey:

Indeed, which does not require ensured formulaic infallibility any more than SOTUS does or the OT magisterium, disobedience to which could be a capital offense. (Dt. 17:8-13)

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?

That sounds like Rome, as RCs often debate what their leaders meant, even to the point of sects and schisms. And that you cannot get an answer to your question is absurd. The leaders are the pastors, presbuteros/episkopos, not a separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests." But as with enjoined obedience to all authority on earth, obedience is conditional in that in clear cases of deviation from the word of God then there can be dissent.

RCs find this intolerable on the apologetics level, though Catholics disagree with their church more than most, and which is implicitly allowed and fostered. Yet under the RC model in which the an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium, so that those who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God, would disallow the NT church. For the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Besides others ,

That's quite an amalgam of stuff. More Jason Engwer selective quotes, oh, boy.

Really? The list is from me, and I know not of any quotes that are from him, or used contrary to what they substantiate.

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.

Really? The historical commentary is first and foremost wholly inspired Scripture, by which we see the distinction from the progressive accretions of traditions of men, while it is primarily Cath authors who provided testimony contrary to the RC propaganda of the church church looking to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible popes reigning in Rome. To which RCs have recourse the spurious "acorn to the tree" analogy, but instead we have an acorn being made into a decidedly different tree. Thus Scripture has souls counted as righteous by faith, before baptism or any change into perfection of character, and made accepted in the Beloved on His account, while only clearly teaching that their next stop will be with the Lord forever, and with the only future change mentioned in nature being that of being made like Christ when He appears, and that the only suffering will be that of the losing of rewards due to corrupt building material, and thus the grievous displeasure of the Lord, while inconceivably failing to clearly or consistently teach of a postmortem or postterrestrial state of purifying torments for potentially eons of earth time commencing at death.

In addition, the very basis for the veracity of this doctrine is invalid, that being of the novel premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility, so that only what she says tradition, history and Scripture is and means is authoritative.

The end.

Well, this has taken far more of my day than I wished.

Two days here.