-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
I agree with Pre-Vatican II Catholics on the existence of original sin. We are responsible for our bad character, although there are inputs we can not control that form our character. Everyone is born with character faults that determine bad behavior. We are morally responsible for HAVING a corrupt character that is NOT FORMED 100% by our own choosing. Agreed.
Here is where I differ: How in the scripture, how in the world does infant baptism get rid of original sin? Ae baptized Roman Catholics able to take 100% responsibility for the formation of their own bad character traits since original sin has been "washed away"?
Here is where I differ: How in the scripture, how in the world does infant baptism get rid of original sin? Ae baptized Roman Catholics able to take 100% responsibility for the formation of their own bad character traits since original sin has been "washed away"?
7
Ok can you give me some examples on what they were talking about please? It sounds real interesting and, if it has any truth in it, then there's something wrong with her understanding of the catechism, or there's more to the story. It can't be that simple. Send me the name of the theology. And about the Traditional Roman Catholic and post Vatican II, can you tell me the difference and what was changed? Tell me what Wayne said was the difference. Then i'll give you the truth. Please people, if you're going to refer to studies or research, give the full explanation so I can enlighten you with the truth. The problem seems to be that people listen to others, and believe them, without doing their own research to see how much truth there is in it, leading them to say things like " the Pope is the antichrist." All I'm saying is, i can understand people have a problem with the Catholic Church, but when you hear their criticism about Her, research the Church's defence against those particular accusations. In your minds, at the risk that there might be the SLIGHTEST CHANCE that She really is the One True Church, what will you say to Christ on that day we meet Him? Peace. And God bless and guide you all.
7
OK brother. Before I get into this with you (and we will get into it, dont worry), do you understand the Catholic Church's teachings on original sin, the true meaning and the consequences that we face because of it? The effects of original sin can NOT be washed away!! But please just tell me so I know where to start. I wont be able to reply until tomorrow because I have class tonight, then i need to sleep to wake up at 5am. So take your time. Love you! God bless.
B
7seven7;938093the Catholic Church's teachings on original sin said:
I realize you were not addressing me... but I read your post and 1 John 1:7 came to mind...[/COLOR]
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
So I guess the scripture is wrong... it should read... "almost all sin"????
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
So I guess the scripture is wrong... it should read... "almost all sin"????
Last edited by a moderator:
T
"The Church of Rome teaches that those dying in the communion of the Church, who have not in this life made full satisfaction for their sins, or acquired sufficient merit to entitle them to admission into heaven, do at death pass into a state of suffering, there to remain until due satisfaction is made and proper purification is effected. There is no necessary termination to this state of purgatory but the day of judgment or the end of the world. It may last for a thousand or many thousands of years. But Purgatory is under the power of the keys. The sufferings of souls in that state may be alleviated or shortened by the authorized ministers of the Church. There is no limit to the power of men who are believed to hold the keys of heaven in their hand, to shut and no man opens, and open and no man shuts. Of all incredibilities the most incredible is that God would commit such power as this, to weak, ignorant, and often wicked men."
Hodge, Charles (2012-04-14). Systematic Theology (All 3 Parts Complete) (Kindle Locations 5369-5380). . Kindle Edition.
Is my Catholic sister in error when she tells me that purgatory is no longer a Roman Catholic Doctrine?
Hodge, Charles (2012-04-14). Systematic Theology (All 3 Parts Complete) (Kindle Locations 5369-5380). . Kindle Edition.
Is my Catholic sister in error when she tells me that purgatory is no longer a Roman Catholic Doctrine?
T
Grudem does not compare theological schools, but politely gives references so that readers can dig deeper. Copied below are his references posted after the chapter on the Trinity. Can you recommend his Roman Catholic references?
"Sections in Evangelical Systematic Theologies
1. Anglican (Episcopalian) 1882–92 Litton, 91–108 1930 Thomas, 20–31, 90–99
2. Arminian (Wesleyan or Methodist) 1875–76 Pope, 1:253–87; 2:101–5 1892–94 Miley, 1:223–75 1940 Wiley, 1:394–439 1960 Purkiser, 143–44, 199–203 1983 Carter, 1:127–29, 375–414 1983– Cottrell, 3:117–74 1987–90 Oden, 1:181–224
3. Baptist 1767 Gill, 1:187–245 1887 Boyce, 125–66 1907 Strong, 304–52 1917 Mullins, 203–13 1976–83 Henry, 5:165–213 1983–85 Erickson, 321–42
1987–94 Lewis/Demarest, 1:251–88
4. Dispensational 1947 Chafer, 1:272–347; 5:7–38; 6:7–46 1949 Thiessen, 89–99 1986 Ryrie, 51–59
5. Lutheran 1917–24 Pieper, 1:381–404 1934 Mueller, 147–60
6. Reformed (or Presbyterian) 1559 Calvin, 1:120–59 (1.13) 1861 Heppe, 105–32 1871–73 Hodge, 1:442–534 1878 Dabney, 174–211 1887–1921 Warfield, BTS, 22–156; SSW, 1:88–92; BD, 133–74 1889 Shedd, 1:249–332 1937–66 Murray, CW, 4:58–81 1938 Berkhof, 82–99 1962 Buswell, 1:103–29
7. Renewal (or charismatic/Pentecostal) 1988–92 Williams, 1:83–94
Sections in Representative Roman Catholic Systematic Theologies
1. Roman Catholic: Traditional 1955 Ott, 50–75
2. Roman Catholic: Post-Vatican II 1980 McBrien, 1:343–66"
Grudem, Wayne (2009-05-18). Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (pp. 259- 260). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
"Sections in Evangelical Systematic Theologies
1. Anglican (Episcopalian) 1882–92 Litton, 91–108 1930 Thomas, 20–31, 90–99
2. Arminian (Wesleyan or Methodist) 1875–76 Pope, 1:253–87; 2:101–5 1892–94 Miley, 1:223–75 1940 Wiley, 1:394–439 1960 Purkiser, 143–44, 199–203 1983 Carter, 1:127–29, 375–414 1983– Cottrell, 3:117–74 1987–90 Oden, 1:181–224
3. Baptist 1767 Gill, 1:187–245 1887 Boyce, 125–66 1907 Strong, 304–52 1917 Mullins, 203–13 1976–83 Henry, 5:165–213 1983–85 Erickson, 321–42
1987–94 Lewis/Demarest, 1:251–88
4. Dispensational 1947 Chafer, 1:272–347; 5:7–38; 6:7–46 1949 Thiessen, 89–99 1986 Ryrie, 51–59
5. Lutheran 1917–24 Pieper, 1:381–404 1934 Mueller, 147–60
6. Reformed (or Presbyterian) 1559 Calvin, 1:120–59 (1.13) 1861 Heppe, 105–32 1871–73 Hodge, 1:442–534 1878 Dabney, 174–211 1887–1921 Warfield, BTS, 22–156; SSW, 1:88–92; BD, 133–74 1889 Shedd, 1:249–332 1937–66 Murray, CW, 4:58–81 1938 Berkhof, 82–99 1962 Buswell, 1:103–29
7. Renewal (or charismatic/Pentecostal) 1988–92 Williams, 1:83–94
Sections in Representative Roman Catholic Systematic Theologies
1. Roman Catholic: Traditional 1955 Ott, 50–75
2. Roman Catholic: Post-Vatican II 1980 McBrien, 1:343–66"
Grudem, Wayne (2009-05-18). Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (pp. 259- 260). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Yes, she is mistaken.
See this section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church > Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText
Also, here's an overview of the doctrine...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a "purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven," which is experienced by those "who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified" (CCC 1030). It notes that "this final purification of the elect . . . is entirely different from the punishment of the damned" (CCC 1031).
The purification is necessary because, as Scripture teaches, nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27) and, while we may die with our mortal sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven.
Two Judgments
When we die, we undergo what is called the particular, or individual, judgment. Scripture says that "it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27). We are judged instantly and receive our reward, for good or ill. We know at once what our final destiny will be. At the end of time, when Jesus returns, there will come the general judgment to which the Bible refers, for example, in Matthew 25:31-32: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." In this general judgment all our sins will be publicly revealed (Luke 12:2–5).
Augustine said, in The City of God, that "temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment" (21:13). It is between the particular and general judgments, then, that the soul is purified of the remaining consequences of sin: "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59).
A Catholic "Invention"?
Fundamentalists may be fond of saying the Catholic Church "invented" the doctrine of purgatory, but they have difficulty saying just when. Most professional anti-Catholics—the ones who make their living attacking "Romanism"—seem to place the blame on Pope Gregory the Great, who reigned from A.D. 590–604.
But that hardly accounts for the request of Monica, mother of Augustine, who asked her son, in the fourth century, to remember her soul in his Masses. This would make no sense if she thought her soul would not benefit from prayers, as would be the case if she were in hell or in the full glory of heaven.
Nor does ascribing the doctrine to Gregory explain the graffiti in the catacombs, where Christians during the persecutions of the first three centuries recorded prayers for the dead. Indeed, some of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament, like the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity (both written during the second century), refer to the Christian practice of praying for the dead. Such prayers would have been offered only if Christians believed in purgatory, even if they did not use that name for it. (See Catholic Answers’ Fathers Know Best tract The Existence of Purgatory for quotations from these and other early Christian sources.)
Why No Protests?
Whenever a date is set for the "invention" of purgatory, you can point to historical evidence to show the doctrine was in existence before that date. Besides, if at some point the doctrine was pulled out of a clerical hat, why does ecclesiastical history record no protest against it?
A study of the history of doctrines indicates that Christians in the first centuries were up in arms (sometimes quite literally) if anyone suggested the least change in beliefs. They were extremely conservative people who tested a doctrine’s truth by asking, Was this believed by our ancestors? Was it handed on from the apostles? Surely belief in purgatory would be considered a great change, if it had not been believed from the first—so where are the records of protests?
They don’t exist. There is no hint at all, in the oldest writings available to us (or in later ones, for that matter), that "true believers" in the immediate post-apostolic years spoke of purgatory as a novel doctrine. They must have understood that the oral teaching of the apostles, what Catholics call tradition, and the Bible not only failed to contradict the doctrine, but, in fact, confirmed it.
It is no wonder, then, that those who deny the existence of purgatory tend to touch upon only briefly the history of the belief. They prefer to claim that the Bible speaks only of heaven and hell. Wrong. It speaks plainly of a third condition, commonly called the limbo of the Fathers, where the just who had died before the redemption were waiting for heaven to be opened to them. After his death and before his resurrection, Christ visited those experiencing the limbo of the Fathers and preached to them the good news that heaven would now be opened to them (1 Pet. 3:19). These people thus were not in heaven, but neither were they experiencing the torments of hell.
Some have speculated that the limbo of the Fathers is the same as purgatory. This may or may not be the case. However, even if the limbo of the Fathers is not purgatory, its existence shows that a temporary, intermediate state is not contrary to Scripture. Look at it this way. If the limbo of the Fathers was purgatory, then this one verse directly teaches the existence of purgatory. If the limbo of the Fathers was a different temporary state, then the Bible at least says such a state can exist. It proves there can be more than just heaven and hell.
"Purgatory Not in Scripture"
Some Fundamentalists also charge, as though it actually proved something, "The word purgatory is nowhere found in Scripture." This is true, and yet it does not disprove the existence of purgatory or the fact that belief in it has always been part of Church teaching. The words Trinity and Incarnation aren’t in Scripture either, yet those doctrines are clearly taught in it. Likewise, Scripture teaches that purgatory exists, even if it doesn’t use that word and even if 1 Peter 3:19 refers to a place other than purgatory.
Christ refers to the sinner who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.
Then, of course, there is the Bible’s approval of prayers for the dead: "In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin" (2 Macc. 12:43–45). Prayers are not needed by those in heaven, and no one can help those in hell. That means some people must be in a third condition, at least temporarily. This verse so clearly illustrates the existence of purgatory that, at the time of the Reformation, Protestants had to cut the books of the Maccabees out of their Bibles in order to avoid accepting the doctrine.
Prayers for the dead and the consequent doctrine of purgatory have been part of the true religion since before the time of Christ. Not only can we show it was practiced by the Jews of the time of the Maccabees, but it has even been retained by Orthodox Jews today, who recite a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death of a loved one so that the loved one may be purified. It was not the Catholic Church that added the doctrine of purgatory. Rather, any change in the original teaching has taken place in the Protestant churches, which rejected a doctrine that had always been believed by Jews and Christians.
Why Go To Purgatory?
Why would anyone go to purgatory? To be cleansed, for "nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27). Anyone who has not been completely freed of sin and its effects is, to some extent, "unclean." Through repentance he may have gained the grace needed to be worthy of heaven, which is to say, he has been forgiven and his soul is spiritually alive. But that’s not sufficient for gaining entrance into heaven. He needs to be cleansed completely.
Fundamentalists claim, as an article in Jimmy Swaggart’s magazine, The Evangelist, put it, that "Scripture clearly reveals that all the demands of divine justice on the sinner have been completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It also reveals that Christ has totally redeemed, or purchased back, that which was lost. The advocates of a purgatory (and the necessity of prayer for the dead) say, in effect, that the redemption of Christ was incomplete. . . . It has all been done for us by Jesus Christ, there is nothing to be added or done by man."
It is entirely correct to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. Scripture reveals that it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:3–5), and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christ’s applying to us the purifying redemption that he accomplished for us by his death on the cross.
No Contradiction
The Fundamentalist resistance to the biblical doctrine of purgatory presumes there is a contradiction between Christ’s redeeming us on the cross and the process by which we are sanctified. There isn’t. And a Fundamentalist cannot say that suffering in the final stage of sanctification conflicts with the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement without saying that suffering in the early stages of sanctification also presents a similar conflict. The Fundamentalist has it backward: Our suffering in sanctification does not take away from the cross. Rather, the cross produces our sanctification, which results in our suffering, because "[f]or the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness" (Heb. 12:11).
Nothing Unclean
Purgatory makes sense because there is a requirement that a soul not just be declared to be clean, but actually be clean, before a man may enter into eternal life. After all, if a guilty soul is merely "covered," if its sinful state still exists but is officially ignored, then it is still a guilty soul. It is still unclean.
Catholic theology takes seriously the notion that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven." From this it is inferred that a less than cleansed soul, even if "covered," remains a dirty soul and isn’t fit for heaven. It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections. The cleansing occurs in purgatory. Indeed, the necessity of the purging is taught in other passages of Scripture, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which declares that God chose us "to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit." Sanctification is thus not an option, something that may or may not happen before one gets into heaven. It is an absolute requirement, as Hebrews 12:14 states that we must strive "for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord."
Purgatory | Catholic Answers
See this section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church > Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText
Also, here's an overview of the doctrine...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a "purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven," which is experienced by those "who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified" (CCC 1030). It notes that "this final purification of the elect . . . is entirely different from the punishment of the damned" (CCC 1031).
The purification is necessary because, as Scripture teaches, nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27) and, while we may die with our mortal sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven.
Two Judgments
When we die, we undergo what is called the particular, or individual, judgment. Scripture says that "it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27). We are judged instantly and receive our reward, for good or ill. We know at once what our final destiny will be. At the end of time, when Jesus returns, there will come the general judgment to which the Bible refers, for example, in Matthew 25:31-32: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." In this general judgment all our sins will be publicly revealed (Luke 12:2–5).
Augustine said, in The City of God, that "temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment" (21:13). It is between the particular and general judgments, then, that the soul is purified of the remaining consequences of sin: "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59).
A Catholic "Invention"?
Fundamentalists may be fond of saying the Catholic Church "invented" the doctrine of purgatory, but they have difficulty saying just when. Most professional anti-Catholics—the ones who make their living attacking "Romanism"—seem to place the blame on Pope Gregory the Great, who reigned from A.D. 590–604.
But that hardly accounts for the request of Monica, mother of Augustine, who asked her son, in the fourth century, to remember her soul in his Masses. This would make no sense if she thought her soul would not benefit from prayers, as would be the case if she were in hell or in the full glory of heaven.
Nor does ascribing the doctrine to Gregory explain the graffiti in the catacombs, where Christians during the persecutions of the first three centuries recorded prayers for the dead. Indeed, some of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament, like the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity (both written during the second century), refer to the Christian practice of praying for the dead. Such prayers would have been offered only if Christians believed in purgatory, even if they did not use that name for it. (See Catholic Answers’ Fathers Know Best tract The Existence of Purgatory for quotations from these and other early Christian sources.)
Why No Protests?
Whenever a date is set for the "invention" of purgatory, you can point to historical evidence to show the doctrine was in existence before that date. Besides, if at some point the doctrine was pulled out of a clerical hat, why does ecclesiastical history record no protest against it?
A study of the history of doctrines indicates that Christians in the first centuries were up in arms (sometimes quite literally) if anyone suggested the least change in beliefs. They were extremely conservative people who tested a doctrine’s truth by asking, Was this believed by our ancestors? Was it handed on from the apostles? Surely belief in purgatory would be considered a great change, if it had not been believed from the first—so where are the records of protests?
They don’t exist. There is no hint at all, in the oldest writings available to us (or in later ones, for that matter), that "true believers" in the immediate post-apostolic years spoke of purgatory as a novel doctrine. They must have understood that the oral teaching of the apostles, what Catholics call tradition, and the Bible not only failed to contradict the doctrine, but, in fact, confirmed it.
It is no wonder, then, that those who deny the existence of purgatory tend to touch upon only briefly the history of the belief. They prefer to claim that the Bible speaks only of heaven and hell. Wrong. It speaks plainly of a third condition, commonly called the limbo of the Fathers, where the just who had died before the redemption were waiting for heaven to be opened to them. After his death and before his resurrection, Christ visited those experiencing the limbo of the Fathers and preached to them the good news that heaven would now be opened to them (1 Pet. 3:19). These people thus were not in heaven, but neither were they experiencing the torments of hell.
Some have speculated that the limbo of the Fathers is the same as purgatory. This may or may not be the case. However, even if the limbo of the Fathers is not purgatory, its existence shows that a temporary, intermediate state is not contrary to Scripture. Look at it this way. If the limbo of the Fathers was purgatory, then this one verse directly teaches the existence of purgatory. If the limbo of the Fathers was a different temporary state, then the Bible at least says such a state can exist. It proves there can be more than just heaven and hell.
"Purgatory Not in Scripture"
Some Fundamentalists also charge, as though it actually proved something, "The word purgatory is nowhere found in Scripture." This is true, and yet it does not disprove the existence of purgatory or the fact that belief in it has always been part of Church teaching. The words Trinity and Incarnation aren’t in Scripture either, yet those doctrines are clearly taught in it. Likewise, Scripture teaches that purgatory exists, even if it doesn’t use that word and even if 1 Peter 3:19 refers to a place other than purgatory.
Christ refers to the sinner who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.
Then, of course, there is the Bible’s approval of prayers for the dead: "In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin" (2 Macc. 12:43–45). Prayers are not needed by those in heaven, and no one can help those in hell. That means some people must be in a third condition, at least temporarily. This verse so clearly illustrates the existence of purgatory that, at the time of the Reformation, Protestants had to cut the books of the Maccabees out of their Bibles in order to avoid accepting the doctrine.
Prayers for the dead and the consequent doctrine of purgatory have been part of the true religion since before the time of Christ. Not only can we show it was practiced by the Jews of the time of the Maccabees, but it has even been retained by Orthodox Jews today, who recite a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death of a loved one so that the loved one may be purified. It was not the Catholic Church that added the doctrine of purgatory. Rather, any change in the original teaching has taken place in the Protestant churches, which rejected a doctrine that had always been believed by Jews and Christians.
Why Go To Purgatory?
Why would anyone go to purgatory? To be cleansed, for "nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27). Anyone who has not been completely freed of sin and its effects is, to some extent, "unclean." Through repentance he may have gained the grace needed to be worthy of heaven, which is to say, he has been forgiven and his soul is spiritually alive. But that’s not sufficient for gaining entrance into heaven. He needs to be cleansed completely.
Fundamentalists claim, as an article in Jimmy Swaggart’s magazine, The Evangelist, put it, that "Scripture clearly reveals that all the demands of divine justice on the sinner have been completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It also reveals that Christ has totally redeemed, or purchased back, that which was lost. The advocates of a purgatory (and the necessity of prayer for the dead) say, in effect, that the redemption of Christ was incomplete. . . . It has all been done for us by Jesus Christ, there is nothing to be added or done by man."
It is entirely correct to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. Scripture reveals that it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:3–5), and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christ’s applying to us the purifying redemption that he accomplished for us by his death on the cross.
No Contradiction
The Fundamentalist resistance to the biblical doctrine of purgatory presumes there is a contradiction between Christ’s redeeming us on the cross and the process by which we are sanctified. There isn’t. And a Fundamentalist cannot say that suffering in the final stage of sanctification conflicts with the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement without saying that suffering in the early stages of sanctification also presents a similar conflict. The Fundamentalist has it backward: Our suffering in sanctification does not take away from the cross. Rather, the cross produces our sanctification, which results in our suffering, because "[f]or the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness" (Heb. 12:11).
Nothing Unclean
Purgatory makes sense because there is a requirement that a soul not just be declared to be clean, but actually be clean, before a man may enter into eternal life. After all, if a guilty soul is merely "covered," if its sinful state still exists but is officially ignored, then it is still a guilty soul. It is still unclean.
Catholic theology takes seriously the notion that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven." From this it is inferred that a less than cleansed soul, even if "covered," remains a dirty soul and isn’t fit for heaven. It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections. The cleansing occurs in purgatory. Indeed, the necessity of the purging is taught in other passages of Scripture, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which declares that God chose us "to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit." Sanctification is thus not an option, something that may or may not happen before one gets into heaven. It is an absolute requirement, as Hebrews 12:14 states that we must strive "for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord."
Purgatory | Catholic Answers
7
7seven7;938093the Catholic Church's teachings on original sin said:
I realize you were not addressing me... but I read your post and 1 John 1:7 came to mind...[/COLOR]
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
So I guess the scripture is wrong... it should read... "almost all sin"????
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
So I guess the scripture is wrong... it should read... "almost all sin"????
*IMMORTALITY
*IMPASSIBILITY (freedom from suffering)
*INTEGRITY (freedom from disordered passions)
*INFUSED KNOWLEDGE
BarlyGurl, my point was that the loss of these gifts were the result of Adams disobediance, and have been lost forever. That's what I mean when I say that people comment on the teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church when they know nothing about it. God bless.
7
Hey guys I just found something you might find interesting! Even Martin Luther and John Calvin upheld the legitimacy of infant Baptism and defended it stridently:
" Who is to be baptized? All nations, that is, all human beings, young and old, are to be baptized...Infants, too, are to be baptized because they are included in the words 'all nations;' (and) because holy baptism is the only means whereby infants, who, too, must be born again, can ordinarily be regenerated and brought to faith."
"Doubtless the design of Satan in assaulting infant baptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, the attestation of devine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes.... Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to Him our infants, to whom He has assigned a place among his friends and family, that is, the members of the Church."
Interesting! I wonder who changed that in Protestantism, and why they changed it.
" Who is to be baptized? All nations, that is, all human beings, young and old, are to be baptized...Infants, too, are to be baptized because they are included in the words 'all nations;' (and) because holy baptism is the only means whereby infants, who, too, must be born again, can ordinarily be regenerated and brought to faith."
"Doubtless the design of Satan in assaulting infant baptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, the attestation of devine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes.... Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to Him our infants, to whom He has assigned a place among his friends and family, that is, the members of the Church."
Interesting! I wonder who changed that in Protestantism, and why they changed it.
