-
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.
R
The biggest misunderstanding of Catholics, and countless other denominations is the man made doctrines built upon men.
Look at all the "isms" and the men which started each one(ie: Calvinism, Arminianism, etc...)That is proof in itself that those are man made doctrines. While each of these may have partial truths, they all have false teachings to some extent.
Let's pick up the Bible and read for ourselves the truths therein. It is man who continuously frustrates grace and the Word by creating denominations which ultimately divides Christians(Jesus prayed for unity for believers in John 17). I mean, where does the Bible give us the authority to make denominations? Is our banner certain men, or Christ Himself? We are Christians!(Acts 11:26) For that name contains the Word "CHRIST" that is the common denominator to all believers! We ought to stand up for the truth of the Word, rebuking false doctrine based upon what we learn from the Word, not basing it as truth simply because the pastor said so, or because it is popular opinion!
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39
Look at all the "isms" and the men which started each one(ie: Calvinism, Arminianism, etc...)That is proof in itself that those are man made doctrines. While each of these may have partial truths, they all have false teachings to some extent.
Let's pick up the Bible and read for ourselves the truths therein. It is man who continuously frustrates grace and the Word by creating denominations which ultimately divides Christians(Jesus prayed for unity for believers in John 17). I mean, where does the Bible give us the authority to make denominations? Is our banner certain men, or Christ Himself? We are Christians!(Acts 11:26) For that name contains the Word "CHRIST" that is the common denominator to all believers! We ought to stand up for the truth of the Word, rebuking false doctrine based upon what we learn from the Word, not basing it as truth simply because the pastor said so, or because it is popular opinion!
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39
Last edited:
M
You are making the mistake of using logic. I have asked these same people more times than I can count where the Bible came from. We can't establish a logical premise until we determine which Bible we are referring to. The closest thing I have seen to an answer is that the Bible came from the Holy Spirit. Catholics are the source of this belief. Which Bible is correct? Once we establish this we can begin to talk about scripture references. If we don't establish this premise, it is a pointless conversation. Thank you again protestants for not answering this question.
It could be they have no answer. Or for some strange reason, the truth would threaten their beliefs. Truth nourishes, it does not threaten.
In order for Protestants to exercise the principles of sola Scriptura they first have to accept the antecedent premise of what books constitute Scripture - in particular, the New Testament books. This is not as simple as it may seem at first, accustomed as we are to accepting without question the New Testament as we have it today. Although indeed there was, roughly speaking, abroad consensus in the early Church as to what books were scriptural, there still existed enough divergence of opinion to reasonably cast doubt on the Protestant concepts of the Bible's self-authenticating nature, and the self-interpreting maxim of perspicuity.The following overview of the history of acceptance of biblical books (and also non-biblical ones as Scripture) will help the reader to avoid over-generalizing or over-simplifying the complicated historical process by which we obtained our present Bible.
It's important to understand the difference between enscripturation (the actual writing) of the inspired books, and canonization ( a universal rule). Canonizing does not make the books inspired, they already are. But inspiration had to be proven, not just assumed.
? Book personally disputed or mentioned as disputed
x Book rejected, unknown, or not cited
watch for these symbols or the diagram will be confusing * ? x. It may be boring for some, just scroll to the bottom. Sorry it's so long but it is no longer available on line.
2)Cross, F.L., and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983,232,300,309-10,626,641,724,1049,1069;
3) Geisler, Norman L. & William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible,Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 109-12,117-25.
****************************************************************
Summary: Awareness of a Canon begins towards the end of the 2nd century Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria first use phrase New Testament------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gospels Accepted------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts Gradually accepted------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pauline Corpus Accepted with some exceptions:
2Timothy: x Clement of Alexandria Philemon: xIrenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews Not canonical before the 4th century in the West.
? Origen
* First accepted by Clement of Alexandria------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Not canonical
? First mentioned by Origen
xIrenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Peter Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Peter Not canonical
? First mentioned by Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 John Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Irenaeus
x Origen-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 John Not canonical
? Origen
x Tertullian,Clement of Alexandria-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 John Not canonical
? Origen
x Irenaeus,Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jude Gradual acceptance
* Clement of Alexandria
xOrigen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Clement of Alexandria
x Barococcio Canon,.206
===================================================================Epistle of Barnabas * Clement of Alexandria, Origen-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd of Hermas * Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Didache * Clement of Alexandria, Origen-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Apocalypse of Peter * Clement of Alexandria-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Acts of Paul * Origen
* Appears in Greek,Latin (5), Syriac, Armenian, & Arabic translations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gospel of Hebrews * Clement of Alexandria
***********
**********************************************************
If they had not, it is likely that Protestantism would have gone the way of all the old heresies of the first millennium of the Church Age - degenerating into insignificant, bizarre cults and disappearing into the putrid backwaters of history.
In order for Protestants to exercise the principles of sola Scriptura they first have to accept the antecedent premise of what books constitute Scripture - in particular, the New Testament books. This is not as simple as it may seem at first, accustomed as we are to accepting without question the New Testament as we have it today. Although indeed there was, roughly speaking, abroad consensus in the early Church as to what books were scriptural, there still existed enough divergence of opinion to reasonably cast doubt on the Protestant concepts of the Bible's self-authenticating nature, and the self-interpreting maxim of perspicuity.The following overview of the history of acceptance of biblical books (and also non-biblical ones as Scripture) will help the reader to avoid over-generalizing or over-simplifying the complicated historical process by which we obtained our present Bible.
It's important to understand the difference between enscripturation (the actual writing) of the inspired books, and canonization ( a universal rule). Canonizing does not make the books inspired, they already are. But inspiration had to be proven, not just assumed.
A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon
Explanation of Symbols: *Book accepted (or quoted)
? Book personally disputed or mentioned as disputed
x Book rejected, unknown, or not cited
watch for these symbols or the diagram will be confusing * ? x. It may be boring for some, just scroll to the bottom. Sorry it's so long but it is no longer available on line.
ALL SOURCES FOR THE CHART ARE PROTESTANT
1) Douglas, J.D., ed., New Bible Dictionary,Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962 ed., 194-98.
2)Cross, F.L., and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983,232,300,309-10,626,641,724,1049,1069;
3) Geisler, Norman L. & William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible,Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 109-12,117-25.
New Testament Period
(c.35-90) In this period there is little formal sense of a Canon of Scripture
****************************************************************************
Apostolic Fathers (90- 160)
************************************
Summary: The New Testament is still not clearly distinguished qualitatively from other Christian writings-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gospels Generally accepted by 130
Justin Martyr's "Gospels" contain apocryphal material
Polycarp first uses all four Gospels now in Scripture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts Scarcely known or quoted
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pauline Corpus Generally accepted by 130, yet quotations are rarely introduced as scriptural
Philippians, 1 Timothy:x Justin Martyr
2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon: x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews Not considered canonical
? Clement of Rome
xPolycarp, Justin Martyr-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Not considered canonical; not even quoted
xPolycarp, Justin Martyr-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Peter Not considered canonical-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Peter Not considered canonical, nor cited-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2, 3 John Not considered canonical
x JustinMartyr
1 John ? Polycarp / 3 John x Polycarp-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jude Not considered canonical
x Polycarp, JustinMartyr-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation Not canonical
x Polycarp****************************************************************************
Irenaeus to Origen (160-250)
(c.35-90) In this period there is little formal sense of a Canon of Scripture
****************************************************************************
Apostolic Fathers (90- 160)
************************************
Summary: The New Testament is still not clearly distinguished qualitatively from other Christian writings-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gospels Generally accepted by 130
Justin Martyr's "Gospels" contain apocryphal material
Polycarp first uses all four Gospels now in Scripture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts Scarcely known or quoted
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pauline Corpus Generally accepted by 130, yet quotations are rarely introduced as scriptural
Philippians, 1 Timothy:x Justin Martyr
2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon: x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews Not considered canonical
? Clement of Rome
xPolycarp, Justin Martyr-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Not considered canonical; not even quoted
xPolycarp, Justin Martyr-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Peter Not considered canonical-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Peter Not considered canonical, nor cited-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2, 3 John Not considered canonical
x JustinMartyr
1 John ? Polycarp / 3 John x Polycarp-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jude Not considered canonical
x Polycarp, JustinMartyr-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation Not canonical
x Polycarp****************************************************************************
Irenaeus to Origen (160-250)
****************************************************************
Summary: Awareness of a Canon begins towards the end of the 2nd century Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria first use phrase New Testament------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gospels Accepted------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts Gradually accepted------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pauline Corpus Accepted with some exceptions:
2Timothy: x Clement of Alexandria Philemon: xIrenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews Not canonical before the 4th century in the West.
? Origen
* First accepted by Clement of Alexandria------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Not canonical
? First mentioned by Origen
xIrenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Peter Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Peter Not canonical
? First mentioned by Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 John Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Irenaeus
x Origen-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 John Not canonical
? Origen
x Tertullian,Clement of Alexandria-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 John Not canonical
? Origen
x Irenaeus,Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jude Gradual acceptance
* Clement of Alexandria
xOrigen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Clement of Alexandria
x Barococcio Canon,.206
===================================================================Epistle of Barnabas * Clement of Alexandria, Origen-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd of Hermas * Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Didache * Clement of Alexandria, Origen-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Apocalypse of Peter * Clement of Alexandria-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Acts of Paul * Origen
* Appears in Greek,Latin (5), Syriac, Armenian, & Arabic translations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***********
Muratorian Canon (c.190)
Excludes Hebrews,James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter Includes The Apocalypse of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon
*************************************************************************
Summary : The Catholic epistles and Revelation are still being disputed----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus Accepted--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews * Accepted in the East
x, ? Still disputed in the West-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James x, ? Still disputed in the East
x Not accepted in the West-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Peter Fairly well accepted-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Peter Still disputed-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 John Fairly well accepted-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2, 3 John, Jude Still disputed-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation Disputed, especially in the East
xDionysius**************************************************
Council of Nicaea (325)
Questions canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude ****************************************************************************
From 325 to the Council of Carthage 397
Excludes Hebrews,James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter Includes The Apocalypse of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon
*************************************************************************
Summary : The Catholic epistles and Revelation are still being disputed----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus Accepted--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews * Accepted in the East
x, ? Still disputed in the West-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James x, ? Still disputed in the East
x Not accepted in the West-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Peter Fairly well accepted-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Peter Still disputed-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 John Fairly well accepted-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2, 3 John, Jude Still disputed-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation Disputed, especially in the East
xDionysius**************************************************
Council of Nicaea (325)
Questions canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude ****************************************************************************
From 325 to the Council of Carthage 397
**********************************************************
Summary: Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when the Canon is authoritatively closed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus, 1 Peter, 1 John Accepted-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews Eventually accepted in the West-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Slow acceptance
Not even quoted in the West until around 350!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Peter Eventually accepted-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2, 3 John, Jude Eventually accepted-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation Eventually accepted
x Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianz
===================================================================Epistle of Barnabas * Codex Sinaiticus - late 4th century-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd of Hermas * Codex Sinaiticus - late 4th century
Used as a textbook for catechumens according to Athanasius-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Clement, 2 Clement * Codex Alexandrinus - early 5th century (!)
Protestants do, of course, accept the traditional Canon of the New Testament (albeit somewhat inconsistently and with partial reluctance- Luther questioned the full canonicity of James, Revelation and other books). By doing so, they necessarily acknowledged the authority of the Catholic Church. (which is why Matt gets no answers)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus, 1 Peter, 1 John Accepted-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews Eventually accepted in the West-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Slow acceptance
Not even quoted in the West until around 350!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Peter Eventually accepted-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2, 3 John, Jude Eventually accepted-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation Eventually accepted
x Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianz
===================================================================Epistle of Barnabas * Codex Sinaiticus - late 4th century-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd of Hermas * Codex Sinaiticus - late 4th century
Used as a textbook for catechumens according to Athanasius-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Clement, 2 Clement * Codex Alexandrinus - early 5th century (!)
If they had not, it is likely that Protestantism would have gone the way of all the old heresies of the first millennium of the Church Age - degenerating into insignificant, bizarre cults and disappearing into the putrid backwaters of history.
M
I challenge anyone to watch this, it is a bit long (about an hour). If anyone can get through it and pay attention, I await your response. (using my mind reading skills, nobody will watch it or respond to it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO2NGGmWBQo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO2NGGmWBQo
I think Tim Staples from Catholic Answers.com explainsit best:
We'll begin by making clear just what we mean by "Purgatory." The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:All who die in God’s grace, 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 (1030).
This seems so simple. Its common sense. Scripture is very clear when it says, "But nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, "You [God]... are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong..." How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace.
In light of this, the truth about Purgatory is almost self-evident to Catholics. However, to many Protestants this is one of the most repugnant of all Catholic teachings. It represents “a medieval invention nowhere to be found in the Bible.” It's often called "a denial of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice." It is said to represent "a second-chance theology that is abominable." We get these and many more such charges here at Catholic Answers when it comes to Purgatory. And most often the inquiries come from Catholics who are asking for help to explain Purgatory to a friend, family member, or co-worker.
A Very Good Place to Start
Perhaps the best place to start is with the most overt reference to a “Purgatory” of sorts in the Old Testament. I say a “Purgatory of sorts” because Purgatory is a teaching fully revealed in the New Testament and defined by the Catholic Church. The Old Testament people of God would not have called it “Purgatory,” but they did clearly believe that the sins of the dead could be atoned for by the living as I will now prove. This is a constitutive element of what Catholics call “Purgatory.”
In II Maccabees 12:39-46, we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection... and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”
There are usually two immediate objections to the use of this text when talking with Protestants. First, they will dismiss any evidence presented therein because they do not accept the inspiration of Maccabees. And second, they will claim these men in Maccabees committed the sin of idolatry, which would be a mortal sin in Catholic theology. According to the Catholic Church, they would be in Hell where there is no possibility of atonement. Thus, and ironically so, they will say, Purgatory must be eliminated as a possible interpretation of this text if you’re Catholic.
The Catholic Response:
Rejecting the inspiration and canonicity of II Maccabees does not negate its historical value. Maccabees aids us in knowing, purely from an historical perspective at the very least, the Jews believed in praying and making atonement for the dead shortly before the advent of Christ. This is the faith in which Jesus and the apostles were raised. And it is in this context Jesus declares in the New Testament:
And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:32, emphasis added).
This declaration of our Lord implies there are at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next life to a people who already believed it. If Jesus wanted to condemn this teaching commonly taught in Israel, he was not doing a very good job of it according to St. Matthew’s Gospel.
The next objection presents a more complex problem. The punishment for mortal sin is, in fact, definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed in Hell according to Catholic teaching (see CCC 1030). But it is a non-sequitur to conclude from this teaching that II Maccabees could not be referring to a type of Purgatory.
First of all, a careful reading of the text reveals the sin of these men to be carrying small amulets “or sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia” under their tunics as they were going in to battle. This would be closer to a Christian baseball player believing there is some kind of power in his performing superstitious rituals before going to bat than it would be to the mortal sin of idolatry. This was, most likely, a venial sin for them. But even if what they did would have been objectively grave matter, good Jews in ancient times—just like good Catholics today—believed they should always pray for the souls of those who have died “for thou [O Lord], thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men” (II Chr. 6:30). God alone knows the degree of culpability of these “sinners.” Moreover, some or all of them may have repented before they died. Both Jews and Catholic Christians always retain hope for the salvation of the deceased this side of heaven; thus, we always pray for those who have died.
A Plainer Text
In Matthew 5:24-25, Jesus is even more explicit about Purgatory.
Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny (Matthew 5:25-26).
For Catholics, Tertullian for example, in De Anima 58, written in ca. AD 208, this teaching is parabolic, using the well-known example of “prison” and the necessary penitence it represents, as a metaphor for Purgatorial suffering that will be required for lesser transgressions, represented by the “kodrantes” or “penny” of verse 26. But for many Protestants, our Lord is here giving simple instructions to his followers concerning this life exclusively. This has nothing to do with Purgatory.
This traditional Protestant interpretation is very weak contextually. These verses are found in the midst of the famous “Sermon on the Mount,” where our Lord teaches about heaven (vs. 20), hell (vs. 29-30), and both mortal (vs. 22) and venial sins (vs. 19), in a context that presents “the Kingdom of Heaven” as the ultimate goal (see verses 3-12). Our Lord goes on to say if you do not love your enemies, “what reward have you” (verse 46)? And he makes very clear these “rewards” are not of this world. They are “rewards from your Father who is in heaven” (6:1) or “treasures in heaven” (6:19).
Further, as St. John points out in John 20:31, all Scripture is written “that believing, you may have [eternal] life in his name.” Scripture must always be viewed in the context of our full realization of the divine life in the world to come. Our present life is presented “as a vapor which appears for a little while, and afterwards shall vanish away” (James 1:17). It would seem odd to see the deeper and even “other worldly” emphasis throughout the Sermon of the Mount, excepting these two verses.
When we add to this the fact that the Greek word for prison, phulake, is the same word used by St. Peter, in I Peter 3:19, to describe the “holding place” into which Jesus descended after his death to liberate the detained spirits of Old Testament believers, the Catholic position makes even more sense. Phulake is demonstrably used in the New Testament to refer to a temporary holding place and not exclusively in this life.
The Plainest Text:
I Corinthians 3:11-15 may well be the most straightforward text in all of Sacred Scripture when it comes to Purgatory:
For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
Objection!
The Protestant respondent will immediately spotlight the fact that there is no mention, at least explicitly, of “the cleansing of sin” anywhere in the text. There is only the testing of works. The focus is on the rewards believers will receive for their service, not on how their character is cleansed from sin or imperfection. And the believers here watch their works go through the fire, but they escape it!
First, what are sins, but bad or wicked works (see Matthew 7:21-23, John 8:40, Galatians 5:19-21)? If these “works” do not represent sins and imperfections, why would they need to be eliminated? Second, it is impossible for a “work” to be cleansed apart from the human being who performed it. We are, in a certain sense, what we do when it comes to our moral choices. There is no such thing as a “work” floating around somewhere detached from a human being that could be cleansed apart from that human being. The idea of works being separate from persons does not make sense.
Most importantly, however, this idea of “works” being “burned up” apart from the soul that performed the work contradicts the text itself. The text does say the works will be tested by fire, but “if the work survives... he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss.” And, “he will be saved, but only as through fire” (Gr. dia puros). The truth is: both the works of the individual and the individual will go through the cleansing “fire” described by St. Paul in order that “he” might finally be saved and enter into the joy of the Lord. Sounds an awful lot like Purgatory.
Tim Staples is Director of Apologetics and Evangelization here at Catholic Answers.
Pax Christi
We'll begin by making clear just what we mean by "Purgatory." The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:All who die in God’s grace, 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 (1030).
This seems so simple. Its common sense. Scripture is very clear when it says, "But nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, "You [God]... are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong..." How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace.
In light of this, the truth about Purgatory is almost self-evident to Catholics. However, to many Protestants this is one of the most repugnant of all Catholic teachings. It represents “a medieval invention nowhere to be found in the Bible.” It's often called "a denial of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice." It is said to represent "a second-chance theology that is abominable." We get these and many more such charges here at Catholic Answers when it comes to Purgatory. And most often the inquiries come from Catholics who are asking for help to explain Purgatory to a friend, family member, or co-worker.
A Very Good Place to Start
Perhaps the best place to start is with the most overt reference to a “Purgatory” of sorts in the Old Testament. I say a “Purgatory of sorts” because Purgatory is a teaching fully revealed in the New Testament and defined by the Catholic Church. The Old Testament people of God would not have called it “Purgatory,” but they did clearly believe that the sins of the dead could be atoned for by the living as I will now prove. This is a constitutive element of what Catholics call “Purgatory.”
In II Maccabees 12:39-46, we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection... and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”
There are usually two immediate objections to the use of this text when talking with Protestants. First, they will dismiss any evidence presented therein because they do not accept the inspiration of Maccabees. And second, they will claim these men in Maccabees committed the sin of idolatry, which would be a mortal sin in Catholic theology. According to the Catholic Church, they would be in Hell where there is no possibility of atonement. Thus, and ironically so, they will say, Purgatory must be eliminated as a possible interpretation of this text if you’re Catholic.
The Catholic Response:
Rejecting the inspiration and canonicity of II Maccabees does not negate its historical value. Maccabees aids us in knowing, purely from an historical perspective at the very least, the Jews believed in praying and making atonement for the dead shortly before the advent of Christ. This is the faith in which Jesus and the apostles were raised. And it is in this context Jesus declares in the New Testament:
And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:32, emphasis added).
This declaration of our Lord implies there are at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next life to a people who already believed it. If Jesus wanted to condemn this teaching commonly taught in Israel, he was not doing a very good job of it according to St. Matthew’s Gospel.
The next objection presents a more complex problem. The punishment for mortal sin is, in fact, definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed in Hell according to Catholic teaching (see CCC 1030). But it is a non-sequitur to conclude from this teaching that II Maccabees could not be referring to a type of Purgatory.
First of all, a careful reading of the text reveals the sin of these men to be carrying small amulets “or sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia” under their tunics as they were going in to battle. This would be closer to a Christian baseball player believing there is some kind of power in his performing superstitious rituals before going to bat than it would be to the mortal sin of idolatry. This was, most likely, a venial sin for them. But even if what they did would have been objectively grave matter, good Jews in ancient times—just like good Catholics today—believed they should always pray for the souls of those who have died “for thou [O Lord], thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men” (II Chr. 6:30). God alone knows the degree of culpability of these “sinners.” Moreover, some or all of them may have repented before they died. Both Jews and Catholic Christians always retain hope for the salvation of the deceased this side of heaven; thus, we always pray for those who have died.
A Plainer Text
In Matthew 5:24-25, Jesus is even more explicit about Purgatory.
Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny (Matthew 5:25-26).
For Catholics, Tertullian for example, in De Anima 58, written in ca. AD 208, this teaching is parabolic, using the well-known example of “prison” and the necessary penitence it represents, as a metaphor for Purgatorial suffering that will be required for lesser transgressions, represented by the “kodrantes” or “penny” of verse 26. But for many Protestants, our Lord is here giving simple instructions to his followers concerning this life exclusively. This has nothing to do with Purgatory.
This traditional Protestant interpretation is very weak contextually. These verses are found in the midst of the famous “Sermon on the Mount,” where our Lord teaches about heaven (vs. 20), hell (vs. 29-30), and both mortal (vs. 22) and venial sins (vs. 19), in a context that presents “the Kingdom of Heaven” as the ultimate goal (see verses 3-12). Our Lord goes on to say if you do not love your enemies, “what reward have you” (verse 46)? And he makes very clear these “rewards” are not of this world. They are “rewards from your Father who is in heaven” (6:1) or “treasures in heaven” (6:19).
Further, as St. John points out in John 20:31, all Scripture is written “that believing, you may have [eternal] life in his name.” Scripture must always be viewed in the context of our full realization of the divine life in the world to come. Our present life is presented “as a vapor which appears for a little while, and afterwards shall vanish away” (James 1:17). It would seem odd to see the deeper and even “other worldly” emphasis throughout the Sermon of the Mount, excepting these two verses.
When we add to this the fact that the Greek word for prison, phulake, is the same word used by St. Peter, in I Peter 3:19, to describe the “holding place” into which Jesus descended after his death to liberate the detained spirits of Old Testament believers, the Catholic position makes even more sense. Phulake is demonstrably used in the New Testament to refer to a temporary holding place and not exclusively in this life.
The Plainest Text:
I Corinthians 3:11-15 may well be the most straightforward text in all of Sacred Scripture when it comes to Purgatory:
For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
No Christian sect I know of even attempts to deny this text speaks of the judgment of God where the works of the faithful will be tested after death. It says our works will go through “fire,” figuratively speaking. In Scripture, “fire” is used metaphorically in two ways: as a purifying agent (Mal. 3:2-3; Matt. 3:11; Mark 9:49); and as that which consumes (Matt. 3:12; 2 Thess. 1:7-8). So it is a fitting symbol here for God’s judgment. Some of the “works” represented are being burned up and some are being purified. These works survive or burn according to their essential “quality” (Gr. hopoiov - of what sort).
What is being referred to cannot be heaven because there are imperfections that need to be “burned up” (see again, Rev. 21:27, Hab. 1:13). It cannot be hell because souls are being saved. So what is it? The Protestant calls it “the Judgment” and we Catholics agree. We Catholics simply specify the part of the judgment of the saved where imperfections are purged as “Purgatory.” Objection!
The Protestant respondent will immediately spotlight the fact that there is no mention, at least explicitly, of “the cleansing of sin” anywhere in the text. There is only the testing of works. The focus is on the rewards believers will receive for their service, not on how their character is cleansed from sin or imperfection. And the believers here watch their works go through the fire, but they escape it!
First, what are sins, but bad or wicked works (see Matthew 7:21-23, John 8:40, Galatians 5:19-21)? If these “works” do not represent sins and imperfections, why would they need to be eliminated? Second, it is impossible for a “work” to be cleansed apart from the human being who performed it. We are, in a certain sense, what we do when it comes to our moral choices. There is no such thing as a “work” floating around somewhere detached from a human being that could be cleansed apart from that human being. The idea of works being separate from persons does not make sense.
Most importantly, however, this idea of “works” being “burned up” apart from the soul that performed the work contradicts the text itself. The text does say the works will be tested by fire, but “if the work survives... he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss.” And, “he will be saved, but only as through fire” (Gr. dia puros). The truth is: both the works of the individual and the individual will go through the cleansing “fire” described by St. Paul in order that “he” might finally be saved and enter into the joy of the Lord. Sounds an awful lot like Purgatory.
Tim Staples is Director of Apologetics and Evangelization here at Catholic Answers.
Pax Christi
The book of Maccabees was never accepted by the Jewish people and was never quoted from by Jesus, but yet the Catholic Church teaches its an authorized book from God.
When will you learn fordman that you are actually fighting against the Holy Spirit?
I dare you to prove Purgatory exists from the Scriptures fordman. Show us the Book, Chapter, and verse from the Books written by the Holy Spirit and not from the false book that the Catholic Church has included to deceive people.
Back up your proof only from the Scriptures from God. I know for a fact it cannot be done.
Therefore Purgatory is a Doctrine from the commandments of the Catholic Church and not from God.
Matthew 15:8-9
[SUP]8 [/SUP] “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
[SUP]9 [/SUP] in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
In Vain you worship God fordman. God refuses to listen to your prayers as long as you keep on teaching the Commandments of the Catholic Church as Doctrines from God.
Repent fordman, accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior before its too late.
When will you learn fordman that you are actually fighting against the Holy Spirit?
I dare you to prove Purgatory exists from the Scriptures fordman. Show us the Book, Chapter, and verse from the Books written by the Holy Spirit and not from the false book that the Catholic Church has included to deceive people.
Back up your proof only from the Scriptures from God. I know for a fact it cannot be done.
Therefore Purgatory is a Doctrine from the commandments of the Catholic Church and not from God.
Matthew 15:8-9
[SUP]8 [/SUP] “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
[SUP]9 [/SUP] in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
In Vain you worship God fordman. God refuses to listen to your prayers as long as you keep on teaching the Commandments of the Catholic Church as Doctrines from God.
Repent fordman, accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior before its too late.
K
First question I would ask Catholic's is this:
What is Purgatory exactly for ???
Then I will state if it is the common teaching we all have heard, that it is a place some are sent to to be purged and then saved after death. Then you call and make our Lord Jesus a liar !!!
Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in His teachings made it very clear that if you don't believe and follow Him before you die, it is to late to be saved afterwards !!!
What is Purgatory exactly for ???
Then I will state if it is the common teaching we all have heard, that it is a place some are sent to to be purged and then saved after death. Then you call and make our Lord Jesus a liar !!!
Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in His teachings made it very clear that if you don't believe and follow Him before you die, it is to late to be saved afterwards !!!
How about "You" showing the Book, Chapter, and verse where the Holy Spirit says to pray the "Sinners Prayer."
Or how about Bible studies? Show where in Scriptue the Holy Spirit tells us to have Bible Studies.
Or how about "Altar Calls"? Show what Book, Chapter, or verse in the Scriptures where the Holy Spirit says there is to be Altar Calls.
Or How about the idea of ""Scripture interprets Scripture? Show me the Book, Chapter, and verse in the Scriptures where the Holy Spirit says Scripture interprets Scripture.
Or How about dancing and consuming of alcohol that some of todays Christian churches object too? Show me Book, Chapter, and verse in the Scriptures where these practices are wrong, and the Holy Spirit tells us they are to be avoided.
Pax Christi
Or how about Bible studies? Show where in Scriptue the Holy Spirit tells us to have Bible Studies.
Or how about "Altar Calls"? Show what Book, Chapter, or verse in the Scriptures where the Holy Spirit says there is to be Altar Calls.
Or How about the idea of ""Scripture interprets Scripture? Show me the Book, Chapter, and verse in the Scriptures where the Holy Spirit says Scripture interprets Scripture.
Or How about dancing and consuming of alcohol that some of todays Christian churches object too? Show me Book, Chapter, and verse in the Scriptures where these practices are wrong, and the Holy Spirit tells us they are to be avoided.
Pax Christi
I will add this to my growing list of doctrinal anti-Semitic (anti-Jewish) beliefs held by most Protestants.
Devout Jews do not call it purgatory. Jews do believe in a purification (a purgation) which takes place after death. When a Jewish person's loved one dies, it is customary to pray on his behalf for eleven months using a prayer known as the mourner's Qaddish (derived from the Hebrew word meaning "holy"). This prayer is used to ask God to hasten the purification of the loved one's soul. The Qaddish is prayed for only eleven months because it is thought to be an insult to imply that the loved one's sins were so severe that he would require a full year of purification.
The practice of praying for the dead has been part of the Jewish faith since before Christ. Remember that 2 Maccabees 12:39-46, on which Catholics base their observance of this practice, shows that, a century and a half before Christ, prayer for the dead was taken for granted. Unlike Protestantism, Catholicism has preserved this authentic element of Judeo-Christian faith.
Long before the year 300 A.D., there are hundreds of examples found in the catacombs where the faithful asked for the prayers of the Saints. An example of this comes from the Memoria Apostolorum, an archaeological find, of St Sebastian on the Appian Way, where in hundreds of Greek and Latin graffiti the intercession of St Peter and St Paul is invoked or ritual meals eaten in their honor are recalled: “Paul and Peter, intercede for Victor”, “Peter and Paul, remember us”.
Near the catacombs of St Callistus (died 223 A.D.), the crypt of the martyrs Calocerus and Parthenius (249 to 251 A.D.), inscriptions scratched on the walls of the corridors invoke St Sixtus II (died 258 A.D.): “St Sixtus, remember in your prayers Aurelius Repentinus…”; or the chosen spirits who are in eternal beatitude: “Holy Souls, remember Marcian, Successus, Severus and all our brothers”.
What the anti-Catholic seeks to do is tie praying for the dead with Paganism and the 300 A.D. mark is important to them because they want to tie this to Constantine. But it does not take long to see the practice of praying for the dead going back to the Old Testament. The word purgatory itself is not formally in the bible, but the teaching of praying for the dead is taught from biblical text. In the Old Testament, there is clear teaching of three distinct places of the dead. The ultimate goal is heaven, there is also the teaching of hell (Gehenna/Hades), there is no dispute on this from Catholics and orthodox Protestants. However, the place of the Netherworld/Sheol was a place of waiting for the dead who were not damned (1 Peter 3:18-21).
It is this “prison” that the Christians believed would not be “released until they paid their last penny” (Luke 12:57-59). For the Catholic, all there needs to be shown is that the practice of the early Christians of praying for the dead existed before 300 A.D. We can do more than that. The Catholic Faith has the biblical text that point to the apostolic tradition. The Catholic Faith has the historical tradition and practice that go to the Apostles and Jesus Himself.
Devout Jews do not call it purgatory. Jews do believe in a purification (a purgation) which takes place after death. When a Jewish person's loved one dies, it is customary to pray on his behalf for eleven months using a prayer known as the mourner's Qaddish (derived from the Hebrew word meaning "holy"). This prayer is used to ask God to hasten the purification of the loved one's soul. The Qaddish is prayed for only eleven months because it is thought to be an insult to imply that the loved one's sins were so severe that he would require a full year of purification.
The practice of praying for the dead has been part of the Jewish faith since before Christ. Remember that 2 Maccabees 12:39-46, on which Catholics base their observance of this practice, shows that, a century and a half before Christ, prayer for the dead was taken for granted. Unlike Protestantism, Catholicism has preserved this authentic element of Judeo-Christian faith.
Long before the year 300 A.D., there are hundreds of examples found in the catacombs where the faithful asked for the prayers of the Saints. An example of this comes from the Memoria Apostolorum, an archaeological find, of St Sebastian on the Appian Way, where in hundreds of Greek and Latin graffiti the intercession of St Peter and St Paul is invoked or ritual meals eaten in their honor are recalled: “Paul and Peter, intercede for Victor”, “Peter and Paul, remember us”.
What the anti-Catholic seeks to do is tie praying for the dead with Paganism and the 300 A.D. mark is important to them because they want to tie this to Constantine. But it does not take long to see the practice of praying for the dead going back to the Old Testament. The word purgatory itself is not formally in the bible, but the teaching of praying for the dead is taught from biblical text. In the Old Testament, there is clear teaching of three distinct places of the dead. The ultimate goal is heaven, there is also the teaching of hell (Gehenna/Hades), there is no dispute on this from Catholics and orthodox Protestants. However, the place of the Netherworld/Sheol was a place of waiting for the dead who were not damned (1 Peter 3:18-21).
It is this “prison” that the Christians believed would not be “released until they paid their last penny” (Luke 12:57-59). For the Catholic, all there needs to be shown is that the practice of the early Christians of praying for the dead existed before 300 A.D. We can do more than that. The Catholic Faith has the biblical text that point to the apostolic tradition. The Catholic Faith has the historical tradition and practice that go to the Apostles and Jesus Himself.
Both you fordman and epostle worship God in vain because both of you teach as doctrines the commandments of men in the Catholic Church.
God has refused to listen to your prayer to Him epostle. God has refused to listen to your prayers fordman.
When will the two of you ever realize you are listening to the lies of Satan?
As it stands right now, God cannot allow either one of you to enter into the Kingdom of God.
Matthew 9:4-6
[SUP]4 [/SUP] But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?
[SUP]5 [/SUP] For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?
[SUP]6 [/SUP] But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.”
Mark 3:28 (ESV)
[SUP]28 [/SUP] “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter,
God has the Authority to forgive ALL our sins!
So tell me fordman and epostle, for which sins that God has not forgiven us will you need to spend time in Purgatory for?
Or could it be both of you believe that God is powerless in forgiving us of all our sins?
God has refused to listen to your prayer to Him epostle. God has refused to listen to your prayers fordman.
When will the two of you ever realize you are listening to the lies of Satan?
As it stands right now, God cannot allow either one of you to enter into the Kingdom of God.
Matthew 9:4-6
[SUP]4 [/SUP] But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?
[SUP]5 [/SUP] For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?
[SUP]6 [/SUP] But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.”
Mark 3:28 (ESV)
[SUP]28 [/SUP] “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter,
God has the Authority to forgive ALL our sins!
So tell me fordman and epostle, for which sins that God has not forgiven us will you need to spend time in Purgatory for?
Or could it be both of you believe that God is powerless in forgiving us of all our sins?
Ponder the following example. Imagine a Christian man, justified by the Lord, loses his temper and yells at his next door neighbors for letting their dog dig a hole in his yard. We can see that the man treated his neighbors rudely, albeit the neighbor’s behavior was also reprehensible. His actions would be considered a light sin (called venial sins by the Catholic Church). It’s not of the same moral weight as theft or murder, but it’s still a sin.
After shouting at the neighbors, with all the anger and stress in his body the man walks into his house, has a heart attack, and dies having just committed a small sin in the final moments of his life. Remember, this man is Christian and justified by the Lord, yet has committed a sin. Does he go to heaven or does he go to hell?
Pax Christi