Is There A Purgatory?

The Bible never speaks of a place where one can go to be purified of his sin. Rather, it always speaks of a Person to whom we can go to be purified: Jesus Christ. God tells us that those who refuse to trust Christ to cleanse them from their sins are condemned: Whoever believes in Him avoids condemnation, but whoever does not believe is already condemned for not believing in the name of God's only Son (John 3:18). There are only two choices: Whoever believes in the Son has life eternal. Whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure the wrath of God (John 3:36; See also Revelation 20:15; Luke 16:19-31, especially verse 26). Anyone who accepts Christ is completely saved: There is no condemnation now for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). Saying that there is no condemnation, certainly eliminates the flames of purgatory.

Another passage which clearly excludes the idea of purgatory is, their sins and transgressions I will remember no more (Hebrews 10:17). If, as the Bible says, God no longer remembers the sins of those who are in Christ, He does not punish them for these sins. To do so would be saying that Christ had not made full payment for them and that God the Father still remembered them. (See also Romans 5:8-11; Hebrews 10:14-18; Psalm 103:12).

Anyone who does not believe that Christ has completely saved him, has not completely trusted Christ to save him. That is, he does not believe that Christ's sacrifice has paid for all of his sins, and thinks he must pay for some of them himself. However, we are saved when we stop trusting what we can do, and start trusting Christ to save us.

The idea that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient to cleanse us from all of our sins would condemn a great sinner such as the thief who was crucified with Jesus to suffer a long time in purgatory if not for all eternity in hell! Instead, there was nothing left over that Christ's death on the Cross did not cover. When the thief placed his trust in Christ, Jesus said to him, I assure you: this day you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43).

If purgatory existed, and the mass helped people to get out, the rich would have a tremendous advantage by being able to pay for masses to shorten their suffering. The poor instead, would be left to the mercy of the occasional priest who might say an unpaid mass for them. One ex-priest wrote, "If we really believed that the mass would save people from the flames of purgatory, would we make them pay for it? I would even save a dog if I saw one in a fire, and I would never even think of asking to be paid!"

Purgatory was evidently a pagan idea. Virgil, the pagan Latin poet who lived 70 - 19 B.C. divided the departed souls into three different places in his writings: One for the good, one for the damned, and a third where the less bad could pay for their sins. Since the idea of purgatory existed outside of the church before it came into the church, it is probable that it was brought in by contact with pagans like Virgil. There was a great influx of non-Biblical ideas into the church around 300 A.D. when the Roman Emperor Constantine took many unsaved people in as members of the church.

In any event, there is no mention of purgatory in the Bible. Some would try, however, to make the idea sound somewhat Biblical by referring to 2 Maccabees 12:41-45, a passage in one of the apocryphal books written between the times of the Old and New Testaments. These books were never accepted as part of the Hebrew Old Testament, nor quoted in the New Testament, but they are included in the Catholic Bible, though usually with an explanation that they are of a less inspired category. Apart from this passage in 2 Maccabees, the apocrypha is little used by the Catholic church to support a doctrinal position.

It is important to notice that this passage does not speak of purgatory at all, but actually condemns idolatry, particularly the practice of wearing little images on a necklace or such. Hebrew soldiers were found wearing this sort of thing after a battle, and their buddies, on making this discovery, realized that they had died in the sin of idolatry. They then counseled prayer for their souls. The Roman Catholic position is that prayer for them would have been unnecessary if they were in heaven and useless if they were in hell, so there must be another place. The logic seems good, but the result contradicts the clear teaching of the inspired Scripture. Contradicting inspired Scripture with a philosophical response based on an apparent inference from the Apocrypha is a very weak argument indeed. The very word "Apocrypha," which comes from the Greek word for hidden, has come to mean "false," or "of doubtful authorship."

Honestly, every listing I find online and in my resources at home gives the same list as SouthernClaire provided.

It is the oldest known Hebrew listing order, nearest to time of Christ, I'm fairly certain.

There are later-sourced (but still quite old) listings which do vary, but not to the extent that "the writings", along with the book of Malachi, would end up being excluded. The books of Chronicles are among "the writings", not the teachings, or else divisionally grouped books of the prophets. That is one key consideration here.

That consideration seals the deal for inclusion of the book of Malachi, regardless of how later, and more geographically distant from the center of Hebrew religion, arrangements of ordering for the various books, can be found among all available Hebrew language, and related to Hebrew language sources.

The book of 2 Chronicles would, regardless of other considerations, be in with those regarded as "the writings" ----which in rank of regard, would put those books in the ending portions of the collection of scrolls, wherever those would found, if order & divisional ranking of Tanakh were to be conceptually adhered to also, instead of, or despite reliance on any physical 1-2-3-4-5-6-7- etc., order, or listing. The divisional concepts (of which there is evidence existed, even prior to Christ's own earthly birth, found in an Apocryphal writing no less, ironic as that may be) are key here, one could say.

Looking at it like that (as there is enough evidence that well-informed Jews most liking would, and did) puts Malachi before the contents of books of Chronicles, no matter how one attempts to turn things.

Without ignoring what can be determined from various element of Hebrew source, the argument made against this one point of contention which you mentioned, while pointing towards the Matthew 23:35, as Christ was referring to 2 Chronicles 24:20-22, does not rely upon the book of Matthew alone, and so it pretty solid. At lease solid enough to withstand the challenge, and the so-called "Protestants have a problem" objections raised here recently on this thread. There could be other challenges to the idea of pointing towards these passages of Scripture as being indicative by implication of there having been in Christ's own day, clear enough understanding of what was regarded as included in their own 'canon' as it were (and also -- what was not) among the Jews whom He showed himself to. But that can rest for another day?

Which means that the Scripture passage from Matthew would (or at least very well could) indicate the book of Malachi is not excluded. And so another small item among RC apologetic, craters like DejaVue all over again...

They be tryin' to pull a fast one --- again.

Don'tcha' just hate it when that happens? I find it tiresome.

“If they do not have the Light of God in them, do not believe them. I too warn people against this.”

“How do yo know if they have the Light of God in them???”

Very good question. One very good way, which I am happy to see is used by many here on FR is to test their words and deeds against scripture. While there are a few translation misinterpretation errors in the Bible, it is the word of God and makes an excellent staff to carry on your journey. The Bible is purposely written with many levels of truth in order that only those who truly seek find the answers. Why, because there is more power in the knowledge and wisdom of the Bible than all of the atomic bombs existing on earth today. That knowledge can be dangerous if held by people whose motive is to destroy out of fear, anger or greed.

When you are truly born again, just as there is a big change when you exit your mother’s womb when you are born and experience life from your own physical senses for the first time, there is an even greater change as you begin to experience reality directly though your soul or spirit. (This is Baptism with/of the Holy Spirit) It is at this point that the invisible becomes visible. You begin to perceive your own and other souls as physical objects. Consciousness itself and the process of storing, processing and retrieving memories both in yourself and others becomes a physical part of your reality. This is how Jesus knew the thoughts and life history of everyone around Him.

Each soul has a specific frequency at which it resonates. Just as you hear someone’s voice and from the volume, pitch, tenor, intonations, and words you can determine where that individual is located and where their consciousness is at that specific moment, you can tell even more by perceiving the life energy that resonates from their soul.

When I am around a woman who has just become pregnant, I often know it before they do as the pure Love that resonates from their womb from new newly entering pure soul is like a fire hose of radiating Love. It is unmistakable. That is why Jesus said “You must be like a child in order to know thy Father.”

If a soul is full of sin, every sin becomes an obstacle to the flow of Love in that soul. It becomes darker the more sin in the soul as that Love is actually the Light of God that gives us life. Jesus considered a person “dead” when that Light was extinguished within the body, either because it disconnected and physically let go of it or because is was so full of sin that it was barely functioning. Sin physically kills the body, but more importantly, it shackles the soul. I define sin as any thought or action which creates an obstacle to the flow of Love within your soul. Remember, God is Love.

Love is the glue that holds the soul together in order that we may climb higher and closer to our Savior Jesus and Our Father. That”s the parable of the “solid foundation” of the house built on the rock vs the sand.

If you read all of the parables with this understanding it gives them new meaning that totally makes sense with what you will experience.

Back to your excellent question, “How do yo know if they have the Light of God in them???”

You see it, feel it, and hear it as once you perceive the Love and Light of God, it is unmistakable. You would not only give everything you own to be with is always, but you would even give your physical life. Jesus’ great sacrifice was lowering Himself to our level and teach us and be our Savior, thus disconnecting from Our Father when born in the flesh (thus the power in the words in 1John 4:1 ) and being an example on how we are to live life in order to follow Him in being “One” with our Father as He described many times in the Bible including John 14.

In addition, just as you can read a soul by looking into the window of a person’s eyes, your spirit or soul can read those exact same sins in them directly without using your eyes. The memories that are recovered in the process of the “judgement” mentioned in Hebrews 9:27 and the process of a person’s life flashing before their eyes when they die is merely the soul expanding in awareness as it lets go of the physical body and expands outward through all the memories stored in their soul. For some reason, the Holy Spirit working through me allows me to read these same memories directly in a person as they come into proximity to me.

Jesus brought us the “Great Helper” or “Holy Spirit” to guide us to follow Him. Without it our souls most likely all would all perish in the upcoming transition.

Do not believe what I say. Test my words with your own reading of scripture and with intense prayer & meditation. God like’s a flat organizational chart where everyone has their own personal connection to the Boss through His Son Jesus and not through other souls here on earth still in their physical bodies.

I pray that this answers your question.

“Recommend you read about the Docetics whom John was addressing in this letter.”

While I agree with you on who the letter was most likely addressed to, John’s statements are universal truths that apply to everyone. His words are not true only to the docetics.

I totally agree with John and with the decree by the Church in the 325 Council decree. 1 John 4 could only have been written based upon first hand experience as they go far beyond the instructional descriptions elsewhere in the Bible and go into experiential detail that is very true based upon my own experiences. These are actually one of my most favorite scriptures in the Bible and I thank you for bringing them to my attention for reading again.

I found an interesting comment on 1 John in Wikipedia. I share it here with footnote reference numbers:

Among the most controversial verses of the Bible is what some consider an explicit reference that supports the doctrine of the trinity, the Comma Johanneum: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these agree in one.” (1 John 5:7–8, King James Version).

Verse 7 does not appear in any version of the Greek text prior to the ninth century, and first appears in most of the Latin manuscripts, especially in the Vetus Itala (Old Latin predating Jerome) before being translated into Greek and added to later Greek manuscripts.[18] It was included in the King James Bible, something Isaac Newton commented on in An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture.

This is sometimes used as evidence to counter the King-James-Only Movement. Bart Ehrman suggests in his book Misquoting Jesus that the King James Version would not have included the passage if Desiderius Erasmus had not given in to pressure to include it in the Textus Receptus even though he doubted its authenticity.

The majority of modern translations (for example English Standard Version and New American Standard Bible) do not include this text, or (for example the New Revised Standard Version) include it as a footnote. Albert Barnes (1798–1870) said regarding its authenticity:

On the whole, therefore, the evidence seems to me to be clear that this passage is not a genuine portion of the inspired writings, and should not be appealed to in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity.[19]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.