Posted on 11/05/2018 6:07:05 PM PST by Gamecock
According to the Handbook for Today's Catholic, page 47,
"If you die in the love of God but possess any stains of sin, such stains are cleansed away in a purifying process called Purgatory. These stains of sin are primarily the temporal punishment due to venial or mortal sins already forgiven but for which sufficient penance was not done during your lifetime."
The Catholic Catechism, paragraph 1030, says that Purgatory is for "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation, but after death, they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven."
Among the many doctrines that Catholicism claims to be derived through Sacred Tradition, Purgatory is one of the most interesting and puzzling, particularly to a Protestant. In light of the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace through faith, how is it possible that an afterlife cleansing through punishment is necessary for a Christian who has trusted in Jesus to cleanse him from all His sins? Wasn't Jesus' punishment for our transgressions sufficient? Didn't He take our place in that He suffered our death? It would seem that the words of Christ, "It is finished," (John 19:30) do not mean that the cleansing of our souls was completed on the cross.
Of course, Roman Catholic doctrine states that eternal life is bestowed upon the one who receives baptism (Catechism, par. 1265 - 1266, 1992). It is the stains of the sins committed after baptism and not removed through penance, good works, prayers, the Mass, etc., that are removed in the fires of Purgatory (Handbook for Today's Catholic, page 47).
In light of the doctrine of justification by faith (Rom. 5:1; Rom. 4:5; Rom. 9:30; Acts 13:39; Gal. 2:16), where Jesus bore all of our sins, Purgatory would seem to have no theologically justifiable right to exist. But the Bible alone is not appealed to by Catholic theologians in support of Purgatory. By far, the main support for Purgatory is found in the Catholic doctrine of Sacred Tradition. Nevertheless, what does the Bible say about justification, punishment, and our sins?
What is justification by faith?
To justify means acquit, declare righteous, the opposite of condemn. It means to be not guilty of breaking the Law and to be deemed righteous by the standard of the Law.
God gave the Law, i.e, the Ten Commandments. The Law is a reflection of God's character and it is a perfect standard of righteousness which no one can keep. Since no one is able to keep God's Law, no one can be justified by the Law (Rom. 3:20). There is, therefore, none righteous (Rom. 3:10-12). This is the problem of all people. We have all broken God's Law and are in need of justification, of being declared righteous in God's sight. This can only be done through the Messiah, our sin-bearer.
Jesus is the one who took our place on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21), and turned away the wrath of God from us (Rom. 5:9) by being a propitiation (1 John 2:2) that turned away the wrath of God. He was punished in our place. Therefore, Jesus was our substitution. The righteous work of Christ is imputed to the believer by grace (Titus 3:7) and through faith (Rom. 5:1). This justification is a legal action on the part of God reckoning the believer as having satisfied the Law -- all of the Law.
It necessarily follows that to be justified in God's eyes, is to be fully justified. It is not part of the Law that must be satisfied, but all of it. Perfection is the standard. Likewise, it is not part of our sins that were borne by Christ, but all of them. This justification includes all of the sins of the believer (past, present, and future) or else we could not be justified.
What does the Catholic Catechism Say? The Catholic Catechism (paragraphs 1990-1992) says,
"Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals"...."Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ..." and "...justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy."
Of particular interest is the reference that "justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith." There are many verses in the Bible that deal with baptism and putting on Christ (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1-11). This paper is not intended to discuss the nature of baptism. Nevertheless, I strongly affirm that baptism is a covenant sign for the believer who is already justified by faith and for the children of believers who are under the covenant headship of the family. Baptism is not what justifies a person. Rather,
Justification is a gift by His grace through Jesus (Rom. 3:24) Justification is by grace (Titus 3:7) Justification is by faith (Rom. 3:28; 5:1; Gal. 3:24) Justification is by Jesus' blood (Rom. 5:9). Justification is in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 6:11). Justification is not equated with baptism, but with grace, faith, and the blood of Jesus. Jesus said, "It is finished," (John 19:30) Jesus bore our sins in His body, paid the penalty for them, and died. He said, "It is finished." In Greek, the phrase, "It is finished" is one word, tetelestai. In ancient Greek papyri texts that were receipts for taxes, when a debt was paid in full, the word tetelestai was written on the document. This meant that the debt had been paid in full. In other words, Jesus had finished the work of atonement. But not only atonement (to make amends, to make right), but also of propitiation (turning away God's wrath). He had fully paid the debt invoked by the sinner. There was nothing more to be done... It was finished.
Yet, the doctrine of Purgatory, in effect, is saying that we must suffer in Purgatory for sins not covered by baptism and not covered by the cross. It is to say that the work of Christ is not finished and that there are things we must do to complete the sacrificial, cleansing work of Christ. This amounts to earning heaven by our good works, albeit a work of suffering. Additionally, the doctrine of Purgatory implies that a person must atone for his own sins. It implies that the person must do more than what the Law of God requires of him. This is called supererogation.
When Jesus said, "It is finished," all that was necessary for the atonement was concluded and all in Christ were justified. We cannot complete or add to Christ's work through our suffering. Purgatory is not only unnecessary but also it contradicts God's Word.
Still you persist—dare I point out that the word is “write”, and not “right”? If you disparage Catholics, expect a slapped wrist.
Grow a pair.
As a non-Catholic who also wasn’t raised in a Protestant tradition, I always found the concept of Purgatory is be the least problematic of the Catholic beliefs.
No, the Bible doesn’t mention it. But so what, the Bible does not purport to be an exhaustive and comprehensive guide to all of natural and supernatural reality. Just because it is not specifically mentioned doesn’t mean it must not exist.
Conceptually though, it makes a lot of sense to me. For almost all of us, the process of sanctification is not complete the moment when die. So one would natural expect the process to continue post death until it is complete. Protestants hate to call this completion process “Purgatory” because it is tied up with all the history of the corruption of the Roman Catholic church (indulgences and all that). So the term “Purgatory” carries way too much baggage for them.
Lol
Scripture tells us:
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)
Spiritual healing of our souls comes from HIS suffering, not our own. We are made as righteous as Christ through faith.
There are plenty of Catholic Caucus threads about Purgatory you can escape to and not hear any opposing thoughts from non-Catholic Christians. Just because someone disagrees doesn’t make them “tickytackytrolls”. In fact, those who use that kind of language are the real trolls.
AMEN!
Nope, just telling the truth.
Nope, only your version of the “truth”.
The assurance of salvation is for those souls in Purgatory, not for those on earth. The souls in Purgatory have already passed their particular judgment and have had all their sins forgiven. They only await the final cleansing of their souls before being united with God in Heaven.
And yet Catholics continually neglect to include that verse when they address the faith vs faith plus works issue.
It's not that faith plus works save.
It's that faith that saves produces works, which is how you know you have saving faith.
Works are the evidence that saving faith exists. They don't *complete* it. They announce it.
It is interesting that you did not include the verses immediately following:
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. (James 2:24-26)I will stay with what the Bible actually. Peace.
You should really read more church history. Maccabees was indeed accepted and used in the liturgy of the early church. It was included in the Septuagint Old Testament which was the version used by the early church. Its inclusion in the Bible was definitively affirmed both by a series of North African councils and Pope Damasus I in the late 4th century.
Christ didn’t accept it ever.
The Jews didn’t accept it.
The biblical quotes of our Lord in the New Testament are taken from the Septuagint, a 3rd century Greek translation of the Old Testament made by Jewish scholars in Alexandria. Maccabees and the other deuterocanonical books of the Septuagint were only rejected by Jewish authorities in the Late Antiquity after Christ. Of course, at the time they also rejected the entire New Testament.
Actually, the version of the Old Testament that was used by the early Christians was the Septuagint, which includes the deuterocanonical books rejected by the Protestants.
Best fix this for you...
"The biblical quotes of our Lord in the New Testament are inspired by the Holy Spirit."
And that Holy Spirit inspired the evangelists to quote from the Septuagint Old Testament which includes the deuterocanonical books.
They wrote the New Testament epistles in Greek by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit so is it surprising that when quoting the Old Testament they also used Greek? Besides, you can't presume that they used the Septuagint because Jesus most likely taught in Aramaic and Hebrew and the NT writers wrote what He said using Greek - the common language of the region in the first century A.D.
One additional thing - something I've seen Catholics continue to miss - is that just because a writing was in the Septuagint did NOT mean it was Divinely-inspired. This Greek translation of the 39 books of the Jewish Old Testament created in Alexandria around 200 B.C. also included other writings that were not accepted as from God. They may have been included because they were historically "intertestamental" and, besides, there were more than just the 7 extra books Catholicism made part of their canon. There were 15 additional books. Why not accept them all if being in the Septuagint was important? Paul said that unto the Jews were given the "Oracles of God", why would they have rejected these books as from God and canonical seeing as they were written hundreds of years BEFORE Christianity existed?
Modern day rabbinical Judaism is actually a SISTER religion to Christianity. Both are derived from earlier temple Judaism. So we can't look at modern day Jewish faith and say we derived from them - we and they both derived from a common origin - second temple Judaism
Is it your contention that the Jewish people didn't have any idea what writings came from God and were authoritative prior to that time? If so, then that would contradict Jesus's own words when He referred often to them (i.e.; Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms, "it is written", etc.). We also have the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus who in his "Contra Apionem" refers to the tripartite division of the Old Testament, the recognition of the authoritative writings:
We have The New Testament as a Witness (circa 50-100 AD):
Another passage (Mt 23:35; compare Lu 11:51) seems to point to the final order and arrangement of the books in the Old Testament canon. It reads: "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar." Now, in order to grasp the bearing of this verse upon the matter in hand, it must be remembered that in the modern arrangement of the Old Testament books in Hebrew, Chronicles stands last; and that the murder of Zachariah is the last recorded instance in this arrangement, being found in 2Ch 24:20,21. But this murder took place under Joash king of Judah, in the 9th century BC. There is another which is chronologically later, namely, that of Uriah son of Shemaiah who was murdered in Jehoiakim's reign in the 7th century BC (Jer 26:23). Accordingly, the argument is this, unless Ch already stood last in Christ's Old Testament, why did He not say, "from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Uriah"? He would then have been speaking chronologically and would have included all the martyrs whose martyrdom is recorded in the Old Testament. But He rather says, "from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zachariah," as though He were including the whole range of Old Testament Scripture, just as we would say "from Genesis to Malachi." Hence, it is inferred, with some degree of justification also, that Chronicles stood in Christ's time, as it does today in the Hebrew Bible of the Massorets, the last book of an already closed canon. Of course, in answer to this, there is the possible objection that in those early days the Scriptures were still written by the Jews on separate rolls.
Another ground for thinking that the Old Testament canon was closed before the New Testament was written is the numerous citations made in the New Testament from the Old Testament. Every book is quoted except Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah. But these exceptions are not serious. The Twelve Minor Prophets were always treated by the Jews en bloc as one canonical work; hence, if one of the twelve were quoted all were recognized. And the fact that 2Ch 24:20,21 is quoted in Mt 23:35 and Lu 11:51 presupposes also the canonicity of Ezra-Nehemiah, as originally these books were one with Chronicles, though they may possibly have already been divided in Jesus' day. As for Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, it is easy to see why they are not quoted: they probably failed to furnish New Testament writers material for quotation. The New Testament writers simply had no occasion to make citations from them. What is much more noteworthy, they never quote from the Apocryphal books, though they show an acquaintance with them. Professor Gigot, one of the greatest of Roman Catholic authorities, frankly admits this. In his General Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures, 43, he says: "They never quote them explicitly, it is true, but time and again they borrow expressions and ideas from them." As a matter of fact, New Testament writers felt free to quote from any source; for example, Paul on Mars' Hill cites to the learned Athenians an astronomical work of the Stoic Aratus of Cilicia, or perhaps from a Hymn to Jupiter by Cleanthes of Lycia, when he says, "For we are also his off-spring" (Ac 17:28). And Jude 1:14,15 almost undeniably quotes from Enoch (1:9; 60:8)-a work which is not recognized as canonical by any except the church of Abyssinia. But in any case, the mere quoting of a book does not canonize it; nor, on the other hand, does failure to quote a book exclude it. Quotation does not necessarily imply sanction; no more than reference to contemporary literature is incompatible with strict views of the canon. Everything depends upon the manner in which the quotation is made. In no case is an Apocryphal book cited by New Testament authors as "Scripture," or as the work of the Holy Spirit. And the force of this statement is not weakened by the fact that the authors of New Testament writings cited the Septuagint instead of the original Hebrew; for, "they are responsible only for the inherent truthfulness of each passage in the form which they actually adopt" (Green, Canon, 145). As a witness, therefore, the New Testament is of paramount importance. For, though it nowhere tells us the exact number of books contained in the Old Testament canon, it gives abundant evidence of the existence already in the 1st century AD of a definite and fixed canon. (https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?topic=IT0001836)
Again, my contention remains that there was no legitimate reason for the Jewish religious leaders to exclude the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books from their recognized writings from God. Unto them were given the "oracles of God", St. Paul said, they would not have discarded them as canonical if they truly were no matter when an "official" canon was compiled.
I said very clearly The Jewish canon closed AFTER
and you then say Is it your contention that the Jewish people didn't have any idea what writings came from God and were authoritative prior to that time
Just as Christian canon was closed in the 300s, but the majority of books were known as canon, you had the same with the Jewish canon -- the first five books were canon and so were the historical books, but then from the prophets onwards there was contention.
Why do you think that the Samaritans have a different canon?
He very clearly is referring to specific books, not defining canon.
Jesus also quotes from Sirach btw.
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.