Should Christians Follow Scripture Alone or Scripture and Traditions?

Hi Athanasius,

Thanks for the response. Can you, as an Anglican Christian, enlighten me, does the Church of England pray for the dead? I seem to recall that during Queen Elizabeth's recent repose (may Her Majesty rest in peace), there were prayers for her soul during the Church Service. And if so, does that not imply prayers can benefit the departed. Any comments/thoughts about that?

Anyway, before we come back to the Holy Bible, let me cite two Church Fathers, in around the first 300 years of Christianity.

Tertullian
“We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into eternal life]” (The Crown 3:3 [A.D. 211]).

“A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice” (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem
“Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep, for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn sacrifice is laid out” (Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 [A.D. 350]).

Now, let's come back to the Bible. Are there New Testament prayers for the departed/mentions of a prison of spirits etc? Yes.

1. 2 Tim 1:16-18 is generally agreed, by many Bible Commentators, to be a prayer for a departed Christian, and the context itself suggests it: "16 The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: 17 But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. 18 The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well."

Here, St. Paul the Apostle asks God to show Mercy to his friend Onesiphorus on the Day of the Lord. That shows imo, that even good Christians can die with a few small or venial sins remaining, which are gradually taken away by God as prayers are offered.

BibleHub Pulpit Commentary: "It is inferred from this expression, coupled with that in 2 Timothy 4:19, that Onesiphorus himself was no longer living; and hence ver. 18 (where see note) is thought by some to be an argument for prayers for the dead. The inference, further strengthened by the peculiar language of ver. 18, though not absolutely certain, is undoubtedly probable." https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/1-16.htm

2. 1 Pet 3:19 mentions a Prison of spirits where Christ went to preach in Spirit after His Death: "18For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring [f]us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20who formerly were disobedient, [g]when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. "

What is this Prison of spirits? Christ went to preach there, so they couldn't have been damned/lost. It thus provides more Biblical support for the Tradition of Purgatory. Again, BibleHub Commentary: "some have thought that Christ went to proclaim to them the certainty of their damnation! The notion has but to be mentioned to be rejected with horror; but it may be pointed out also that in 1Peter 4:6, which refers back to this passage, it is distinctly called a "gospel;" and it would be too grim to call that a gospel which (in Calvin's words) "made it more clear and patent to them that they were shut out from all salvation!" He brought good tidings, therefore, of some kind to the "prison" and the spirits in it." https://biblehub.com/1_peter/3-19.htm It was a prison of spirits which they later left; and so is akin to purgatory imo.

Will answer the two objections you brought forward in a subsequent post shortly. God Bless.

The Church of England's official liturgy is the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. There are prayers in the section for the burial of the dead that pray that the departed be found acceptable in the general resurrection by the work of Christ. That's praying God's own words back to him. What the church of England believes now? Who knows. Frankly the COE should be disestablished. Historically and confessionally the Anglican church has been Reformed. The Anglican church uses the following for her formularies which mark the boundaries of orthodox belief

1. the 1662 BCP
2 the 39 Articles of religion.
3. the Book of Homilies

Regarding the doctrine of Purgatory:

22. Of Purgatory

The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshiping and adoration as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

and the corollary article:


14. Of Works of Supererogation

Voluntary works besides, over and above God’s commandments, which they call works of supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety; for by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required; whereas Christ saith plainly: ‘When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say: “We are unprofitable servants.” ’

There are those who profess to be something called Anglo-catholic but they come way later and in no way represent the Anglican church for the first 400 years. They even invented their own missal which a schizophrenic piece of work teaching out both sides of its proverbial mouth. In my opinion they do not represent historic Anglican belief in any appreciable way.

You might want to check this qoute again. Here is the real qoute:

When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new-born children),

Tertullian. (1885). The Chaplet, or De Corona. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Vol. 3, p. 94). Christian Literature Company.

This seems to be from Jurgens which put back into context talks about the Refrigerium of the Soul, which is a funerary meal not purgatory. This is the problem when using souces like Jurgens is that it doesn't give the context. There are protestant versions simialr to Jurgens and its trash too. Furthermore sources like Jurgens tells you what you are to find in the historical record and not what is really there.

From this point I see that we are challenged by an appeal to the apostle; for the more easy apprehension of whose meaning we must all the more earnestly inculcate (the assertion), that a woman is more bound when her husband is dead not to admit (to marriage) another husband. For let us reflect that divorce either is caused by discord, or else causes discord; whereas death is an event resulting from the law of God, not from an offence of man; and that it is a debt which all owe, even the unmarried. Therefore, if a divorced woman, who has been separated (from her husband) in soul as well as body, through discord, anger, hatred, and the causes of these—injury, or contumely, or whatsoever cause of complaint—is bound to a personal enemy, not to say a husband, how much more will one who, neither by her own nor her husband’s fault, but by an event resulting from the LORD’s law, has been—not separated from, but left behind by—her consort, be his, even when dead, to whom, even when dead, she owes (the debt of) concord? From him from whom she has heard no (word of) divorce she does not turn away; with him she is, to whom she has written no (document of) divorce; him whom she was unwilling to have lost, she retains. She has within her the licence of the mind, which represents to a man, in imaginary enjoyment, all things which he has not. In short, I ask the woman herself, “Tell me, sister, have you sent your husband before you (to his rest) in peace?” What will she answer? (Will she say), “In discord?” In that case she is the more bound to him with whom she has a cause (to plead) at the bar of God. She who is bound (to another) has not departed (from him). But (will she say), “In peace?” In that case, she must necessarily persevere in that (peace) with him whom she will no longer have the power to divorce; not that she would, even if she had been able to divorce him, have been marriageable. Indeed, she prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection; and she offers (her sacrifice) on the anniversaries of his falling asleep. For, unless she does these deeds, she has in the true sense divorced him, so far as in her lies; and indeed the more iniquitously—inasmuch as (she did it) as far as was in her power—because she had no power (to do it); and with the more indignity, inasmuch as it is with more indignity if (her reason for doing it is) because he did not deserve it. Or else shall we, pray, cease to be after death, according to (the teaching of) some Epicurus, and not according to (that of) Christ? But if we believe the resurrection of the dead, of course we shall be bound to them with whom we are destined to rise, to render an account the one of the other. “But if ‘in that age they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be equal to angels,’ is not the fact that there will be no restitution of the conjugal relation a reason why we shall not be bound to our departed consorts?” Nay, but the more shall we be bound (to them), because we are destined to a better estate—destined (as we are) to rise to a spiritual consortship, to recognise as well our own selves as them who are ours. Else how shall we sing thanks to God to eternity, if there shall remain in us no sense and memory of this debt; if we shall be re-formed in substance, not in consciousness? Consequently, we who shall be with God shall be together; since we shall all be with the one God—albeit the wages be various, albeit there be “many mansions” in the house of the same Father3—having laboured for the “one penny” of the self-same hire, that is, of eternal life; in which (eternal life) God will still less separate them whom He has conjoined, than in this lesser life He forbids them to be separated.
Since this is so, how will a woman have room for another husband, who is, even to futurity, in the possession of her own? (Moreover, we speak to each sex, even if our discourse address itself but to the one; inasmuch as one discipline is incumbent [on both].) She will have one in spirit, one in flesh. This will be adultery, the conscious affection of one woman for two men. If the one has been disjoined from her flesh, but remains in her heart—in that place where even cogitation without carnal contact achieves beforehand both adultery by concupiscence, and matrimony by volition—he is to this hour her husband, possessing the very thing which is the mean whereby he became so—her mind, namely, in which withal, if another shall find a habitation, this will be a crime. Besides, excluded he is not, if he has withdrawn from viler carnal commerce. A more honourable husband is he, in proportion as he is become more pure.


Tertullian. (1885). On Monogamy. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), & S. Thelwall (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second (Vol. 4, pp. 66–67). Christian Literature Company.

Hi Athanasius. Ok, thanks for the explanation. So the Anglican community accepts Prayers for the Dead but not Purgatory.

Now, regarding the patristic citations, I checked them in context, and they're there. Here are two online sources:

Tertullian: "As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours."

Source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0304.htm

Another link: "As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours."

Source: http://www.logoslibrary.org/tertullian/crown/03.html

Any thoughts on what St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote that I quoted?

Also, the Reformers appealed much to St. Augustine. Yet it is universally known that St. Augustine taught Purgatory:

"The man who perhaps has not cultivated the land and has allowed it to be overrun with brambles has in this life the curse of his land on all his works, and after this life he will have either purgatorial fire or eternal punishment. (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 2:20 [388/389])

"But 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. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come." (The City of God 21:13 [413-427]) Online Source to cross-verify: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120121.htm

Curious to hear your thoughts on the Prison of spirits mentioned by St. Peter in Scripture. What do you think that is?

God Bless.

My apologies, I see the text now, perhaps its just wonky how its cited. I would say again this refers the the Refrigerium interium. Which depending on the author can mean a number of things. In Tertullian's case it means the eternal repose of the soul in Paradise, Eternal happiness. It is celebrated as a Funerary meal. Which is how it is used here and in the passage "On Monogamy" cited earlier. Terullian knows nothing of Purgatory since it will take a convergence of several streams of doctrinal innovation over several more centuries before such teaching can be found.

Again, context helps iron out some difficulties. First, these are catechetical lectures meaning these are meant for catechumens about to enter the church. Second, Cyril is speaking of on the liturgy which is the subject of lecture 23. I would guess probably the liturgy of St. Mark or St. James which both have a section commemorations of the departed saints especially patriarchs, prophets apostles and martyrs. There is nothing about the words, “that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition.” That seems to be Cyril's fanciful addition.




Augustine wrote a lot and retracted a lot depending on what part of his life you are talking about. And I don't mean the condemn the man for either. I don't believe it to be proper nor fruitful to judge the ECF by our standards. That said Augustine had two major events in his life that colored a lot of what he wrote. First was the Donatist heresy early on and the Pelagian heresy later in his role as Bishop. He was also influenced by Tertullian whom he believed to be orthodox but every contemporary states that he was not while in his later years as a Montantist. So yes, Augustine did seem to believe in something similar to purgatory and I reject his teaching as error on the matter. Yet I would consider Origen to be the root of Purgatory. To put it kindly, I don't believe Origen was orthodox.

I'm not sure what the significance of this passage is. Other than Paul is praying for mercy for his friend. There is no evidence, even in the Haydock commentary and I consulted 5 additional commentaries and none suggest that Onesiphorus is dead in this passage.

The historic interpretation is that this was the abode of the OT faithful who were awaiting the redemption though Christ. There is a famous EO Icon of this event so its quite ancient. It is also Calvin's interpretation of the text.

A.

Not all traditions are profitable and good. Paul was referring to his own teachings. But there were, and still are, unprofitable traditions and teachings.

Titus 1:14 Context

11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 15Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Ok. The point is offerings of Holy Communion, the Body and Blood of Jesus, are offered for the departed to enter their rest.

You are talking of this, correct? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerium

Well, Tertullian didn't hold that everyone goes there, but only those live saintly lives, like e.g. Abraham did in the OT. Tertullian also writes: "lest this Judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell [hades], out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation? (A Treatise on the Soul, 35)" https://onepeterfive.com/purgatory-saved-fire/

The verse he's referring to is this: "26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing." (Mat 5:26) A prison from which souls come out after paying the uttermost farthing? Again purgatory, and not hell proper.

St. Cyprian of Carthage is another early witness in Africa: "It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord." (Epistle 51) https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050651.htm

Sorry, but before Calvin and Luther, and Henry VIII et al in England, there is not the slightest hint of denying purgatory.

Centuries after Tertullian? Are you sure about that? When and where did Purgatory develop in your opinion?

Please see St. Cyprian above. Tertullian died in 220. St. Cyprian in 258. Yet, he teaches souls are saved through fire, like 1 Cor 3:13-15.

Ok, so basically you reject St. Cyril's teaching, and call it "fanciful". All right, but in that case, can we agree the views of the Reformers contradict that of the Early Church, and were 16th century innovations in their day?

Otherwise, which orthodox Church Father held views similar to theirs, in condemning such things you call "fanciful"?

St. Augustine always taught purgatory and never retracted it. His teachings were approved in the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Origen didn't teach purgatory proper, but apokatastasis. According to him, all creatures will be restored. That's universalism. St. Augustine didn't agree, but said only those Christians who die in venial sin will be saved through fire.

Well, the commentary I cited called it a probable interpretation. Here it is again: "It is inferred from this expression, coupled with that in 2 Timothy 4:19, that Onesiphorus himself was no longer living; and hence ver. 18 (where see note) is thought by some to be an argument for prayers for the dead." https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/1-16.htm

In 2 Tim 1:16-18, St. Paul calls to mind the good things his friend did, and asked the Lord to show mercy to him: "May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains"

It's the kind of thing one says when a friend dies. He further clarifies he is asking for him to find Mercy on that Day, i.e. of the Lord, further suggesting his friend was dead: "May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that Day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus. "

Ok, but it was always understood there were different regions in Hades. One was sometimes called Abraham's Bosom or Limbo, where the OT saints were detained temporarily. Another was called purgatory. Another was the lowest hell.

Jewish Encyclopedia: "An intermediate state through which souls are to pass in order to be purified from sin before they are admitted into the heavenly paradise." https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12446-purgatory

Prayer for the dead predates Christianity, and came from the Jews, and as the above shows, went together with purgatory.

If you still disagree, that's ok. But it's not accurate to say, as some have said, purgatory was invented after 1000 A.D. etc.

That doesn't check out, and today, with the internet etc and all these works widely available, anyone can verify that.

The clearest NT statement of the doctrine is in 1 Cor 3:13-15, as mentioned earlier: "13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

These verses were understood by St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Gregory, St. Isidore and others for over a 1000 years to teach purgatorial fire after death for certain small sins. Hence, prayer for the dead was understood to be a holy and pious thought, as Maccabees says, that the departed may find remission for their sins. Please consult the Jewish Encyclopedia cited above for more details on what the Jewish Faithful before Christ's Birth thought.

God Bless.

That would be an anachronism. The offerings mentioned would have been actual food.

This is what Tertullian is speaking of:

REFRIGERIUM. From the Latin refrigerare, refrigerium, “to cool, refresh” and “comfort” (it corresponds to the Greek terms: ἀναψύχω, ἀνάπαυσις, “relax, rest,” “refreshment” and “relief”). The term was used in classical literature both in its physical sense (Cicero, De Sen. 16.67, “cool, refresh”; thus even Pliny, Nat. Hist. 21,46) and in a moral sense (“to appease,” “to cool the flames of passion”). In the ancient Christian tradition, especially in the Latin West, it was intended to refer to two very precise and very broad concepts: On the one hand, refrigerium, which was used widely in the writings of the Fathers, designated that eschatological reality which was intended to refer either to the deceased souls’ blessed lingering in an intermediate state before the judgment, or to the eternal repose in paradise, eternal happiness (Tert., Apol. 49,2; De Monog. 10). On the other hand, it also referred to the funerary cult that the Christians offered to their own dead and to the martyrs who were near their tombs with the hope of bringing their memory back to life in their minds. With that cult—which was developed on the framework of the sacred meal, as in the case of the pagan parentalia (from 13–21 February, a feast intended to placate the souls of the ancestors: Ovid, Fast. II, 533)—in addition to recalling the dead to memory, they prayed for their condition and eternal comfort. In this manner, they also appeared to be very connected concepts in the Christian tradition. Initially, only the relatives of the deceased participated at this banquet, but having been established as an ecclesiastical practice supported by communal money (Tert., Apol. 39,12), even the poor took part. Nonetheless, one should not confuse this practice with the agape, which was also present until the 4th c.

Rubio, J. F. (2014). REFRIGERIUM. In A. Di Berardino & J. Hoover (Eds.), & J. T. Papa, E. A. Koenke, & E. E. Hewett (Trans.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity (Vol. 3, pp. 385–386). IVP Academic; InterVarsity Press.

Moreover, if you read the entire treatise, it becomes clear that what Tertullian is concerned with is the punishment of the wicked in the time between the ending of this life and the resurrection (depending on which one since he believes in two separated by a millennium). To the wicked a retributive not a purgative punishment is given. To the righteous a refreshment. Cf De Anima VII, Tertullian:
For whatever is incorporeal is incapable of being kept and guarded in any way; it is also exempt from either punishment or refreshment. That must be a body, by which punishment and refreshment can be experienced. Of this I shall treat more fully in a more fitting place. Therefore, whatever amount of punishment or refreshment the soul tastes in Hades, in its prison or lodging, in the fire or in Abraham’s bosom, it gives proof thereby of its own corporeality. For an incorporeal thing suffers nothing, not having that which makes it capable of suffering; else, if it has such capacity, it must be a bodily substance. For in as far as every corporeal thing is capable of suffering, in so far is that which is capable of suffering also corporeal.

Tertullian. (1885). A Treatise on the Soul. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), & P. Holmes (Trans.), Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Vol. 3, p. 187). Christian Literature Company.

I would say is in all likelihood referring to the same thing Tertullian was in his writings as discussed above. That seems to be most logical conclusion since Cyprian emulates so much of Tertullian's thought.

John Wycliffe. 1328-1384. Just off the top of my head.

Errors like this crept into Judaism following the split with Christianity. In fact, NT Judaism is extinct. So it really doesn't surprise me that some jewish sects believed something similar to purgatory. Neither do I care. Lots of weirdness crept into Judaism especially in the Middle ages. What matters is that is is not mentioned in either the OT or the NT. You would think that spending perhaps thousands of years burning might cause one of the apostles to at least name drop the place but alas we have nothing.



God Bless,

A.

So what if these ancient writers thought purgatory was real? The problem is that 1 Cor 3 Doesn’t teach anything close to Purgatory. So Lets take a closer look: (ESV)



3 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?

5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.

10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. [1]



So the passage begins with the subject; that is divisions in the church over teachers, i.e. super-apostles. The foundation is Jesus Christ, and various teachers are building upon this foundation with various materials. Each teacher’s work will be revealed or made manifest. When? On the Last Day, the Day of Judgement. Fire can be either testing or purging. In this case there is no evidence to believe this fire is anything other than testing. There is no mention of sin, punishment, purification or expiation or anything else that would connect this text with purgatory. So no, this is not a text that is on any way connected with purgatory.

What matters to me isn't what St Augustine taught, or Gregory or the rest. What I care about is what Paul taught, What Jesus taught. What God's Word teaches. The rest while interesting will soon be tested as 1 Cor 3:13-15 attests.


God Bless,

A.

Absolutely. Scripture only. There are sufficient warnings in the bible for not obeying, and adding to or taking away from the word of God.