Purgatory. Is its reasoning overstepping the mark of just inaccuracy?

JimiTime

The following quote is from a Catholic on another thread relating to Jesus' death not the only thing necessary for the forgiveness of sins.

Kelly1 wrote:

Christ's passion and death won for us forgiveness of the guilt of sin and won for us God's grace. That's not to say that we won't be punished. If it's not in this life, it will be in the next.

My question is, is this more than just innaccurate knowledge? Is this actually undermining our Lord and King and nullifying his sacrifice and purpose? I don't know whether to feel sad, confused or angry at this. Christian response appreciated. This can extend to other things. I mean, when does a false doctrine overstep the mark and become more than just bad information? Or, can it actually overstep the mark? If someone Lives according to Christ and believes on him, does it matter if one believes in such things?

PDN

Why would God punish us for something when he has forgiven us for its guilt?

"Sorry for messing up your bike."
"It's OK, I forgive you. But I'm still going to punch your face in for it."

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Why would God punish us for something when he has forgiven us for its guilt?

"Sorry for messing up your bike."
"It's OK, I forgive you. But I'm still going to punch your face in for it."

Of course. My question is, is this more than just bad information? Is it more serious than just being wrong? Or if you 'live' a Christian life, do these details really matter? The doctrine of purgatory really annoys and baffles me, so i don't know if its just my pejudices about it, which is why I'm asking how other Christians feel about it.

Run_to_da_hills

I have already touched on this subject of Purgatory in another post, Satan will do anything in his power to make little of sin and to get people to die in it without repentance. The Bible clearly states, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die", Ezekiel 18:20 and "the wages of sin is death". (Romans 6vs23). Only jesus has the power to forgive and forget our sin in this life and definitally not in the next.

JimiTime

^^ Guys, you're not getting me. I don't believe in purgatory. Its a doctrine that annoys me. My question is...... Is such doctrine more than just bad information, or is it more dangerous than that? We have been discussing on another forum that there is no 'one true church', and that we are liable to error. However, things like purgatory, are they a step beyond error? Seeing how most error is bad interpretation, but purgatory is just tacked on independant of scripture. Like Mary Ascending to heaven, or immaculate conception etc. So really, the question is, if one hasn't the, for want of a better term, excuse that you have mis-interpretted scripture, does this make it more serious?

BrianCalgary

My problem with Purgatory is that it minimizes Christ. It says that what Christ did is not enough. So to be sure of your salvation you must come to our church and do certain things that will allow you to attain salvation.

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I have already touched on this subject of Purgatory in another post, Satan will do anything in his power to make little of sin and to get people to die in it without repentance. The Bible clearly states, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die", Ezekiel 18:20 and "the wages of sin is death". (Romans 6vs23). Only jesus has the power to forgive and forget our sin in this life and definitally not in the next.

RTDH, I'd like to pick up on this point and then get around to Jimi's and Brian's concerns after that if that's OK with you all?

My view on Purgatory is that it is another example of God's infinite mercy. There are few if any who die without any attachment to sin in their souls.
Our will in this life is selfish and not totally focussed on God's will, try as we do. Doesn't Revelation say something to the effect that only the undefiled may enter Heaven? Very few get close to the peak of perfection as commanded by Christ. "Be perfect as you Father in Heaven is perfect". Only the perfectly pure and clean are worthy to enter Heaven. I understand the protestant argument that Christ "covers" our sins with His blood but I don't buy it. Our sins aren't covered, they are erased (eternal part by Christ's cross and temporal by our suffering).

Purgatory is the waiting room in which we are we pay the debt of temporal punishment and are cleansed of all attachment to sin.

1 Cor 3:11-15 "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."


1 Peter 3:18 Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:

In the above, the "fire" can't be Hell becuase you're not saved in Hell and there's no fire in Heaven! Would anyone like to suggest also which prison Peter is referring to?

In answer to your question RTDH, Purgatory isn't a licence to sin unlike OSAS.

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

^^ Guys, you're not getting me. I don't believe in purgatory. Its a doctrine that annoys me. My question is...... Is such doctrine more than just bad information, or is it more dangerous than that? We have been discussing on another forum that there is no 'one true church', and that we are liable to error. However, things like purgatory, are they a step beyond error? Seeing how most error is bad interpretation, but purgatory is just tacked on independant of scripture. Like Mary Ascending to heaven, or immaculate conception etc. So really, the question is, if one hasn't the, for want of a better term, excuse that you have mis-interpretted scripture, does this make it more serious?

I understand your concern Jimi. Just to step back a bit, it boils down to "scripture alone" vs "Sacred Scripture" and "Sacred Tradition" (which was fully accepted up to the time of the Reformation. Time for a new thread called "scripture refutes scripture alone" methinks. The early Church fathers are worth knowing (not that I do).

I believe scripture and tradition are equally important. The Church predates the NT so how can you say which is more important? This is where we diverge. I believe we have a divinely instituted Church guide by the Holy Spirit in order to prevent the teaching of error. You believe (I think) that all Christians constitute the Church. This is partially true but you can't be in full communion with "the Church" unless you accept her teachings which came down the line from Christ via the apostles and their successors.

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1

BrianCalgary wrote: »

My problem with Purgatory is that it minimizes Christ. It says that what Christ did is not enough. So to be sure of your salvation you must come to our church and do certain things that will allow you to attain salvation.

It appears to. Even Paul had this to say:

Coll 1:23 If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable from the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister. 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:

I believe what Paul is getting at here is that when one member of the "body" sins, it causes disease within the whole body. Therefore the suffering of another member of the "body" makes amends for the first and makes good the whole. Does this make sense?

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1

Just another thought that occured to me. Purgatory, to me at least, is a strong deterrent against sinning if I know that there is temporal punishment to follow (in this life of Purgatory).

Some say Purgatory is a dangerous doctrine. I don't see how.

God bless,
Noel.

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

Just another thought that occured to me. Purgatory, to me at least, is a strong deterrent against sinning if I know that there is temporal punishment to follow (in this life of Purgatory).

Some say Purgatory is a dangerous doctrine. I don't see how.

God bless,
Noel.

It is a Dangerous docterine like OSAS because it gives people the false illusion that God is slack on the subject of sin. "Venal" or "Mortal" they are all the one, I dont see any mention of either in scripture, sin is sin and the wages of it is death. (Spiritual death).

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It is a Dangerous docterine like OSAS because it gives people the false illusion that God is slack on the subject of sin. "Venal" or "Mortal" they are all the one, I dont see any mention of either in scripture, sin is sin and the wages of it is death. (Spiritual death).

Let's say I take one of your sweets without your permission, do I deserve Hell? I stole (something small) so yes it's a sin but does it kill my soul? Why do you think there are 10 commandments, all of which are mortal sins.

How do you know that scripture is referring to ALL sin when it talks about the wages of sin??. That's why we have a Church which teaches morality infallibly...

BrianCalgary

kelly1 wrote: »

It appears to. Even Paul had this to say:

Coll 1:23 If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable from the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister. 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:

I believe what Paul is getting at here is that when one member of the "body" sins, it causes disease within the whole body. Therefore the suffering of another member of the "body" makes amends for the first and makes good the whole. Does this make sense?

God bless,
Noel.

It does make sense, that when a member sins it hurts the whole. But themember that does sin is forgiven by and helped by teh whole in order to remain healthy. That is why the church is full of sinful, hurting people that want to be healed and whose healing can only be through Christ.

super_furry

What's difference between purgatory and limbo?

JimiTime

super_furry wrote: »

What's difference between purgatory and limbo?

Limbo was what the pagans believed in befoe the catholic church stole its doctrine and changed its name.;)

hairyheretic

JimiTime wrote: »

Limbo was what the pagans believed in befoe the catholic church stole its doctrine and changed its name.;)

Where did you get that idea from? I'm not having a go at you, I am genuinely curious, as I've not seen limbo as an afterlife mentioned anywhere outside of christianity.

JimiTime

hairyheretic wrote: »

Where did you get that idea from? I'm not having a go at you, I am genuinely curious, as I've not seen limbo as an afterlife mentioned anywhere outside of christianity.

Sorry, not the word limbo, but rather the concept of a neitherworld. As the word limbo is latin for 'edge; boundery' it would have been introduced by catholocism. Like a place where spirits roamed, not having access to a heaven for whatever the reason. These concepts are what I was refaring to, not the word or the specifics.

kelly1

super_furry wrote: »

What's difference between purgatory and limbo?

Purgatory is dogmatically defined and it's the place where the saved are cleansed of all attachment and pay the debt of temporal punishment. Limbo was only ever a theory proposed by Thomas Aquinas, I think, to account for the fact that Our Lord said we must be baptized to enter the Kingdom of God. The question is what happens to the innocents who die before baptism.

God bless,
Noel.

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

Let's say I take one of your sweets without your permission, do I deserve Hell? I stole (something small) so yes it's a sin but does it kill my soul? Why do you think there are 10 commandments, all of which are mortal sins.

How do you know that scripture is referring to ALL sin when it talks about the wages of sin??. That's why we have a Church which teaches morality infallibly...

I would take the "The wages of Sin is death" as the accumilation of sin built up in the life of someone who has never repented and died in his sin. The wage of this is spiritual death as opposed to eternal life should he had repented and accepted Christ as his saviour in this life. (This is why I cannot comprehend the concept of purgatory)

A Good Christian should ask first before he takes the sweet, If the person who took a sweet was not saved he would be going to Hell anyway. Being unsaved is a "mortal" sin in itself because you are carrying the sin inherited down from Adam whether you like it or not.

The saved person has to be very cautious about trivial sin because according to scripture it can build up unchecked and become an addiction (Servant) and will lead to spiritual death. (Damnation) "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death".

Also in James 1vs 15, Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

BrianCalgary

kelly1 wrote: »

Our Lord said we must be baptized to enter the Kingdom of God.
God bless,
Noel.

Source for this theology?

kelly1

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Source for this theology?

John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Noel.

super_furry

Would the use of the word 'man' there hold any significance then, as opposed to child or person?

kelly1

super_furry wrote: »

Would the use of the word 'man' there hold any significance then, as opposed to child or person?

No. Clearly men and women are baptized. Catholics believe that baptism is a sacrament meaning that infant baptism is valid.

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The human embryo prior to birth is suspended in an enclosure of water and is brought into the world with an accompaniment of that element.

BrianCalgary

kelly1 wrote: »

Noel.

Thanks again.

Nothing wrong with infant baptism. In the NT whole houses were baptised which would have included infants.

However that act by your parents doesn't secure salvation.

Salvation is your personal decision to put your faith in Christ. After you put your faith in Him your next step is baptism as your act of obedience to Christ and your public declaration of your faith.

PDN

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Nothing wrong with infant baptism. In the NT whole houses were baptised which would have included infants.

Brian, what part of the New Testament are you referring to? I have heard this argument used before in regard to the Philippian jailor:

At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. (Acts 16:33)

However, the very next verse tells us that the family were all old enough to exercise faith in Christ, so using this scripture to justify infant baptism would be very poor exegesis indeed:

The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family. (Acts 16:34)

Do you have any other NT examples in mind?

Run_to_da_hills

I totally agree with PDN, as I mentioned in a previous thread I believe infant sprinkling baptism only gets an infants head wet. The Lutheran and Anglican churches have inherited this unscriptural practice from the Roman Catholic Church.

Babies need to repent first before being baptized.
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost". Acts 2:37-38

Babies cannot be baptized since they do not first believe.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" Mark 16:16

"As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." Acts 8:36-37

Jesus was baptized by full immersion in the Jordan River.
"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:" Matthew 3:16

"Philip baptized the Eunuch and both of them went into the water
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him and when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing." Acts 8:38-39



Some churches think to be baptized is to be saved. Baptism doesn't save you. It's a symbolic gesture due after being saved

BrianCalgary

PDN wrote: »

Brian, what part of the New Testament are you referring to? I have heard this argument used before in regard to the Philippian jailor:

At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. (Acts 16:33)

However, the very next verse tells us that the family were all old enough to exercise faith in Christ, so using this scripture to justify infant baptism would be very poor exegesis indeed:

The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family. (Acts 16:34)

Do you have any other NT examples in mind?

This is the only one that I know of as well. I don't see in either verse the notion that all were adults nor that there were any babies. The likliehood that there were infants, I think is strong, by the culture of the time.

In having said that though. I see nothing wrong with baptising babies, my entire family were (wife and kids specifically) and now all have made the decision to follow Christ as adults and have been baptised based on their decision.

The adult baptism is the real necessary one as that shows the decision made by the adult and is a public declaration of that decision.

I am a real promoter of adult baptism, ask my high school Sunday school class, they hear the talk at least twice a year.:)


baptism is not necessary for salvation nor does beingbaptised mean that you are saved. Baptism is an act of obedience based on your decision to follow Christ.

The decision to follow Christ is the show of faith that brings God's grace and therefore salvation.

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I totally agree with PDN, as I mentioned in a previous thread I believe infant sprinkling baptism only gets an infants head wet. The Lutheran and Anglican churches have inherited this unscriptural practice from the Roman Catholic Church.

Does it really matter how much water is used?? Why would this make a difference? It's the action of the Holy Spirit in the soul that matters surely? Full immersion was just customary at the time.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Babies cannot be baptized since they do not first believe.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" Mark 16:16

Since you believe that only people who have reached the age of reason can be validly baptised, do you think God damns infants who die before baptism? Baptism is a sacrament and is not merely symbolic. It erases orginal sin and makes us children of God. Because of the sacramental nature of baptism, this is why Catholic believe baptism is valid for infants and this is what has been practiced in the Church from the very start. I suggest you read some of the early church fathers' works on the same subject e.g. St. Augustine.

Some churches think to be baptized is to be saved.

I don't but it does make us children of God. This is no guarantee that we won't be lost. We still retain our free will.

It's a symbolic gesture due after being saved

How do you "know" it's symbolic?

Anyway, we're getting away from the main subject which is Purgatory.

God bless,
Noel.

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

Does it really matter how much water is used?? Why would this make a difference? It's the action of the Holy Spirit in the soul that matters surely? Full immersion was just customary at the time..

When you go for a bath you fully wash your self, you dont just splash your face and say "I am clean" Likewise when one gets baptised fully they are symbolising the death and resurection of Christ of being fully clensed from sin after they are saved.

Full immersion was customary at the time and has never changed just like the Word of God. Jesus himself was fully immersed in water as was every one else mentioned. There is not one instance of head sprinkling mentioned at all in the Bible. It was the Catholic Church that opted for this method after the 3rd Century and other many other churches followed this tradition.

kelly1 wrote: »

Since you believe that only people who have reached the age of reason can be validly baptised, do you think God damns infants who die before baptism? Baptism is a sacrament and is not merely symbolic. It erases orginal sin and makes us children of God. Because of the sacramental nature of baptism, this is why Catholic believe baptism is valid for infants and this is what has been practiced in the Church from the very start. I suggest you read some of the early church fathers' works on the same subject e.g. St. Augustine...

I dont believe Jesus could danm any kid who has not yet reached the age of reason, read Luke's account in Chapter 18vs 15, 16:

"And they brought unto him ALSO INFANTS, that he would touch them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God"

The Greek word for "children" in Verse 16 is "paidion" and is used of both infants and young children. Our Lord summoned both the mothers with infants and those with young children. To these He stated, "for of such is the kingdom of God." Should one of these infants die unbaptized, Christ assures the parent that they belong to the kingdom of God. Baptism has absolutely no place in any person's life until after they are saved! When these parents brought their children, Christian baptism had not yet been introduced for the Church. Matthew 28:19, 20 instructing the 11 Disciples to baptize occurred after the resurrection of our Lord.

From Luke 18:15, 16 we are assured of several facts:

1/ Infants and small children were brought to Christ (Matthew 19:13).
2/These were never baptized, as that ordinance was still forthcoming.
3/Christ rebuked the disciples for interfering.
4/Christ loved the infants and young children, held them, and blessed them;
yet they were unbaptized.
5/"and He (Christ) took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and
blessed them." -Matthew 10:16

kelly1 wrote: »

How do you "know" it's symbolic?
..

In baptism, by being placed under the water, we show, symbolically, a public testimony of our personal, living faith in Christ's death as payment for our sins. Therefore, coming up out of the water of baptism is one's testimony of his faith in Christ's resurrection. This is the Gospel that must be believed to have eternal life, the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of our Saviour.

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the GOSPEL which I preached unto you ... how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures." 1st Corinthians 15:1,3,4

Havermeyer

Of course. My question is, is this more than just bad information? Is it more serious than just being wrong? Or if you 'live' a Christian life, do these details really matter? The doctrine of purgatory really annoys and baffles me, so i don't know if its just my pejudices about it, which is why I'm asking how other Christians feel about it.

In my humble opinion, or best guess at the whole reason behind 'purgatory', is that if people thought they could go around killing, raping, stealing, cheating etc. etc. because it would go unpunished by god due to his unconditional love for people, then you would have people who usually live a 'christian life' not living by the book, with no fear of reprisal.

However, if you throw purgatory into the equation, the bible gets away with claiming that god's love is unconditional. "He loves you no matter what, but if you've been bad you have to go to a place that's not quite hell, but not quite heaven either until god thinks you've served your penance and THEN you can go to heaven".

It's quite clever really. I reckon it's enough to stop most god fearers doing anything too bad.

Run_to_da_hills

If Purgatory is real, Jesus came for nothing. Purgatory is a lie, and many believe the lie. The road to destruction is wide and many go there. (Matthew 7:13)

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If Purgatory is real, Jesus came for nothing. Purgatory is a lie, and many believe the lie. The road to destruction is wide and many go there. (Matthew 7:13)

RTDH, remember that those who go to Purgatory ARE SAVED so how can you say Jesus came for nothing? Jesus came to save us from Hell and open the gates of Heaven for us.

We don't get off scott free. We still have to satisfy divine justice

Matthew 5:26 Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.

God bless,
Noel.

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

RTDH, remember that those who go to Purgatory ARE SAVED so how can you say Jesus came for nothing? .

Thats what Satan would like you to believe in.

kelly1 wrote: »

Jesus came to save us from Hell and open the gates of Heaven for us.

He did this by dying on the cross for our sin in this life only.

kelly1 wrote: »

We don't get off scott free. We still have to satisfy divine justice

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance". 2 Peter 3vs9.

Read "but that all should come to repentance" How can you come to repentance if you are dead in your sins already.

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Thats what Satan would like you to believe in.

Please tell me how belief in Purgatory leads to the loss of souls.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Please tell me how belief in Purgatory leads to the loss of souls.

Just to be the thorn in your side I know you love Noel. That has been your arguement on another thread. I.E. Bad doctrine loses souls.

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

Please tell me how belief in Purgatory leads to the loss of souls.

Satan attempts to gain as many souls as he can. He would like all Athiests to believe in no God so that they can die in their sin, likewise he wants Roman Catholics to believe in a place called "Purgatory" so that they can also die in their sin, He wants those that are saved ie "Born Again believers" to believe in OSAS so that they are under the false illusion they are always saved should they backslide into sin. Jesus was so adamant about sin that he said it would be better to loose a hand rather than sin with it and loose salvation.

"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell" Matthew 5vs30.

Havermeyer

"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell" Matthew 5vs30.

Could I be forgiven for thinking that Shakespeare wrote the bible?

Run_to_da_hills

nummnutts wrote: »

Could I be forgiven for thinking that Shakespeare wrote the bible?

Dawh, That was the dialect of English used in the 17th centuary when the KJV was translated.

PDN

Obviously his brain is numb as well.

robindch

rtdh wrote:

Dawh, That was the dialect of English used in the 17th centuary when the KJV was translated.

Not at all. The KJV's English was consciously archaic even for the 17th Century since it contained huge chunks of text lifted pretty much straight from Tyndale's resonant translation of a century or so earlier.

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

he wants Roman Catholics to believe in a place called "Purgatory" so that they can also die in their sin

I still don't understand how Purgatory causes people to "die in sin" as you put it. We all die in sin to some extent. What determines our salvation is whether we die in a state of grace. If we die in a state of mortal sin, we die without sanctifying grace and we go straight to Hell. If we die in a state of grace but with the debt of venial sins to pay, we go to Purgatory temporarily before entering Heaven.

What do you mean by "die in their sin"?

God bless,
Noel.

philologos

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I totally agree with PDN, as I mentioned in a previous thread I believe infant sprinkling baptism only gets an infants head wet. The Lutheran and Anglican churches have inherited this unscriptural practice from the Roman Catholic Church.

I know for a fact that it is possible in the Anglican churches (well at least the Church of Ireland), that one can have a full immersal adult baptism upon request.

kelly1 wrote:

Limbo was only ever a theory proposed by Thomas Aquinas, I think, to account for the fact that Our Lord said we must be baptized to enter the Kingdom of God.

I always thought the Kingdom of God was a concept here and now, it was Jesus imposing some of the values of God on earth so people could have a taste of what was to come in the afterlife. I always thought that the Kingdom of God was like a term for spiritual enlightenment and faith. But I suppose it could be applied in that context.

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

I still don't understand how Purgatory causes people to "die in sin" as you put it. We all die in sin to some extent.

When the believer has accepted Christ as his personal saviour all the sins in his life up to that very point of making that confession of salvation have been forgiven and all future sins are forgiven provided he continues his walk with God and not "backslide" or "fall away" into sin again. That person is given a renewed spirit, ie "Born Again" and given the obligation to follow Christ and his word as a desciple. It is up to that person from that point on to continue in his walk with Christ. Most Christians can remember the exact point in time that they were saved, ie their "spiritual birthday".

kelly1 wrote: »

What determines our salvation is whether we die in a state of grace. If we die in a state of mortal sin, we die without sanctifying grace and we go straight to Hell. If we die in a state of grace but with the debt of venial sins to pay, we go to Purgatory temporarily before entering Heaven.

No matter how good a person dose in this life, all their rightious acts, "works" are just filthy rags to the lord. "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away". Isiah 64vs6

The Catholic church itself has stated that there is "no Biblical Basis for Purgatory! The Catholic teaches that, "There is not much in Scripture on Purgatory...But our belief in Purgatory rests on the tradition and definitions of the Church, at the Councils of Lyons II, Florence, and Trent." http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/purga1.htm
Jesus taught more about Hell than any one else in the Scriptures.

philologos

I was discussing this with a devout Catholic friend of mine in school today. And he says that Purgatory is only for the sins for which people have not repented of, not for every sin committed. Is this true Noel?

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

I was discussing this with a devout Catholic friend of mine in school today. And he says that Purgatory is only for the sins for which people have not repented of, not for every sin committed. Is this true Noel?

No, that's not my understanding. Certainly Purgatory does purge us of any attachment to venial sin. Someone might have a bad habit of cursing and they don't consider it to be very serious but they still know it's wrong. Purgatory would "burn away" this attachment to sin and leave us with nothing but the will to do God's will.

All sin has two consequences which require a rebalancing of the scales of justice and these are eternal and temporal punishment. When God forgives us, we are forgiven the guilt of the sin meaning that we don't have to pay the eternal part of the debt. But will still have to pay the temporal debt. If someone stole my car and I forgave them and decide not to call the law, I'd still expect to get my car back having forgiven them.

At least that's my understanding.

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1

Just to get this ball rolling again. I think there is plenty of evidence in scripture for the existence of a third place/state which is neither Heaven nor Hell. e.g.

1 Peter 3:19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison.

1 Peter 4:6 For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: that they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh; but may live according to God, in the Spirit.

What prison is Peter is referring to? Common sense tells you that it can't be Heaven or Hell. Christ wouldn't preach to the damned because there's no point and those in Heaven are already saved and don't need preaching to.

See also:

1 Cor 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: 13 Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. 16 Know you not, that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 But if any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are.

In these passages, Paul is talking about how God judges our works after death by using a string of metaphors (we are God's building; works are good and bad materials, etc.). Paul says that if a person builds with good materials, he will receive a reward (verse 14). If he builds with a mixture of good and bad materials, his work is burned up, but he is still saved (verse 15). If he only builds with bad materials, he has destroyed the temple, and God will destroy him (verse 17).

In verse 15, if we go straight to Heaven having been saved, why then is there a need for fire?

God bless,
Noel.