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.
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.