You replied to Drew's post on Nov 15, 2007 at 5:52 PM.
Drew,
I may be responding a little late...but the Catholic voice needs to be heard.
All things considered, I think we have substantial agreement, particularly if you are coming from the Reformed position.
Time to touch on some of what you said...
"There is a "promise of the eternal inheritance" (v.15). This is not a man-made promise, which is destined to fail. This is a God-given promise and He is faithful to fulfill every one of His promises. Not only that, but it's an "eternal inheritance". When we are born again, of "water" [He is not talking about a physical baptism here] and "spirit" (John 3) we inherit the kingdom of heaven, which is Jesus Christ. We are adopted into God's family; spiritually born into His family."
Concerning baptism, you did not explain WHAT "hudor" or water is then referring to in John 3:5.
An analysis of ancient Jewish mikvah baptisms, in tevillahs, shows similar language to that which Jesus uses in John 3. It thus appears to be quite likely that Jesus WAS referring to physical water baptism, therefore eliminating the amniotic fluid argument and the simple figurative argument.
"It was necessary for Christ to die, in order to fulfill the covenant. Shed blood alone is not enough. There must be death as well. It's like a will. The will does not become active until the person is dead. Christ's death on the cross activated the will. Christ still lives though; if He didn't rise from the dead then He wouldn't have been who He said He was. "If we could be saved by blood without death, the animals would have been bled, not killed, and it would have been the same with jesus." (John MacArthur Jr.)"
This I fully agree with. Jesus had to die.
"The penalty for sin is death, symbolized by the shedding of blood that can atone for sin. Can you see why any self effort, works, whatever, is an anathema for the atonement for sin? By GRACE through FAITH is the only Biblical way for salvation. There is no substitute!"
The Council of Trent (1545-1563) I hope you know, affirmed Sola Gratia.
"Nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification."
Therefore we are on the same page when it comes to the importance of grace as a result of Christ's atonement. Our differences come in the POST-justificational chronology, where you would assert that works are not meritorious and I would assert that they are.
James 2 says that works justify. Paul's letters indicate the Abraham was justified on SEVERAL DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. That means that justification cannot be solely the one-time legal declaration of God.
In Calvin's conception we are totally depraved and God "declares us" just even though we are not - a nominalistic lie.
That's where your problem starts. God declares us just based upon His MAKING us just, so that His legal ruling actually has some bearing in objective, factual reality. We are declared just because we are MADE just, we are made holy. God is intellectually honest.
"1 Peter 3 "For Christ also suffered ONCE for sins, the JUST FOR THE UNJUST, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the FLESH but made alive by the SPIRIT, by whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison.""
"preached" here is not talking about a "second chance" or "purgatory", as many catholics will claim. The Greek word is from the form Kerusso, which means "to herald" or "proclaim" or "publish". Christ was proclaiming His finished work. "It is finished".
Interesting how you quote from 1 Peter 3, which says that literal, physical WATER, hudor, saved Noah and his family, and says that corresponding to that, BAPTISM saves us now. But more on that later.
1 Peter 3, here, is not typically argued by Catholics as being pro-purgatory, although it can be. It's more so talking about Sheol, the righteous place where the OT saints went. Jesus preached to them, and when He rose, they rose TOO.
Matthew 27:50-53, "But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit. And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many."
See what I mean?
Additionally, to call Purgatory a "second chance" is a strawman fallacy. Catholics do not think of Purgatory as such - that is more so the Mormon view.
Justification, understood as moving from the state without grace to the state of grace, CANNOT occur after death, as far as I am concerned. Purgatory in no way teaches that it does. It is NOT a second chance. If you die out of the state of grace, that's it, game over...hell.
Correctly outline something before you attack it, please. If you do not first correctly understand Purgatory, I will gladly offer what explanations I can.
"We cannot satisfy the Father. Only His Son, Jesus Christ can and has satisfied Him. Therefore Jesus is the only way we can go to the Father; "No one comes to the Father except through Me.""
Agreed. But the application of John 14:6 is an important matter to delve into, and it refers more so to the necessity of Christ being our mediator than to any "total depravity" on our part. We could not, indeed, make satisfaction for the eternal effects of our sins.
But we CAN make satisfaction, or expiate, the temporal effects of our sins. Scripture is CLEAR on that. I will explain in the coming paragraphs.
"If Jesus' sacrifice had not been sufficient for all mankind, once for all, He would have needed to suffer over and over- exactly like the Old Covenant and the Levitical priests offering. This is not the case though; Jesus' sacrifice was and is sufficient."
Agreed.
"What do Catholics believe?:
The doctrine of the "sacrifice of the mass" was made official by the council of Trent in the 16th century. Ludwig Ott, a theologian of the Catholic Church explains this doctrine: "The holy Mass is a true and proper sacrifice. It is physical and propitiatory, removing sins and conferring the grace of repentance. Propitiation by the offering of this sacrifice, God, by granting the grace of the gift, and the gift of Penitence, remits trespasses and sins however grievous they may be.""
First I must point out that the Mass was considered a sacrifice long before this point. Have you ever read the Didache, which refers to the Eucharist as a sacrifice and uses a prophecy from Malachi I as a prophecy OF it being a sacrifice? This isn't the post-nicene period...the Didache was written before John and Revelation were. The sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist, the CATHOLIC view, predates the symbol-only view that you are proposing. History is not on your side.
"In other words, God's satisfaction regarding sin depends upon the weekly mass. That is why attending mass is so important to Catholics. This, however, is a false doctrine within the Catholic Church. The belief that the bread and wine literally become Jesus' body and blood is also blasphemous; it is meant to be a symbol of communion with Christ; a means of rememberance as Christ commanded us to do; it is not meant to offer his blood again and again."
You have not proven that this is a false doctrine, Drew. You also mischaracterize it.
We do not offer His blood again and again.
"-"...but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God FOR US; NOR was it that He should offer Himself often [Christ offers Himself once, not often], as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own." (9:24-25)"
And you are doing the classical Protestant tactic of taking Hebrews 9:24-25 as a charge against the Catholic sacrifice of the mass. The passage condemns the repetition of Christ's sacrifice, which you claim Catholics do, therefore Catholics are wrong.
Sorry, try again.
First off, what the passage is condemning is the repeated KILLING of the sacrificed animal. In the sacrifice of the Mass, Jesus is not killed again and again and again. There is no repeated physical sacrifice. So there goes an objection on those grounds.
The passage is therefore not addressing the Catholic mass at all.
Additionally, it also condemns REPETITION of the sacrifice of Christ, correct?
It does not, I repeat, does NOT, condemn CONTINUATION.
There is a difference between the two. Repetition is when you do something, stop, do it again, stop, do it again, stop. Continuation is when you do something and CONTINUOUSLY, PERPETUALLY do it, with no "breaks" in between.
THAT is the Catholic understanding of how the sacrifice of the Mass works, Drew, and THAT is why Hebrews 9 is an invalid prooftext for your argument against the sacrifice of the Mass.
Take a look, once more, at Hebrews 9:24:
"For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven itself, that he might NOW appear before God on our behalf."
You didn't put "now" in bold - I did.
Why?
Because Christ's role as our mediator was NOT a one-time sacrifice of Himself on Cavalry circa 30-33 AD. That was when the physical death, the physical aspect, of Jesus' sacrifice occured, but that is NOT the totality of the sacrifice.
When you sacrifice an animal, you must then offer up that sacrificed animal to God. And it is THAT action that Catholics believe the Mass to be. It is in THAT sense that we see the Mass as a sacrifice - it is Jesus, the True Priest, offering up Himself, the True Victim, the Lamb, up to God continuously, perpetually, eternally, forever. Is it any wonder that Revelation depicts Jesus as a slain Lamb in Heaven?
Hebrews doesn't attack that view at all - it supports it.
Hebrews 9:11-12, "But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation, he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."
Do you have an interpretation of this? I'm curious as to what it is.
In Revelation, Heaven is depicted as having an altar - the same is true in the case of Hebrews 13.
Hebrews depicts the crucified, sacrificed Christ entering the HEAVENLY sanctuary, which the earthly sanctuary was but a copy of, and sprinkling His blood upon the altar, performing His act of Mediation.
Hebrews depicts Moses as mediator because of the sprinkling of the blood of the slain animal. It depicts Jesus as doing the same thing...IN HEAVEN. In the Heavenly sanctuary.
Clearly, the sacrifice was not 100% "done" at Cavalry. You can quote John 19:30 until you are quite blue in the face, my friend - but you need to indicate what the pronoun "it" is referring to when Jesus says "It is finished" or in Hebrew "Kalah."
For the Protestant position, Jesus is saying that His one-time act of Mediation is over and done with. Not so according to the perspective of Hebrews, which depicts Christ as fulfilling His role of Covenantal Mediator of the New Covenant AFTER His death!
"Kalah" or "It is finished" is what the High Priest would say upon the slaying of the lamb during Passover, btw. It's referring to Jesus dying, and does not mean that that was His sole act of mediation in any way, shape or form.
The Mass is the earthly presentation of a continuous, perpetual Heavenly event - Jesus offering Himself to the Father.
I may also point out several more Scriptural arguments in favor of the Catholic Mass:
1.) Paul indirectly refers to the Eucharist as a sacrifice in 1 Corinthians 10:16-21. He refers to the Eucharistic table as the "table of the Lord" - a biblical expression found in Malachi 1 that refers to an ALTAR.
What's on an altar? Sacrifices. And that is why, in his comparison between the Eucharist and pagan sacrifices, Paul says in v. 18:
"Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?"
Did he not just get done saying that eating or drinking the Eucharist is a PARTICIPATION with Christ?!?
2.) Typologically speaking, Jesus is the "new" Passover Lamb. He replaces the Old one. What happened if you killed the old Lamb and didn't eat it?
Your firstborn would be dead in the morning. You had to EAT the Lamb.
Thus, Protestantism's insistence that the Eucharist is not the flesh and blood of Christ creates an incomplete typology in which Christ our Paschal Lamb is killed, but NOT eaten. That doesn't add up, especially in lieu of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 -
"Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough, inasmuch as you are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
Synopsis? The Lamb has been sacrificed, so let's eat the Lamb!
This works with John 6 as well, which you no doubt have opinions on. A few thoughts on that:
a.) Jesus' audience thought He was speaking literally.
b.) "Eat the flesh and drink the blood" was a common Jewish idiomatic figurative expression that meant to slander or persecute - it did not mean "believe" or anything of that nature. For examples, see Micah 3:3 or Galatians 5:15. Therefore Jesus was either saying, "Literally eat my flesh" or "Slander me." I'll let you guess which one.
c.) Jesus switches in John 6 from the Greek word for eat "phago" (which literally means eat or consume) and can be used figuratively to the Greek word "trogo" - which has NO figurative application in the Koine Greek of the New Testament and to the best of my knowledge is not used figuratively in Koine Greek in general. It is a LITERAL term used to refer typically to animal eating, and it literally means to chew, to munch, to crunch. If Jesus wished to be understood figuratively, as your "figurative" view requires, WHY would Jesus start using more literal, carnal language with His audience, Drew?
The true blasphemy is not affirming the Real Presence, but denying the Real Presence. Such can be seen in the early writings of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of the Apostle John:
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
The Gnostic Docetists asserted that Jesus had no physical body; as a result, they refused to confess the Eucharist as the flesh and blood of Christ.
Ignatius, therefore, believed in the Catholic view of the Eucharist and called its detractors heretics. They were the blasphemers.
Is your view of the Eucharist found in early Christianity? No. It did not exist until later Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli. It loses the battle of hisoricity and is CLEARLY a revisionist position that is extensively disproven by the biblical evidence I have thus far brought forth.
More in a couple.
- Sean
* Reply to Your Post
* Delete Post
Post #70
You replied to Drew's post on Nov 15, 2007 at 5:54 PM.
Drew,
Next item on the list: Purgatory.
"Purgatory is a false doctrine, as no amount of prayers or works will atone for even one sin. On judgment day, the payment for our sins is Christ's death and blood, if you are indeed found to be in the truth."
Got something for you, then:
Proverbs 16:6 states, "By kindness and piety guilt is expiated, and by the fear of the LORD man avoids evil" (NAB; RSV has "atoned for" instead of "expiated").
How do you respond to that? It IS inspired Scripture, theopneustos.
Scripture even uses the stronger term "atonement" and indicates humans can make temporal atonement for themselves (see Exodus 30:15-16, Leviticus 17:11, Numbers 31:50).
According to Catholic Apologetist Jimmy Akin, "The claim that only Christ can atone for or expiate our sins arises from a confusion about whether the temporal or the eternal dimension of our sins is being discussed. Only Christ can provide eternal satisfaction for our sins, but we can make temporal amends or reparations for them."
Right on the money. Purgatory involves the expiation or making amends for the TEMPORAL, not the eternal, effects of our sins. It is not a second chance.
Colossians 1:24, "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,"
Woah woah woah! Something LACKING in the afflictions of Christ?
What is lacking is restitution for the TEMPORAL effects of our sins.
Consider our soul to be a temple. We are born in original sin, with our temples in total state of disrepair, and we cannot repair them on our own.
Because of Christ, we become new creations, and are initially repaired. However, every time we sin, we predispose ourselves to FURTHER sin, and "damage" the temple.
We atone for the temporal effects of our sins by FIXING the temple - through sanctification.
Scripture indicates that primarily our sanctification occurs through SUFFERING. Consider Romans 8, 1 Peter 4, etc.
We are sanctified through suffering, like Paul, and we "fill up" what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ by suffering ourselves, by taking up our OWN crosses.
THAT is the beauty of the Gospel, Drew. Not a baseless justification by which we all get off the hook without intrinscally BEING holy. It's not a matter of Christ being holy, therefore God the Father will put blinders on and "consider" us holy too. Rather, Christ is holy, and He MAKES us holy, and enables us to be "coworkers" with Him in making ourselves even more holy and putting to death the desires of the flesh.
Romans 8:13, "For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."
This is Paul's answer to continuing sin after justification in Romans 7 - NOT imputation of Christ's righteousness!
And how do we do this?
Romans 8:16-17, "The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him."
Thou shalt suffer. You spoke of us being heirs - well, according to Paul, us being heirs is CONDITIONAL. It is not unconditional.
1 Peter 4:1-2, "Therefore, since Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same attitude (for whoever suffers in the flesh has broken with sin), so as not to spend what remains of one's life in the flesh on human desires, but on the will of God."
Christ suffered, so we must suffer.
And what IS Purgatory? It is the final removal of "human desires" from us.
Hebrews 12:14, "Strive for peace with everyone, and for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord."
We NEED to be holy to get into Heaven. Christ being holy, but us being unholy, will not get the job done.
Revelation 21:27, "but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."
The man with the slightest sinful inclination is not 100% sanctified and holy. Instead of condemning all such people to Hell, our Lord and Savior invites all such people to suffer WITH HIM, and to be fully sanctified as a result.
Hebrews 12:4, "In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood."
And what is the point? We must become SO HOLY so as to be willing to suffer to the very point of death. That's why the author of Hebrews levels this criticism.
Did you notice that all of the Apostles except for John (and Judas who killed himself) suffered martyr's deaths, according to tradition? Why?
Because John was the only Apostle who didn't desert Christ at the time of the crucifixion. He WAS willing to suffer to the point of shedding blood, willing to resist the sin of leaving Jesus. So he was not martyred...and the other Apostles were. See the beauty of God's handiwork, the fairness, the justice?
Hebrews 12:10-11, "They disciplined us for a short time as seemed right to them, but he does so for our benefit, in order that we may share his holiness. At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it."
God's temporal punishment for the temporal effects of our sins is also the CURE for those temporal effects. His punishment involves our suffering "to the point of shedding blood" in order to avoid sin. THAT is what makes us increasingly holy, and that is something that is required for our ultimate entrance into the Kingdom.
Purgatory is post-death sanctification. It is us suffering, after we die, just a little bit more, in order to become perfectly holy. THEN we enter through Heaven's gate.
The Church's teaching on Purgatory thus flows DIRECTLY from the Biblical teaching on PRE-death sanctification through suffering. Our sanctification is both punishment and cure.
Make any sense?
Now, to bring things to a head...
1.) We need to be 100% holy to enter Heaven.
2.) We are made holy, sanctified, through suffering which is both punishment and cure.
3.) IF........IF we are not done with this process of sanctification by the time we die, in order for us to get into Heaven, the process must...
BE COMPLETED.
And that's the explanation for Purgatory.
The Protestant idea of "glorification" is very CLOSE to correct. It insists upon God making us 100% holy and pure after death if we are not already so.
But what it misses out on is the process. It ignores the process. We become holy by suffering, and we suffer as a result of the temporal effects of our sins. When we speak ill of a neighbor, we build up our sinful inclinations that must be painfully torn down if we are to be pure and full, to the point of bursting, of the love of God.
It is here where we bring up 1 Corinthians 3:12-15:
"If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire."
So there will be a revelation, an apokalupsis, of all of our works...EVERY LAST ONE.
Protestants insist that this passage solely means that we will receive rewards for our good works, and receive nothing for our "bad" works.
First off, last time I checked, bad works are sins. So this means that not all sins are hellworthy - some are not deadly, which correlates with 1 John 5:16-17:
"If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly."
Now, Paul describes a "fire" that will burn away the bad works. As a result of this burning, many people will be saved...by the fire, by what the fire does.
The burning away of those false works is thus NECESSARY.
Remember, also, verses like this:
2 Corinthians 5:10,"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad,"
Therefore, 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is NOT just about recompense for GOOD works...it is about "recompense" for bad works!
What is the recompense for bad works? Punishment!
No wonder that zemiothesatai in this passage, translated here as "suffer loss", can also be translated as "suffer punishment" in the Septuagint, the LXX!
So we are punished by having our bad or false works "burnt up." What this means is that God will reveal to all of us what our false works are, and if we have not been completely "purged" of them, they will be burnt away...
How will they be burnt away? Through suffering.
Hebrews 13:11-13, "The bodies of the animals whose blood the high priest brings into the sanctuary as a sin offering are burned outside the camp. Therefore, Jesus also suffered outside the gate, to consecrate the people by his own blood. Let us then go to him outside the camp, bearing the reproach that he bore."
Jesus suffered outside of Heaven. What must we do? The same thing. Suffer, be "burned."
Burning is a metaphor not just for suffering, but for purification:
Wisdom 3:4-6, "For if before men, indeed, they be punished, yet is their hope full of immortality; Chastised a little, they shall be greatly blessed, because God tried them and found them worthy of himself. As gold in the furnace, he proved them, and as sacrificial offerings he took them to himself."
Such language is all over Scripture and it explains that not only is Paul talking about post-death punishment in 1 Cor. 3:12-15, he is talking about post-death SANCTIFICATION, or purification.
Daniel 12:10, "Many shall be refined, purified, and tested, but the wicked shall prove wicked; none of them shall have understanding, but the wise shall have it."
Sirach 2:5, "For in fire gold is tested, and worthy men in the crucible of humiliation."
Zechariah 13:8-9, "In all the land, says the LORD, two thirds of them shall be cut off and perish, and one third shall be left. I will bring the one third through fire, and I will refine them as silver is refined, and I will test them as gold is tested. They shall call upon my name, and I will hear them. I will say, "They are my people," and they shall say, "The LORD is my God."
It is THIS imagery that Paul is appealing to! 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 therefore MUST be understood in a Purgatorial sense.
1 Peter 1:6-7, "In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Revelation 3:18, "I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire 14 so that you may be rich, and white garments to put on so that your shameful nakedness may not be exposed, and buy ointment to smear on your eyes so that you may see."
Do you see now?
- Sean
Sunday, November 18, 2007
The Particular Judgment, and Purgatory as a Confessional...
You wrote on Aug 11, 2007 at 5:16 PM.
Okay...here's some thoughts...
Numerous Catholic apologists insist that there is a "particular" judgment each person goes through after they die.
Interestingly, they insist that Hebrews 9:27 lends support to this idea:
"Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment,"
The idea is, essentially, that judgment occurs IMMEDIATELY after physical death.
However, as I mentioned in my stock answer on Hebrews 9:27, Protestants often use the same verse to prove the immediate GENERAL judgment in an effort to disprove Purgatory.
The following verse, in my opinion, means that verse 27 CANNOT be used as a prooftext for EITHER position:
Hebrews 9:28, "so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him."
The whole idea of "immediacy" would appear to be totally disproved by the comparison given, by the analogy drawn. There is a LARGE gap of time between Christ's death and the Parousia, therefore, since a parallel is given here, the text is saying that there will be a gap of time (perhaps the 1,000 year reign, figuratively speaking, but still a gap) between our own physical death and the FINAL, or general, judgment. The particular judgment is not taught by Hebrews 9:27.
Now, having considered the evidence of the Particular Judgment from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and in the witness of the Fathers, I am NOT saying, in any way, that the Particular Judgment is not doctrine. I am simply dismissing Hebrews 9:27 as a prooftext for it - and I am tempted to do the same with 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 more properly is speaking of the "day" as the day of the GENERAL judgment, the day Purgatory ends, effectively.
However, that isn't to say that we don't know, quite immediately, where we are going right after we die - the particular judgment can be affirmed without either of the two previous passages as scriptural support for it.
The damned? Well, pardon me for being blunt, but they are going to rather immediately realize what is going on, and their reaction will be: "Oh, shit."
The saved? Well, while many of them are going to have to undergo quite a bit of purification, they are still, in virtue of being in the state of grace, going to be breathing a sigh of relief.
The words of Captain Hook in the movie "Hook" come to mind for those who, in the particular judgment, are assured of their ultimate salvation, but are told something before they can even get near the gate of Heaven..."Now brace yourself lad, because this is really going to hurt."
It won't hurt anywhere near the fires of Hell and eternal loss, but it IS going to hurt. Sanctification can be painful.
Hebrews 12:11, "At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it."
Now, I was thinking about Purgatory being primarily about an emotional catharsis, akin to "watching a movie of your past life" - similar to Scrooge seeing his past deeds in a Christmas Carol, or Adam Sandler seeing (supposedly past) deeds in "Click."
However...
After having read Scott Hahn's book on Confession, I was thinking that perhaps the "movie theater" may not be the best analogy for Purgatory...and as I searched my mind for the appropriate earthly parallel, I fixed upon one thing in particular...
Confession.
Purgatory is going to be like being in the confessional...but it is not going to be like private confession. EVERYTHING will be revealed, in line with 1 Corinthians 3, and similar passages. This isn't going to be like private auricular confession. It is going to be like the ancient public confessions that we hear about so much in apologetics.
Those that will end up going to Hell? They are the ones that completely and totally spurn the use of "The Last Confessional." They are going to be the ones that mocked and derided the sanctity of confession and the confessional booth during life, the ones who said, "I go often enough" or the ones who almost never go. And one of the worst aspects of their final punishment is that they are going to be denied entrance to the final confessional, by virtue of their own free choice.
I was thinking about how Scott Hahn mentioned how we sometimes try to justify ourselves in the confessional. Well...there isn't going to be any room for that. We are going to have to go over ALL our past sins, one, by one, by one, by one, until every last sin has been confessed. Only THEN do we get absolution.
Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting that our suffering in the confessional on earth is self-sanctifying - I would concede most definitely to whatever the Church holds on the matter, as I know all too well that the sacrament is not received until the words of absolution.
But, then again, what we will be confessing in this "Last Confessional" is VENIAL sins at most - since if we HAVE unconfessed mortal sins at this juncture, we won't even be ALLOWED into the Last Confessional. So perhaps there is some sanctifying value after all, in the suffering itself...
We "suffer loss" - experience punishment - in the retelling of all of our unconfessed venial sins, and in the public exposition of our most sinful inclinations. It's hard enough to tell the parish priest our sins. Imagine confessing to our friends, parents, and, ultimately, to God Himself.
I wouldn't even be surprised if Jesus, in His throne, conducts the Confession Himself, with there no longer being a need for His holy priests to act as alter Christus.
In this confession, which (may) last until the Final Judgment, depending on how much we have to (validly) confess (bye bye, scrupulosity!) - God is going to give us, effectively, a "transcript" to go off of - there will be no opportunity to miss a single, solitary sin.
I find this imagery solidly satisfying...and I think it rather "acceptable" that the Church's dogma of Purgatory draw upon the Sacrament of Confession. Instead of having our sins read off to us, as charges in a trial - WE are going to have to accuse ourselves, as Catholics have always been taught to do in the confessional.
Your thoughts?
- Sean
Okay...here's some thoughts...
Numerous Catholic apologists insist that there is a "particular" judgment each person goes through after they die.
Interestingly, they insist that Hebrews 9:27 lends support to this idea:
"Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment,"
The idea is, essentially, that judgment occurs IMMEDIATELY after physical death.
However, as I mentioned in my stock answer on Hebrews 9:27, Protestants often use the same verse to prove the immediate GENERAL judgment in an effort to disprove Purgatory.
The following verse, in my opinion, means that verse 27 CANNOT be used as a prooftext for EITHER position:
Hebrews 9:28, "so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him."
The whole idea of "immediacy" would appear to be totally disproved by the comparison given, by the analogy drawn. There is a LARGE gap of time between Christ's death and the Parousia, therefore, since a parallel is given here, the text is saying that there will be a gap of time (perhaps the 1,000 year reign, figuratively speaking, but still a gap) between our own physical death and the FINAL, or general, judgment. The particular judgment is not taught by Hebrews 9:27.
Now, having considered the evidence of the Particular Judgment from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and in the witness of the Fathers, I am NOT saying, in any way, that the Particular Judgment is not doctrine. I am simply dismissing Hebrews 9:27 as a prooftext for it - and I am tempted to do the same with 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 more properly is speaking of the "day" as the day of the GENERAL judgment, the day Purgatory ends, effectively.
However, that isn't to say that we don't know, quite immediately, where we are going right after we die - the particular judgment can be affirmed without either of the two previous passages as scriptural support for it.
The damned? Well, pardon me for being blunt, but they are going to rather immediately realize what is going on, and their reaction will be: "Oh, shit."
The saved? Well, while many of them are going to have to undergo quite a bit of purification, they are still, in virtue of being in the state of grace, going to be breathing a sigh of relief.
The words of Captain Hook in the movie "Hook" come to mind for those who, in the particular judgment, are assured of their ultimate salvation, but are told something before they can even get near the gate of Heaven..."Now brace yourself lad, because this is really going to hurt."
It won't hurt anywhere near the fires of Hell and eternal loss, but it IS going to hurt. Sanctification can be painful.
Hebrews 12:11, "At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it."
Now, I was thinking about Purgatory being primarily about an emotional catharsis, akin to "watching a movie of your past life" - similar to Scrooge seeing his past deeds in a Christmas Carol, or Adam Sandler seeing (supposedly past) deeds in "Click."
However...
After having read Scott Hahn's book on Confession, I was thinking that perhaps the "movie theater" may not be the best analogy for Purgatory...and as I searched my mind for the appropriate earthly parallel, I fixed upon one thing in particular...
Confession.
Purgatory is going to be like being in the confessional...but it is not going to be like private confession. EVERYTHING will be revealed, in line with 1 Corinthians 3, and similar passages. This isn't going to be like private auricular confession. It is going to be like the ancient public confessions that we hear about so much in apologetics.
Those that will end up going to Hell? They are the ones that completely and totally spurn the use of "The Last Confessional." They are going to be the ones that mocked and derided the sanctity of confession and the confessional booth during life, the ones who said, "I go often enough" or the ones who almost never go. And one of the worst aspects of their final punishment is that they are going to be denied entrance to the final confessional, by virtue of their own free choice.
I was thinking about how Scott Hahn mentioned how we sometimes try to justify ourselves in the confessional. Well...there isn't going to be any room for that. We are going to have to go over ALL our past sins, one, by one, by one, by one, until every last sin has been confessed. Only THEN do we get absolution.
Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting that our suffering in the confessional on earth is self-sanctifying - I would concede most definitely to whatever the Church holds on the matter, as I know all too well that the sacrament is not received until the words of absolution.
But, then again, what we will be confessing in this "Last Confessional" is VENIAL sins at most - since if we HAVE unconfessed mortal sins at this juncture, we won't even be ALLOWED into the Last Confessional. So perhaps there is some sanctifying value after all, in the suffering itself...
We "suffer loss" - experience punishment - in the retelling of all of our unconfessed venial sins, and in the public exposition of our most sinful inclinations. It's hard enough to tell the parish priest our sins. Imagine confessing to our friends, parents, and, ultimately, to God Himself.
I wouldn't even be surprised if Jesus, in His throne, conducts the Confession Himself, with there no longer being a need for His holy priests to act as alter Christus.
In this confession, which (may) last until the Final Judgment, depending on how much we have to (validly) confess (bye bye, scrupulosity!) - God is going to give us, effectively, a "transcript" to go off of - there will be no opportunity to miss a single, solitary sin.
I find this imagery solidly satisfying...and I think it rather "acceptable" that the Church's dogma of Purgatory draw upon the Sacrament of Confession. Instead of having our sins read off to us, as charges in a trial - WE are going to have to accuse ourselves, as Catholics have always been taught to do in the confessional.
Your thoughts?
- Sean
Why the "Context" Argument - one of the best arguments of the other side - doesn't mean Mary had sex
You wrote on Jul 6, 2007 at 6:17 AM.
You replied to Kevin's post on Jul 2, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Kevin,
"There is no logical reason why the townspeople would connect neices and nephews to Mary and Joseph. Why would they leave out other reletives such as their parents if they were our Lord's cousins? Why is it that these individuals are always associated with Mary and not their supposed birth mother assuming that Mary wasn't their birth mother?"
Behold, the best argument, in my opinion, that opponents of Mary's perpetual virginity bring to the table - the contextual argument.
However, this argument completely evaporates if we go with the predominatly eastern orthodox view that the brethren of Jesus were children of Joseph from a previous marriage.
Now, by what logical reason would they connect nieces and nephews to Mary and Joseph?
Your argument would appear to totally destroy the "cousins" hypothesis (it leaves the children of just Joseph hypothesis intact) - however, I don't see the context as precluding either hypothesis.
If the "brethren" were children of Mary's sister, for example, they would be close enough in relation - especially in the culture of the time - for the Jews to wonder where Jesus got "these things." The Jews were wondering how Jesus was this special when His father and mother were, apparently, at least to them, not so special, and did not have "these things." They would similarly look at Jesus' cousins, notice their effective "normality" and this would be an indication that nowhere in Jesus' family could they find additional examples of the traits Jesus possessed.
It may seem SIMPLER, and perhaps more natural, to assume that these siblings MUST be children of Mary and Joseph. But the line of thinking of the Jews does not NEED to include these brethren as Jesus' siblings.
Perhaps you'd like to tell me why Jesus' siblings at one point rebuked Him - something totally uncalled for in Jewish culture at that time, for the younger to rebuke the older (if they were indeed literal children of Mary and Joseph) and something that they surely would have been rebuked for themselves.
If Mary was a consecrated temple virgin to the Lord, and never INTENDED to have sex with Joseph, but was merely married to him in order for him to be her legal guardian since an unmarried Jewish girl couldn't "legally" live with a man like Joseph without being married to him...well, then that would be a good reason why they couldn't have a normal sexual relationship. However, it appears that an unbiblical "bible alone" mentality is closing off this possibility for you...
- Sean
You replied to Kevin's post on Jul 2, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Kevin,
"There is no logical reason why the townspeople would connect neices and nephews to Mary and Joseph. Why would they leave out other reletives such as their parents if they were our Lord's cousins? Why is it that these individuals are always associated with Mary and not their supposed birth mother assuming that Mary wasn't their birth mother?"
Behold, the best argument, in my opinion, that opponents of Mary's perpetual virginity bring to the table - the contextual argument.
However, this argument completely evaporates if we go with the predominatly eastern orthodox view that the brethren of Jesus were children of Joseph from a previous marriage.
Now, by what logical reason would they connect nieces and nephews to Mary and Joseph?
Your argument would appear to totally destroy the "cousins" hypothesis (it leaves the children of just Joseph hypothesis intact) - however, I don't see the context as precluding either hypothesis.
If the "brethren" were children of Mary's sister, for example, they would be close enough in relation - especially in the culture of the time - for the Jews to wonder where Jesus got "these things." The Jews were wondering how Jesus was this special when His father and mother were, apparently, at least to them, not so special, and did not have "these things." They would similarly look at Jesus' cousins, notice their effective "normality" and this would be an indication that nowhere in Jesus' family could they find additional examples of the traits Jesus possessed.
It may seem SIMPLER, and perhaps more natural, to assume that these siblings MUST be children of Mary and Joseph. But the line of thinking of the Jews does not NEED to include these brethren as Jesus' siblings.
Perhaps you'd like to tell me why Jesus' siblings at one point rebuked Him - something totally uncalled for in Jewish culture at that time, for the younger to rebuke the older (if they were indeed literal children of Mary and Joseph) and something that they surely would have been rebuked for themselves.
If Mary was a consecrated temple virgin to the Lord, and never INTENDED to have sex with Joseph, but was merely married to him in order for him to be her legal guardian since an unmarried Jewish girl couldn't "legally" live with a man like Joseph without being married to him...well, then that would be a good reason why they couldn't have a normal sexual relationship. However, it appears that an unbiblical "bible alone" mentality is closing off this possibility for you...
- Sean
Protestant Prooftexts for Sola Scriptura
You wrote on Jul 6, 2007 at 6:29 AM.
You replied to Shaun's post on Mar 28, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Shaun,
"I said before that the Word of God is our ONLY authority...Where in the Bible does it say that?
2 Tim. 3:15-17 "and how from infancy you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Lol. You know, the other day I showed a Protestant this passage, asked them if it supported Sola Scriptura, and they just laughed in surprise and asked if any Protestants actually used it.
First off, in CONTEXT, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is talking about the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
It says that they are "able" to make Timothy wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Not that they WILL make Timothy wise.
As for, "All Scriptire is God-Breathed" - do I disagree with that? Nope. But the Greek there is parse graphe - which more so means, "each" or "every" Scripture. Notice that it says, "All Scripture (singular)" instead of "The ScriptureS (plural)".
The significance of this? Paul is saying that EACH scripture, that is, each verse, each chapter, each book (probably each book, as chapter and verse divisions did not exist at this time) is inspired, God-breathed.
Therefore, if Paul was saying that the Scriptures were SUFFICIENT here, then he would be saying that EACH Scripture by itself was sufficient - a falsehood if there ever was one.
What does Paul write? That Scripture is "useful" - the Greek, ophelimos - for a variety of things.
Does useful indicate exclusivity? Does it indicate sufficiency? Absolutely not.
What is Scripture useful for?
1.) Teaching 2.) Rebuking 3.) Correcting 4.) Training in righteousness
Notice that Scripture is only USEFUL, not SUFFICIENT, for these tasks.
Additionally, are you going to try and argue that ALL Christians are supposed to perform these four roles?
2 Timothy 4:1-2, "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching."
Another list of duties:
1.) Proclaim the word 2.) Be persistent 3.) Convince 4.) Reprimand, encourage
Slightly similar to the previous list, hm?
Paul is telling Timothy, in context, that Scripture is useful for helping him carry out his duties as a bishop. Paul never says, nor implies, that ALL CHRISTIANS can pick up a Bible and personally interpret it, or are called to fulfill the same functions Timothy was called to fulfill by virtue of his office.
"so that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
MAY be competent. Not WILL BE competent.
Equipped for every good work? Certainly. Scripture certainly teaches us a good deal about morals.
But to say that a solider is, "equipped for every campaign" because they are armed with a useful machine gun that will make them competent is NOT the equivalent of saying that having a machine gun will make them sufficient.
This example is NOT saying that Scripture Alone is the way to go.
And if that wasn't enough, what does, "man of God" mean, Shaun?
Does it mean, according to many biblical fundamentalists, a saved Christian?
No. In the Old Testament, it has about 66 occurences, unless I am off by a couple. And it ALWAYS is referring to a male religious leader.
1 Timothy 4:13-14, "Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."
Ordination. Notice that part of Timothy's role is "exhortation and teaching" - what Paul says Scripture MAY equip him to do.
1 Timothy 5:20, "Reprimand publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid."
Once again, the job of a Church leader.
1 Timothy 6:11, "But you, man of God, avoid all this. Instead, pursue righteousness, devotion, faith, love, patience, and gentleness."
Timothy is a man of God - an ordained Church leader. There is no Scriptural basis for saying that "man of God" refers to ALL saved Christians - therefore, the most 2 Timothy 3:16-17 would be saying if it taught (and it does not) the sufficiency of Scripture is that a Christian leader can make use of Scripture alone - such license is still not given to the INDIVIDUAL by the text.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not evidence for Sola Scriptura. THere, that's one down. Now onto 1 Corinthians 4:6.
If "you might learn not to exceed what is written" means go ONLY by the Old Testament and the letters Paul has written UP TO THAT POINT, then his later letters don't count - and that includes, ironically, his SECOND letter to the Corinthians.
Additionally, why does Paul write this?
1 Corinthians 4:4-5, "I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord. Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the motives of our hearts, and then everyone will receive praise from God."
Basically, don't do so much speculation on such matters - like, for example, saying that you will DEFINITELY get into Heaven. It's not set in stone until you are dead.
1 Corinthians 10:12, "Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall."
The Corinthians should avoid the false wisdom of vain speculation - but this chapter is not trying to teach us that the Corinthians should go SOLELY by what Paul has literally written down BEFORE he wrote 1 Corinthians Chapter 4.
Once you back away from extreme literalism with this verse, you lose your Sola Scriptura argument. Paul does not mean, "Do not go beyond what is written," as if it was the 11th commandment.
"The Scriptures, therefore, are the only authority. Any practice not found in them is of human origin and is, therefore, false- as we all agree, "He who says he has no sin deceives himself and the truth is not in him". Everyone- even church leaders."
I'm afraid, Ed, that I don't quite see that from the argument you presented - the term, "Non sequitur" comes to mind.
You gave no evidence that Scripture alone is an authority...and I have provided evidence that Church leaders are an authority.
Sola Scriptura appears to be quite unbiblical - and if so, it is self-contradicting, and therefore, quite false.
ANY practice not found in Scripture is therefore false?
If you want to use Paul's verse in 1 Corinthians 4 to prove that, then you better take 2 Corinthians out of your Bible.
Other than that, you don't have any verses that come close to giving Scripture this exclusive, exclusionary role.
And realize that your statement, ironically, means that the canon of the Bible is false...for the canon of the Bible - the list of its books, is not PART of Scripture, but came long after. It is EXTRA-biblical. Your Table of Contents page is not Scripture, my friend.
It is the product of Tradition. Thus, the Bible is the product of Tradition...so to separate the two is unecessary and off the mark.
And as for Tradition...
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
If even ONE of these Traditions was NEVER written down in the Bible, then Sola Scriptura is false.
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)
And this would seem to disprove your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 4:6...for it clearly establishes that what is taught ORALLY is on an equal level with what is WRITTEN...therefore, Paul's "do not go beyond what is written" didn't mean what you thought it did.
- Sean
You replied to Shaun's post on Mar 28, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Shaun,
"I said before that the Word of God is our ONLY authority...Where in the Bible does it say that?
2 Tim. 3:15-17 "and how from infancy you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Lol. You know, the other day I showed a Protestant this passage, asked them if it supported Sola Scriptura, and they just laughed in surprise and asked if any Protestants actually used it.
First off, in CONTEXT, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is talking about the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
It says that they are "able" to make Timothy wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Not that they WILL make Timothy wise.
As for, "All Scriptire is God-Breathed" - do I disagree with that? Nope. But the Greek there is parse graphe - which more so means, "each" or "every" Scripture. Notice that it says, "All Scripture (singular)" instead of "The ScriptureS (plural)".
The significance of this? Paul is saying that EACH scripture, that is, each verse, each chapter, each book (probably each book, as chapter and verse divisions did not exist at this time) is inspired, God-breathed.
Therefore, if Paul was saying that the Scriptures were SUFFICIENT here, then he would be saying that EACH Scripture by itself was sufficient - a falsehood if there ever was one.
What does Paul write? That Scripture is "useful" - the Greek, ophelimos - for a variety of things.
Does useful indicate exclusivity? Does it indicate sufficiency? Absolutely not.
What is Scripture useful for?
1.) Teaching 2.) Rebuking 3.) Correcting 4.) Training in righteousness
Notice that Scripture is only USEFUL, not SUFFICIENT, for these tasks.
Additionally, are you going to try and argue that ALL Christians are supposed to perform these four roles?
2 Timothy 4:1-2, "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching."
Another list of duties:
1.) Proclaim the word 2.) Be persistent 3.) Convince 4.) Reprimand, encourage
Slightly similar to the previous list, hm?
Paul is telling Timothy, in context, that Scripture is useful for helping him carry out his duties as a bishop. Paul never says, nor implies, that ALL CHRISTIANS can pick up a Bible and personally interpret it, or are called to fulfill the same functions Timothy was called to fulfill by virtue of his office.
"so that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
MAY be competent. Not WILL BE competent.
Equipped for every good work? Certainly. Scripture certainly teaches us a good deal about morals.
But to say that a solider is, "equipped for every campaign" because they are armed with a useful machine gun that will make them competent is NOT the equivalent of saying that having a machine gun will make them sufficient.
This example is NOT saying that Scripture Alone is the way to go.
And if that wasn't enough, what does, "man of God" mean, Shaun?
Does it mean, according to many biblical fundamentalists, a saved Christian?
No. In the Old Testament, it has about 66 occurences, unless I am off by a couple. And it ALWAYS is referring to a male religious leader.
1 Timothy 4:13-14, "Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."
Ordination. Notice that part of Timothy's role is "exhortation and teaching" - what Paul says Scripture MAY equip him to do.
1 Timothy 5:20, "Reprimand publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid."
Once again, the job of a Church leader.
1 Timothy 6:11, "But you, man of God, avoid all this. Instead, pursue righteousness, devotion, faith, love, patience, and gentleness."
Timothy is a man of God - an ordained Church leader. There is no Scriptural basis for saying that "man of God" refers to ALL saved Christians - therefore, the most 2 Timothy 3:16-17 would be saying if it taught (and it does not) the sufficiency of Scripture is that a Christian leader can make use of Scripture alone - such license is still not given to the INDIVIDUAL by the text.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not evidence for Sola Scriptura. THere, that's one down. Now onto 1 Corinthians 4:6.
If "you might learn not to exceed what is written" means go ONLY by the Old Testament and the letters Paul has written UP TO THAT POINT, then his later letters don't count - and that includes, ironically, his SECOND letter to the Corinthians.
Additionally, why does Paul write this?
1 Corinthians 4:4-5, "I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord. Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the motives of our hearts, and then everyone will receive praise from God."
Basically, don't do so much speculation on such matters - like, for example, saying that you will DEFINITELY get into Heaven. It's not set in stone until you are dead.
1 Corinthians 10:12, "Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall."
The Corinthians should avoid the false wisdom of vain speculation - but this chapter is not trying to teach us that the Corinthians should go SOLELY by what Paul has literally written down BEFORE he wrote 1 Corinthians Chapter 4.
Once you back away from extreme literalism with this verse, you lose your Sola Scriptura argument. Paul does not mean, "Do not go beyond what is written," as if it was the 11th commandment.
"The Scriptures, therefore, are the only authority. Any practice not found in them is of human origin and is, therefore, false- as we all agree, "He who says he has no sin deceives himself and the truth is not in him". Everyone- even church leaders."
I'm afraid, Ed, that I don't quite see that from the argument you presented - the term, "Non sequitur" comes to mind.
You gave no evidence that Scripture alone is an authority...and I have provided evidence that Church leaders are an authority.
Sola Scriptura appears to be quite unbiblical - and if so, it is self-contradicting, and therefore, quite false.
ANY practice not found in Scripture is therefore false?
If you want to use Paul's verse in 1 Corinthians 4 to prove that, then you better take 2 Corinthians out of your Bible.
Other than that, you don't have any verses that come close to giving Scripture this exclusive, exclusionary role.
And realize that your statement, ironically, means that the canon of the Bible is false...for the canon of the Bible - the list of its books, is not PART of Scripture, but came long after. It is EXTRA-biblical. Your Table of Contents page is not Scripture, my friend.
It is the product of Tradition. Thus, the Bible is the product of Tradition...so to separate the two is unecessary and off the mark.
And as for Tradition...
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
If even ONE of these Traditions was NEVER written down in the Bible, then Sola Scriptura is false.
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)
And this would seem to disprove your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 4:6...for it clearly establishes that what is taught ORALLY is on an equal level with what is WRITTEN...therefore, Paul's "do not go beyond what is written" didn't mean what you thought it did.
- Sean
Purgatory
You wrote on Jul 6, 2007 at 6:33 AM.
You wrote on May 2, 2007 at 12:13 PM
If you would like a Biblical explanation, I would be happy to give one.
Okay, so as I was talking with you on the other thread...even after we are saved, we still sin. We still have sinful inclinations and desires, as Romans 7 says.
Romans 8 gives a solution to this in putting away the deeds of the body and suffering with Christ. We are to pick up our own crosses, as Jesus said.
When we are first saved, we are washed clean of original sin. The Protestant, Calvinist understanding of our initial salvation is that God declares us just and imputes Christ's righteousness to our account. We are then sanctified, made holy, AFTER this.
In Catholicism, there is no such separation between Justification and Sanctification. If God declares us just based upon nothing, and we are still sinful piles of dung that snow (Christ's righteousness) covers over, than the very nature of salvation is a legal fiction.
So at our initial salvation, God first sanctifies us in Baptism - He makes us holy - by removing original sin and bestowing the Holy Spirit upon us.
THEN, or simultaneously, we are justified - we are declared just in the sight of God, because He has just MADE us that way.
1 Corinthians 6:11, "That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."
Notice it doesn't follow Calvin's pattern. We don't see justification, THEN sanctification. We see it listed the other way around.
So this means one of two things - either we can conceptualize us being made holy and then being declared that way after the fact, OR, we can conceptualize the two as occuring at the same time. Fine by me.
However, our sanctification is not yet complete. As I said, we may still have sinful inclinations. And we can fall into unsanctity, into sin, after our initial Justification.
Right after talking about baptism making us die and rise with Christ, Romans 6 says these things:
v. 6 "We know that our old self was crucified with him, SO THAT our sinful body MIGHT be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin."
v. 12 "Therefore, sin MUST NOT reign over your mortal bodies so that you obey their desires."
v. 14 "For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace."
That's not Paul saying sin CANNOT have any power over us. He's giving us an instruction to not LET that happen. Big difference.
v. 16 "Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to DEATH, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?"
What kind of death is this? A spiritual one. It is presented here as AT LEAST a hypothetical.
v.21 "But what profit did you get then from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death."
What kind of death? Spiritual death. Paul has not indicated that, now that they are saved, it is impossible for them to suffer this consequence. Falling into unsanctity can lead to that.
Romans 6:22, "But now that you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit that you have leads to sanctification, and its end is eternal life."
The end of sanctification is eternal life. And the benefit we have - our initial salvation - leads TO that. It isn't over yet. We need to become 100% holy to get into Heaven.
Hebrews 12:14, "Strive for peace with everyone, and for that holiness/sanctification (hagiasmon can be translated as either) without which no one will see the Lord."
Sanctification is not as Calvin thought it. It is much more. It is absolutely necessary and intimately tied to Justification.
Hebrews 12:15-16, "See to it that no one be deprived of the grace of God, that no bitter root spring up and cause trouble, through which many may become defiled, that no one be an immoral or profane person like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal."
We can still become defiled. Spiritual unsanctity is a constant threat.
Hebrews 12:1 tells us that we need to persevere. And how are we to persevere? The point of the Chapter is to tell us to endure the discipline of the Lord.
Hebrews 12:7, "Endure your trials as "discipline"; God treats you as sons. For what "son" is there whom his father does not discipline?"
The sufferings that Paul had been talking about in Romans 8 are a "discipline." They are not a sign of condemnation, but a disciplinary action.
Hebrews 12:10-11, "They disciplined us for a short time as seemed right to them, but he does so for our benefit, in order that we may share his holiness. At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it."
See? We don't share Christ's holiness because of an imputation of it. We share Christ's holiness by being conformed to Him, by repeating the life of Christ in our own life by taking up our crosses and enduring the dicipline of God.
While it may at first seem to be a cause of pain, and sorrow, it TRANSFORMS us. It brings us closer to God, something Paul has been trying to teach us.
Even Peter repeats this idea.
1 Peter 4:1-2, "Therefore, since Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same attitude (for whoever suffers in the flesh has broken with sin), so as not to spend what remains of one's life in the flesh on human desires, but on the will of God."
Suffering brings us away from sin and closer to God, because it makes us holier.
1 Peter 4:19, "As a result, those who suffer in accord with God's will hand their souls over to a faithful creator as they do good."
Now, to wrap this post up - and I will write another one because I want to explain all of this satisfactorally - let me talk about what else suffering is.
It is a punishment.
Yes, Christ suffered to remove the eternal punishment of our sins. Because He died for us, if we remain in Him, we will be saved from the flames.
But temporal punishment remains. Every sin that we do carries certain consequences.
When King David sinned, he repented, and God forgave him. But God still took the life of his child.
Likewise, God increased the intensity of the pain of giving birth, and gave to all of us physical death. Even with salvation, we still (most of us) physically die.
So every sin that we commit has a certain amount of temporal punishment associated with it.
When we suffer the discipline of the Lord - which just so happens to be temporal punishment for sin as well - we are purified by the experience if the Holy Spirit is within our hearts.
We come closer to God by this. The suffering transforms us, sanctifies us. We both DESERVE it, and need it.
The parent puts their child in the corner for a reason. The punishment is both deserved, AND the intent is there to teach the child a lesson. It's supposed to force them to think about what they have done, reflect upon it, and want to, not only because of fear of punishment, but from love, choose to not misbehave and disobey again.
It is an imperfect form of contrition to be sorry for fear of punishment. That's not what God wants. The punishment itself is supposed to drive us toward PERFECT contrition - sorrow for what we have done based upon love. And this will transform us into better Christians.
So basically, that's how the life of the Christian in striving for holiness, and the kingdom, is supposed to work. I find it to be a rather biblical understanding.
You are probably wondering where I am going with all this in terms of Purgatory. Lol. I'm getting there.
- Sean
* Reply to Your Post
* Delete Post
Post #9
You wrote on May 2, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Explaining Purgatory Part II
Now I move on to how the Bible talks about our purification, in metaphorical terms.
Revelation 21:27, "but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."
Nothing unclean. Nothing at all. Not even sinful inclinations and desires can pass through that front gate.
I'll start with the OT. I would encourage you to read all the following examples, as they are crucial to you understanding where I am coming from.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psalms 17:3-4, “You have tested my heart, searched it in the night. You have tried me by fire, but find no malice in me. My mouth has not transgressed as humans often do. As your lips have instructed me, I have kept the way of the law.”
Psalm 66:10-12, “You tested us, O God, tried us as silver tried by fire. You led us into a snare; you bound us at the waist as captives. You let captors set foot on our neck; we went through fire and water; then you led us out to freedom.”
Isaiah 1:25, “I will turn my hand against you, and refine your dross in the furnace, removing all your alloy.”
Isaiah 6:5-7, “Then I said, "Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar. He touched my mouth with it. "See," he said, "now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged."
Ezekiel 15:6-7, “Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD: Like the wood of the vine among the trees of the forest, which I have destined as fuel for the fire, do I make the inhabitants of Jerusalem. I will set my face against them; they have escaped from the fire, but the fire shall devour them. Thus you shall know that I am the LORD, when I turn my face against them.”
Ezekiel 22:15, “I will disperse you among the nations and scatter you over foreign lands, so that I may purge your uncleanness.”
All this kind of imagery, of being purged of uncleaness through fire, does not apply SOLELY to our initial cleansing, but to our progressive cleansing after that time.
Ezekiel 22:18-22, “Son of man, the house of Israel has become dross for me. All of them are bronze and tin, iron and lead (in the midst of a furnace): dross from silver have they become. Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Because all of you have become dross, therefore I must gather you together within Jerusalem. Just as silver, bronze, iron, lead, and tin are gathered into a furnace and smelted in the roaring flames, so I will gather you together in my furious wrath, put you in, and smelt you. When I have assembled you, I will blast you with the fire of my anger and smelt you with it. You shall be smelted by it just as silver is smelted in a furnace. Thus you shall know that I, the LORD, have poured out my fury on you.”
Daniel 12:10, “Many shall be refined, purified, and tested, but the wicked shall prove wicked; none of them shall have understanding, but the wise shall have it.”
Proverbs "As silver is tried by fire, and gold in the furnace, so the Lord tries the hearts."
We are tested and tried like gold and silver tested by fire. This testing demonstrates our constitution and it purifies us as well.
Wisdom 3:5-8, “Chastised a little, they shall be greatly blessed, because God tried them and found them worthy of himself. As gold in the furnace, he proved them, and as sacrificial offerings he took them to himself. In the time of their visitation they shall shine, and shall dart about as sparks through stubble; they shall judge nations and rule over peoples, and the LORD shall be their King forever.”
This is not part of the Protestant Old Testament, but I included it because the imagery matches the rest that I have provided.
Zechariah 13:8-9, “In all the land, says the LORD, two thirds of them shall be cut off and perish, and one third shall be left. I will bring the one third through fire, and I will refine them as silver is refined, and I will test them as gold is tested. They shall call upon my name, and I will hear them. I will say, "They are my people," and they shall say, "The LORD is my God."
Malachi 3:1-4, “Lo, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me; And suddenly there will come to the temple the LORD whom you seek, And the messenger of the covenant whom you desire. Yes, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts. But who will endure the day of his coming? And who can stand when he appears? For he is like the refiner's fire, or like the fuller's lye. He will sit refining and purifying (silver), and he will purify the sons of Levi, Refining them like gold or like silver that they may offer due sacrifice to the LORD. Then the sacrifice of Judah and Jerusalem will please the LORD, as in days of old, as in years gone by.”
Yes, this applies to our initial salvation. But since sanctification occurs after that point, the imagery can also be applied to the rest of our life.
Now, to the New Testament.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Peter 1:6-9, “In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. Although you have not seen him you love him; even though you do not see him now yet believe in him, you rejoice with an indescribable and glorious joy, as you attain the goal of (your) faith, the salvation of your souls.”
2 Corinthians 7:1, “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of flesh and spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God.”
1 Thessalonians 4:7, “For God did not call us to impurity but to holiness.”
1 Peter 4:12-13, “Beloved, do not be surprised that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as if something strange were happening to you. But rejoice to the extent that you share in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice exultantly.”
2 Peter 3:10-12, “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a mighty roar and the elements will be dissolved by fire, and the earth and everything done on it will be found out. Since everything is to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought (you) to be, conducting yourselves in holiness and devotion, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved in flames and the elements melted by fire.”
If you have ever been in debates on Purgatory before, I think you know what passage is coming.
1 Corinthians 3:12-15, “If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.”
On this passage (and not just this) the Catholic Church makes the claim that there is a final purification that occurs after death - that those who die in the state of grace, although imperfectly purified, are to be purified before entrance into Heaven.
Some Protestants claim that this passage applies solely to Christian leaders. Yet Paul says, "If anyone." He moves from a context of talking about Church leaders building up the foundation of the Church to EVERYONE doing so.
Some Protestants claim this passage talks solely about rewards. What about the suffering of loss, the being saved by fire?
We can build on the foundation with good works - gold, silver, precious stones - or bad works - wood, hay, and straw.
Bad works should be understood to be false works or sins. As Robert Sungenis says, "Scripture never makes a distinction between bad deeds and sins. Each time bad deeds are mentioned they are in the context of sins."
The passage indicates that the Day will reveal the quality of all of the works. There will be, I believe, an "apokalupsis," a revelation.
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, “The last word, when all is heard: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is man's all; because God will bring to judgment every work, with all its hidden qualities, whether good or bad.”
2 Corinthians 5:10, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.”
Everything is going to be revealed. The quality of all of our works will be exposed.
Rewards will be received for good works, certainly. What about the bad works? What about them?
The text indicates that the bad works will be burned away, they will not stand - and that we will "suffer loss" for them.
Protestants often say this only means the loss of rewards, as if that is all there is to it.
However...is it not true that if you reveal my flaws to me, that can be a purifying experience? A catharsis, if you will?
Those of us who have the love of God within us, but are not perfectly purified, are going to be shown our bad works, our sins, and we are going to feel rather guilty about them.
Yes, we will suffer the loss of rewards. Definitely. And, as I have asked others...won't this loss be PAINFUL?
It is the guilt that accompanies suffering, both on earth and in this post-death state of purification, that will bring us closer to God by making us seek to change our ways, by making us new persons.
As for "suffering loss" - it can also be translated differently.
Looking at the Greek Old Testament:
Proverbs 19:19, “A malicious man shall be severely punished” [zemiothesatai].
Zemiothesatai is the Greek word used for "suffer loss" in 1 Cor. 3:12-15. So suffering the loss of rewards is ALSO a PUNISHMENT.
And that ties into what I have been saying about suffering all along. It not only sanctifies us by bringing about an inward change and purifying us from sinful desires, it is an appropriate PUNISHMENT for the temporal effects of all the sins that we do.
Notice also how the person who suffers loss is not condemned to hell. They are saved THROUGH the fire.
Just as 1 Peter 3:21 talks about being saved THROUGH water, 1 Corinthians 3:15 is telling us that people will be saved by a purifying fire AFTER death.
This does not mean that the people in question were not justified at the end of their earthly life. This post-death purification is NOT a second chance. It is God's mercy. For we must be perfectly sanctified to get into Heaven, and Purgatory is God's way of making sure the job is done.
Notice, for a second, that verses 16-17 say this:
"Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for the temple of God, which you are, is holy."
Now, if you break your parents' window, and say you are sorry, they will forgive you. They are merciful. But if they are JUST, won't they punish you, insofar as, say, making you fix the window?
God is both merciful AND just. When we sin, we damage ourselves, the temples of God. We have been made holy. The construction of the temple is damaged through sin.
We are not our own. We are stewards of our bodies and souls that God gave to us. He doesn't want us damaging the property that He has effectively "leased out" to us.
God will forgive us for damaging the "Temple of the Holy Spirit" that is we. But He WILL be just as well, in expecting us to fix it. So we suffer punishment, a punishment that purifies our souls, repairs the Temple, and brings us closer to God and perfect holiness.
From Paul's own language we find that 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is talking about purification:
2 Timothy 2:19-22, “Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands, bearing this inscription, "The Lord knows those who are his"; and, "Let everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord avoid evil." In a large household there are vessels not only of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for lofty and others for humble use. If anyone cleanses himself of these things, he will be a vessel for lofty use, dedicated, beneficial to the master of the house, ready for every good work. So turn from youthful desires and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord with purity of heart.”
Look - once again, Paul is talking about a foundation. In a large household - the Church - there are vessels of gold, silver, wood and clay...
The gold and silver are for lofty use, like the good works of 1 Cor. 3.
The wood and clay are for humble use. They are not the most terrible sins imaginable, but a lesser kind - they are the bad works of 1 Cor. 3. They are our sinful desires, inclinations, and the lesser sins that we commit - the venial ones, the undeadly sins of 1 John 5:16-17.
"If anyone cleanses himself of these things, he will be a vessel for lofty use" is Paul's way of saying we should cleanse ourselves of the wood and clay - NOT the gold and silver. For we are being cleansed for lofty use, and so do not need to be cleansed of the vessels of lofty use.
It's all about purification, turning from youthful (spiritually immature, sinful) desires and pursuing purity of heart. For Jesus did say that only the pure of heart would see God.
It is with this understanding that we should approach 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. If we are imperfectly purified, our merciful and just God is going to purify us with "fire."
What is this fire? The fire of His love, of His very being.
Hebrews 12:29, "For our God is a consuming fire."
During our lives, becoming consumed with God's love brings us closer to Him and purifies us. And, if this process is NOT complete by the time of our death, it must still be completed. So from the time of our death, to the judgment, we will be purified by gradually entering into the love of God by passing through the purifying "fire" of His love. It may hurt, but it is worth it.
Romans 8:18, "I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed for us."
Even the sufferings of Purgatory.
- Sean
You wrote on May 2, 2007 at 12:13 PM
If you would like a Biblical explanation, I would be happy to give one.
Okay, so as I was talking with you on the other thread...even after we are saved, we still sin. We still have sinful inclinations and desires, as Romans 7 says.
Romans 8 gives a solution to this in putting away the deeds of the body and suffering with Christ. We are to pick up our own crosses, as Jesus said.
When we are first saved, we are washed clean of original sin. The Protestant, Calvinist understanding of our initial salvation is that God declares us just and imputes Christ's righteousness to our account. We are then sanctified, made holy, AFTER this.
In Catholicism, there is no such separation between Justification and Sanctification. If God declares us just based upon nothing, and we are still sinful piles of dung that snow (Christ's righteousness) covers over, than the very nature of salvation is a legal fiction.
So at our initial salvation, God first sanctifies us in Baptism - He makes us holy - by removing original sin and bestowing the Holy Spirit upon us.
THEN, or simultaneously, we are justified - we are declared just in the sight of God, because He has just MADE us that way.
1 Corinthians 6:11, "That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."
Notice it doesn't follow Calvin's pattern. We don't see justification, THEN sanctification. We see it listed the other way around.
So this means one of two things - either we can conceptualize us being made holy and then being declared that way after the fact, OR, we can conceptualize the two as occuring at the same time. Fine by me.
However, our sanctification is not yet complete. As I said, we may still have sinful inclinations. And we can fall into unsanctity, into sin, after our initial Justification.
Right after talking about baptism making us die and rise with Christ, Romans 6 says these things:
v. 6 "We know that our old self was crucified with him, SO THAT our sinful body MIGHT be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin."
v. 12 "Therefore, sin MUST NOT reign over your mortal bodies so that you obey their desires."
v. 14 "For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace."
That's not Paul saying sin CANNOT have any power over us. He's giving us an instruction to not LET that happen. Big difference.
v. 16 "Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to DEATH, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?"
What kind of death is this? A spiritual one. It is presented here as AT LEAST a hypothetical.
v.21 "But what profit did you get then from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death."
What kind of death? Spiritual death. Paul has not indicated that, now that they are saved, it is impossible for them to suffer this consequence. Falling into unsanctity can lead to that.
Romans 6:22, "But now that you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit that you have leads to sanctification, and its end is eternal life."
The end of sanctification is eternal life. And the benefit we have - our initial salvation - leads TO that. It isn't over yet. We need to become 100% holy to get into Heaven.
Hebrews 12:14, "Strive for peace with everyone, and for that holiness/sanctification (hagiasmon can be translated as either) without which no one will see the Lord."
Sanctification is not as Calvin thought it. It is much more. It is absolutely necessary and intimately tied to Justification.
Hebrews 12:15-16, "See to it that no one be deprived of the grace of God, that no bitter root spring up and cause trouble, through which many may become defiled, that no one be an immoral or profane person like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal."
We can still become defiled. Spiritual unsanctity is a constant threat.
Hebrews 12:1 tells us that we need to persevere. And how are we to persevere? The point of the Chapter is to tell us to endure the discipline of the Lord.
Hebrews 12:7, "Endure your trials as "discipline"; God treats you as sons. For what "son" is there whom his father does not discipline?"
The sufferings that Paul had been talking about in Romans 8 are a "discipline." They are not a sign of condemnation, but a disciplinary action.
Hebrews 12:10-11, "They disciplined us for a short time as seemed right to them, but he does so for our benefit, in order that we may share his holiness. At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it."
See? We don't share Christ's holiness because of an imputation of it. We share Christ's holiness by being conformed to Him, by repeating the life of Christ in our own life by taking up our crosses and enduring the dicipline of God.
While it may at first seem to be a cause of pain, and sorrow, it TRANSFORMS us. It brings us closer to God, something Paul has been trying to teach us.
Even Peter repeats this idea.
1 Peter 4:1-2, "Therefore, since Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same attitude (for whoever suffers in the flesh has broken with sin), so as not to spend what remains of one's life in the flesh on human desires, but on the will of God."
Suffering brings us away from sin and closer to God, because it makes us holier.
1 Peter 4:19, "As a result, those who suffer in accord with God's will hand their souls over to a faithful creator as they do good."
Now, to wrap this post up - and I will write another one because I want to explain all of this satisfactorally - let me talk about what else suffering is.
It is a punishment.
Yes, Christ suffered to remove the eternal punishment of our sins. Because He died for us, if we remain in Him, we will be saved from the flames.
But temporal punishment remains. Every sin that we do carries certain consequences.
When King David sinned, he repented, and God forgave him. But God still took the life of his child.
Likewise, God increased the intensity of the pain of giving birth, and gave to all of us physical death. Even with salvation, we still (most of us) physically die.
So every sin that we commit has a certain amount of temporal punishment associated with it.
When we suffer the discipline of the Lord - which just so happens to be temporal punishment for sin as well - we are purified by the experience if the Holy Spirit is within our hearts.
We come closer to God by this. The suffering transforms us, sanctifies us. We both DESERVE it, and need it.
The parent puts their child in the corner for a reason. The punishment is both deserved, AND the intent is there to teach the child a lesson. It's supposed to force them to think about what they have done, reflect upon it, and want to, not only because of fear of punishment, but from love, choose to not misbehave and disobey again.
It is an imperfect form of contrition to be sorry for fear of punishment. That's not what God wants. The punishment itself is supposed to drive us toward PERFECT contrition - sorrow for what we have done based upon love. And this will transform us into better Christians.
So basically, that's how the life of the Christian in striving for holiness, and the kingdom, is supposed to work. I find it to be a rather biblical understanding.
You are probably wondering where I am going with all this in terms of Purgatory. Lol. I'm getting there.
- Sean
* Reply to Your Post
* Delete Post
Post #9
You wrote on May 2, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Explaining Purgatory Part II
Now I move on to how the Bible talks about our purification, in metaphorical terms.
Revelation 21:27, "but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."
Nothing unclean. Nothing at all. Not even sinful inclinations and desires can pass through that front gate.
I'll start with the OT. I would encourage you to read all the following examples, as they are crucial to you understanding where I am coming from.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psalms 17:3-4, “You have tested my heart, searched it in the night. You have tried me by fire, but find no malice in me. My mouth has not transgressed as humans often do. As your lips have instructed me, I have kept the way of the law.”
Psalm 66:10-12, “You tested us, O God, tried us as silver tried by fire. You led us into a snare; you bound us at the waist as captives. You let captors set foot on our neck; we went through fire and water; then you led us out to freedom.”
Isaiah 1:25, “I will turn my hand against you, and refine your dross in the furnace, removing all your alloy.”
Isaiah 6:5-7, “Then I said, "Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar. He touched my mouth with it. "See," he said, "now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged."
Ezekiel 15:6-7, “Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD: Like the wood of the vine among the trees of the forest, which I have destined as fuel for the fire, do I make the inhabitants of Jerusalem. I will set my face against them; they have escaped from the fire, but the fire shall devour them. Thus you shall know that I am the LORD, when I turn my face against them.”
Ezekiel 22:15, “I will disperse you among the nations and scatter you over foreign lands, so that I may purge your uncleanness.”
All this kind of imagery, of being purged of uncleaness through fire, does not apply SOLELY to our initial cleansing, but to our progressive cleansing after that time.
Ezekiel 22:18-22, “Son of man, the house of Israel has become dross for me. All of them are bronze and tin, iron and lead (in the midst of a furnace): dross from silver have they become. Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Because all of you have become dross, therefore I must gather you together within Jerusalem. Just as silver, bronze, iron, lead, and tin are gathered into a furnace and smelted in the roaring flames, so I will gather you together in my furious wrath, put you in, and smelt you. When I have assembled you, I will blast you with the fire of my anger and smelt you with it. You shall be smelted by it just as silver is smelted in a furnace. Thus you shall know that I, the LORD, have poured out my fury on you.”
Daniel 12:10, “Many shall be refined, purified, and tested, but the wicked shall prove wicked; none of them shall have understanding, but the wise shall have it.”
Proverbs "As silver is tried by fire, and gold in the furnace, so the Lord tries the hearts."
We are tested and tried like gold and silver tested by fire. This testing demonstrates our constitution and it purifies us as well.
Wisdom 3:5-8, “Chastised a little, they shall be greatly blessed, because God tried them and found them worthy of himself. As gold in the furnace, he proved them, and as sacrificial offerings he took them to himself. In the time of their visitation they shall shine, and shall dart about as sparks through stubble; they shall judge nations and rule over peoples, and the LORD shall be their King forever.”
This is not part of the Protestant Old Testament, but I included it because the imagery matches the rest that I have provided.
Zechariah 13:8-9, “In all the land, says the LORD, two thirds of them shall be cut off and perish, and one third shall be left. I will bring the one third through fire, and I will refine them as silver is refined, and I will test them as gold is tested. They shall call upon my name, and I will hear them. I will say, "They are my people," and they shall say, "The LORD is my God."
Malachi 3:1-4, “Lo, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me; And suddenly there will come to the temple the LORD whom you seek, And the messenger of the covenant whom you desire. Yes, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts. But who will endure the day of his coming? And who can stand when he appears? For he is like the refiner's fire, or like the fuller's lye. He will sit refining and purifying (silver), and he will purify the sons of Levi, Refining them like gold or like silver that they may offer due sacrifice to the LORD. Then the sacrifice of Judah and Jerusalem will please the LORD, as in days of old, as in years gone by.”
Yes, this applies to our initial salvation. But since sanctification occurs after that point, the imagery can also be applied to the rest of our life.
Now, to the New Testament.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Peter 1:6-9, “In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. Although you have not seen him you love him; even though you do not see him now yet believe in him, you rejoice with an indescribable and glorious joy, as you attain the goal of (your) faith, the salvation of your souls.”
2 Corinthians 7:1, “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of flesh and spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God.”
1 Thessalonians 4:7, “For God did not call us to impurity but to holiness.”
1 Peter 4:12-13, “Beloved, do not be surprised that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as if something strange were happening to you. But rejoice to the extent that you share in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice exultantly.”
2 Peter 3:10-12, “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a mighty roar and the elements will be dissolved by fire, and the earth and everything done on it will be found out. Since everything is to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought (you) to be, conducting yourselves in holiness and devotion, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved in flames and the elements melted by fire.”
If you have ever been in debates on Purgatory before, I think you know what passage is coming.
1 Corinthians 3:12-15, “If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.”
On this passage (and not just this) the Catholic Church makes the claim that there is a final purification that occurs after death - that those who die in the state of grace, although imperfectly purified, are to be purified before entrance into Heaven.
Some Protestants claim that this passage applies solely to Christian leaders. Yet Paul says, "If anyone." He moves from a context of talking about Church leaders building up the foundation of the Church to EVERYONE doing so.
Some Protestants claim this passage talks solely about rewards. What about the suffering of loss, the being saved by fire?
We can build on the foundation with good works - gold, silver, precious stones - or bad works - wood, hay, and straw.
Bad works should be understood to be false works or sins. As Robert Sungenis says, "Scripture never makes a distinction between bad deeds and sins. Each time bad deeds are mentioned they are in the context of sins."
The passage indicates that the Day will reveal the quality of all of the works. There will be, I believe, an "apokalupsis," a revelation.
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, “The last word, when all is heard: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is man's all; because God will bring to judgment every work, with all its hidden qualities, whether good or bad.”
2 Corinthians 5:10, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.”
Everything is going to be revealed. The quality of all of our works will be exposed.
Rewards will be received for good works, certainly. What about the bad works? What about them?
The text indicates that the bad works will be burned away, they will not stand - and that we will "suffer loss" for them.
Protestants often say this only means the loss of rewards, as if that is all there is to it.
However...is it not true that if you reveal my flaws to me, that can be a purifying experience? A catharsis, if you will?
Those of us who have the love of God within us, but are not perfectly purified, are going to be shown our bad works, our sins, and we are going to feel rather guilty about them.
Yes, we will suffer the loss of rewards. Definitely. And, as I have asked others...won't this loss be PAINFUL?
It is the guilt that accompanies suffering, both on earth and in this post-death state of purification, that will bring us closer to God by making us seek to change our ways, by making us new persons.
As for "suffering loss" - it can also be translated differently.
Looking at the Greek Old Testament:
Proverbs 19:19, “A malicious man shall be severely punished” [zemiothesatai].
Zemiothesatai is the Greek word used for "suffer loss" in 1 Cor. 3:12-15. So suffering the loss of rewards is ALSO a PUNISHMENT.
And that ties into what I have been saying about suffering all along. It not only sanctifies us by bringing about an inward change and purifying us from sinful desires, it is an appropriate PUNISHMENT for the temporal effects of all the sins that we do.
Notice also how the person who suffers loss is not condemned to hell. They are saved THROUGH the fire.
Just as 1 Peter 3:21 talks about being saved THROUGH water, 1 Corinthians 3:15 is telling us that people will be saved by a purifying fire AFTER death.
This does not mean that the people in question were not justified at the end of their earthly life. This post-death purification is NOT a second chance. It is God's mercy. For we must be perfectly sanctified to get into Heaven, and Purgatory is God's way of making sure the job is done.
Notice, for a second, that verses 16-17 say this:
"Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for the temple of God, which you are, is holy."
Now, if you break your parents' window, and say you are sorry, they will forgive you. They are merciful. But if they are JUST, won't they punish you, insofar as, say, making you fix the window?
God is both merciful AND just. When we sin, we damage ourselves, the temples of God. We have been made holy. The construction of the temple is damaged through sin.
We are not our own. We are stewards of our bodies and souls that God gave to us. He doesn't want us damaging the property that He has effectively "leased out" to us.
God will forgive us for damaging the "Temple of the Holy Spirit" that is we. But He WILL be just as well, in expecting us to fix it. So we suffer punishment, a punishment that purifies our souls, repairs the Temple, and brings us closer to God and perfect holiness.
From Paul's own language we find that 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is talking about purification:
2 Timothy 2:19-22, “Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands, bearing this inscription, "The Lord knows those who are his"; and, "Let everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord avoid evil." In a large household there are vessels not only of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for lofty and others for humble use. If anyone cleanses himself of these things, he will be a vessel for lofty use, dedicated, beneficial to the master of the house, ready for every good work. So turn from youthful desires and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord with purity of heart.”
Look - once again, Paul is talking about a foundation. In a large household - the Church - there are vessels of gold, silver, wood and clay...
The gold and silver are for lofty use, like the good works of 1 Cor. 3.
The wood and clay are for humble use. They are not the most terrible sins imaginable, but a lesser kind - they are the bad works of 1 Cor. 3. They are our sinful desires, inclinations, and the lesser sins that we commit - the venial ones, the undeadly sins of 1 John 5:16-17.
"If anyone cleanses himself of these things, he will be a vessel for lofty use" is Paul's way of saying we should cleanse ourselves of the wood and clay - NOT the gold and silver. For we are being cleansed for lofty use, and so do not need to be cleansed of the vessels of lofty use.
It's all about purification, turning from youthful (spiritually immature, sinful) desires and pursuing purity of heart. For Jesus did say that only the pure of heart would see God.
It is with this understanding that we should approach 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. If we are imperfectly purified, our merciful and just God is going to purify us with "fire."
What is this fire? The fire of His love, of His very being.
Hebrews 12:29, "For our God is a consuming fire."
During our lives, becoming consumed with God's love brings us closer to Him and purifies us. And, if this process is NOT complete by the time of our death, it must still be completed. So from the time of our death, to the judgment, we will be purified by gradually entering into the love of God by passing through the purifying "fire" of His love. It may hurt, but it is worth it.
Romans 8:18, "I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed for us."
Even the sufferings of Purgatory.
- Sean
Defense of Prayer to the Saints
You wrote on Jul 6, 2007 at 6:30 AM.
You replied to Laura's post on Mar 31, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Laura,
Back as well. Hm, someone who makes long posts like myself? How long would you say your longest has been? The people I've spoken with in, for example, the facebook group "Theology Rocks" have put my posts into Microsoft Word and checked, haha. It's a fun group, you should join it.
"I'm still not really sure how prayers going THROUGH saints connects to prayers being said TO the saints. Also, do you ever pray to angels? Because in the Bible it says not to pray to the angels (I'll have to do some research to find where it says)."
Forgive me my crappy explanation. Lol lol.
I guess it is pretty simple and I should have explained it more simplistically?
Let's say I give you a letter and ask you to bring it to someone else. You are taking the role of a messenger (which, ironically, is what an angel is).
We often think of Gabriel being a messenger from God to Mary. But do we ever stop to think that Gabriel was ALSO a messenger from Mary to God? Her "Let it be done to me according to your Word", because of God's omniscience, would have been immediately known by God, but that doesn't mean that Gabriel didn't return to God's throne to tell Him the news. If we say that would be a waste of time, then to an extent, prayer would be as well since God already knows what we want (and yes, it is definitely the case that prayer is more so for our benefit than anything else).
When I read those examples from Revelation, I get an image in my head of saints, and angels, taking these prayers from others up to God, just like a messenger will take messages from one person to another.
This would be a form of intercession, of course.
Are you saying that it would be an assumption to say that the saints take our prayers, and then pray the same prayers to God?
When I think of prayer, I think of it as "asking God" for anything. If I say, God give me the strength to get through the day - that's a prayer.
Romans 8:26-27, "In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings. And the one who searches hearts knows what is the intention of the Spirit, because it intercedes for the holy ones according to God's will."
The Spirit intercessing does not mean that the saints cannot?
Romans 8:34, "Who will condemn? It is Christ (Jesus) who died, rather, was raised, who also is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us."
I would encourage you to read my latest two posts in the Transubstantiation topic. For one thing, Christ's role as intercessor, as mediator, is CHIEFLY about Him eternally offering Himself to the Father in Heaven on our behalf. There is nothing to suggest that Christ is sitting at a desk, reading "emails" of all of our prayers and refusing to let any of the Heavenly saints read those emails first, or have their own email accounts - to use a dorky analogy.
Christ intercedes for us, yes...but so do the saints. The language of Revelation on this shows prayers getting to Christ by being "offered in bowls of incense" - and there is basis in the text for people to be presenting before Christ prayers of others.
"I also don’t think that by asking another person to pray for you is sending a prayer through them. They pray, I pray. Separate prayers with the same intent."
If I say, Laura, could you please pray for my grandmother? And then you do so, say, DIRECTLY to God - how is that not me sending a prayer through you? For, I have prayed - ASKED - you to pray to God - ASK God for something - for me.
So, I can pray directly to God for that, sure. And you can as well. I'm just saying that if I ask you to pray to God for my grandmother, that is no different than what a Catholic is trying to do when they "pray" to Mary for the same thing.
The problem with calling it "prayer to the saints" is because at the time of the Reformation, the Reformers were disgusted at the cult of the saints, wanted to emphasize Christ more, and they said the practice was not in the Bible in light of Sola Scriptura. As a result, "prayer" became something solely between God and the individual in Protestant thought. It thus acquired connotations of worship, when, in fact, ALL it used to, and still can, mean, is "to ask."
"Since God Himself (for that is who Jesus and the Spirit are, of course!) intercedes for us, takes our prayers Himself without having to speak to others (those in Heaven, including Mary), would it not make sense that we don’t need to pray to the dead? I would rather deal with the boss himself over a middle-man."
If God Himself always took our prayers without ever having "middle-men" then what about those examples in Revelation?
Would you say that Revelation 5:8 is those individuals offering their OWN prayers up to God, that were not previously given to them by others?
Revelation 8:3 I believe gets rid of this objection: "Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne."
There we have ONE INDIVIDUAL - ONE angel - offering the prayers of ALL the saints on the gold altar before the throne. So the angel would be offering prayers that came from another source, and acting as an intercessor. The angel in Revelation 8:3 IS acting as a "middle-man."
Sure, we'd all rather deal with the boss-man than the middle man. But that's not the way Scripture has typically worked.
The prophets? The judges? The kings? The evangelists, the Apostles? God doesn't use "middle-men?" See what I mean?
James 5:14-15, "Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven."
Dare I say, "middlemen?" Here, the priests of the Church annoint sick people with oil and their prayer of faith SAVES the sick person - not physically, obviously, but spiritually.
The same is with Baptism. God uses the "mediator" of the person baptizing, and the "medium" of the physical water to begin the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
My argument wasn't really that, every time I say the Our Father, a secretary-saint in Heaven "prints it out" and brings it up to God the Father. I wasn't willing to go that far. I believe that we CAN pray directly to God.
But I do believe that we CAN ask the saints in Heaven to pray for us, and being fully sanctified and full of love, they WILL pray for us, and that in this capacity they act as middle-men.
I feel that the Reformers took great issue with certain practices that they didn't feel were biblical and then attached all this, "one mediator, only Jesus 'n me" rhetoric to it - which, ironically, ISN'T how God works. The one mediator between God and man (in terms of the atonement!) is Jesus, but that does not mean that we do not have "subordinate mediators."
When I think of the term, "saint" I break it down into two groups:
1.) The saints (little s) which is a term that can be applied to every Christian, in Heaven and on earth.
2.) The Saints (big S) is a term that can be applied to 100% sanctified Christians. For example, the Saints in Heaven have been made perfectly holy - no sin, no sinful inclinations, remain. I believe that there have been other Saints on Earth that have attained that type of spiritual perfection/maturity while still on earth - although Catholic canonization says nothing specifically about that, speaking only of whether they are currently in Heaven or not.
Does that help?
"One more thing on this subject. When does Jesus speak to the dead? When He said “Eli, eli,” He was saying “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” which means “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” He was not speaking to Elijah."
I think you misunderstood my argument. I WASN'T saying that Jesus WAS speaking to Elijah. I was saying that the Jews THOUGHT that Jesus was speaking to Elijah. The fact that this misunderstanding of them did NOT cause them to attack Jesus about it indicates that the Jews did not, apparently, regard ALL conversing with the dead as necromancy and forbidden.
- Sean
You replied to Laura's post on Mar 31, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Laura,
Back as well. Hm, someone who makes long posts like myself? How long would you say your longest has been? The people I've spoken with in, for example, the facebook group "Theology Rocks" have put my posts into Microsoft Word and checked, haha. It's a fun group, you should join it.
"I'm still not really sure how prayers going THROUGH saints connects to prayers being said TO the saints. Also, do you ever pray to angels? Because in the Bible it says not to pray to the angels (I'll have to do some research to find where it says)."
Forgive me my crappy explanation. Lol lol.
I guess it is pretty simple and I should have explained it more simplistically?
Let's say I give you a letter and ask you to bring it to someone else. You are taking the role of a messenger (which, ironically, is what an angel is).
We often think of Gabriel being a messenger from God to Mary. But do we ever stop to think that Gabriel was ALSO a messenger from Mary to God? Her "Let it be done to me according to your Word", because of God's omniscience, would have been immediately known by God, but that doesn't mean that Gabriel didn't return to God's throne to tell Him the news. If we say that would be a waste of time, then to an extent, prayer would be as well since God already knows what we want (and yes, it is definitely the case that prayer is more so for our benefit than anything else).
When I read those examples from Revelation, I get an image in my head of saints, and angels, taking these prayers from others up to God, just like a messenger will take messages from one person to another.
This would be a form of intercession, of course.
Are you saying that it would be an assumption to say that the saints take our prayers, and then pray the same prayers to God?
When I think of prayer, I think of it as "asking God" for anything. If I say, God give me the strength to get through the day - that's a prayer.
Romans 8:26-27, "In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings. And the one who searches hearts knows what is the intention of the Spirit, because it intercedes for the holy ones according to God's will."
The Spirit intercessing does not mean that the saints cannot?
Romans 8:34, "Who will condemn? It is Christ (Jesus) who died, rather, was raised, who also is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us."
I would encourage you to read my latest two posts in the Transubstantiation topic. For one thing, Christ's role as intercessor, as mediator, is CHIEFLY about Him eternally offering Himself to the Father in Heaven on our behalf. There is nothing to suggest that Christ is sitting at a desk, reading "emails" of all of our prayers and refusing to let any of the Heavenly saints read those emails first, or have their own email accounts - to use a dorky analogy.
Christ intercedes for us, yes...but so do the saints. The language of Revelation on this shows prayers getting to Christ by being "offered in bowls of incense" - and there is basis in the text for people to be presenting before Christ prayers of others.
"I also don’t think that by asking another person to pray for you is sending a prayer through them. They pray, I pray. Separate prayers with the same intent."
If I say, Laura, could you please pray for my grandmother? And then you do so, say, DIRECTLY to God - how is that not me sending a prayer through you? For, I have prayed - ASKED - you to pray to God - ASK God for something - for me.
So, I can pray directly to God for that, sure. And you can as well. I'm just saying that if I ask you to pray to God for my grandmother, that is no different than what a Catholic is trying to do when they "pray" to Mary for the same thing.
The problem with calling it "prayer to the saints" is because at the time of the Reformation, the Reformers were disgusted at the cult of the saints, wanted to emphasize Christ more, and they said the practice was not in the Bible in light of Sola Scriptura. As a result, "prayer" became something solely between God and the individual in Protestant thought. It thus acquired connotations of worship, when, in fact, ALL it used to, and still can, mean, is "to ask."
"Since God Himself (for that is who Jesus and the Spirit are, of course!) intercedes for us, takes our prayers Himself without having to speak to others (those in Heaven, including Mary), would it not make sense that we don’t need to pray to the dead? I would rather deal with the boss himself over a middle-man."
If God Himself always took our prayers without ever having "middle-men" then what about those examples in Revelation?
Would you say that Revelation 5:8 is those individuals offering their OWN prayers up to God, that were not previously given to them by others?
Revelation 8:3 I believe gets rid of this objection: "Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne."
There we have ONE INDIVIDUAL - ONE angel - offering the prayers of ALL the saints on the gold altar before the throne. So the angel would be offering prayers that came from another source, and acting as an intercessor. The angel in Revelation 8:3 IS acting as a "middle-man."
Sure, we'd all rather deal with the boss-man than the middle man. But that's not the way Scripture has typically worked.
The prophets? The judges? The kings? The evangelists, the Apostles? God doesn't use "middle-men?" See what I mean?
James 5:14-15, "Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven."
Dare I say, "middlemen?" Here, the priests of the Church annoint sick people with oil and their prayer of faith SAVES the sick person - not physically, obviously, but spiritually.
The same is with Baptism. God uses the "mediator" of the person baptizing, and the "medium" of the physical water to begin the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
My argument wasn't really that, every time I say the Our Father, a secretary-saint in Heaven "prints it out" and brings it up to God the Father. I wasn't willing to go that far. I believe that we CAN pray directly to God.
But I do believe that we CAN ask the saints in Heaven to pray for us, and being fully sanctified and full of love, they WILL pray for us, and that in this capacity they act as middle-men.
I feel that the Reformers took great issue with certain practices that they didn't feel were biblical and then attached all this, "one mediator, only Jesus 'n me" rhetoric to it - which, ironically, ISN'T how God works. The one mediator between God and man (in terms of the atonement!) is Jesus, but that does not mean that we do not have "subordinate mediators."
When I think of the term, "saint" I break it down into two groups:
1.) The saints (little s) which is a term that can be applied to every Christian, in Heaven and on earth.
2.) The Saints (big S) is a term that can be applied to 100% sanctified Christians. For example, the Saints in Heaven have been made perfectly holy - no sin, no sinful inclinations, remain. I believe that there have been other Saints on Earth that have attained that type of spiritual perfection/maturity while still on earth - although Catholic canonization says nothing specifically about that, speaking only of whether they are currently in Heaven or not.
Does that help?
"One more thing on this subject. When does Jesus speak to the dead? When He said “Eli, eli,” He was saying “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” which means “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” He was not speaking to Elijah."
I think you misunderstood my argument. I WASN'T saying that Jesus WAS speaking to Elijah. I was saying that the Jews THOUGHT that Jesus was speaking to Elijah. The fact that this misunderstanding of them did NOT cause them to attack Jesus about it indicates that the Jews did not, apparently, regard ALL conversing with the dead as necromancy and forbidden.
- Sean
The Galatians 2 Strawman Argument against Papal Infallibility
You wrote on Jul 6, 2007 at 6:44 AM.
You replied to Ambrosial's post on Jun 14, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Ambrosial,
Well, well, well. Time for a not-so-little rebuttal.
"Definition: When a pope is speaking in his official position on any issue of faith or morals, he is speaking infallibly, meaning without error."
Eh. A little too broad for my tastes. He has to be defining a matter for the entire Church. Personal opinions don't count, sins don't count. Let's not resort to a strawman fallacy.
"Answer: The apostles never regarded any man to be infallible, only the Word of God is regarded as without error."
Funny how Church Tradition tells you what the Word of God is even composed of.
"If Peter was pope, which the Bible says he was not, then he made mistakes as in Galatians 2:11-14 when he was deceived by Judaizers. "But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
If you'd like, I can go into the biblical typology for Matthew 16:18-19 and Isaiah 22:20-22. Jesus, King of the New Israel, selected Peter as His Prime Minister, just like Eliakim was the "Master of the Palace" under King Hezekiah. Don't just assume that the Bible doesn't make Peter the Pope without backing it up, because people like me know better.
Peter wasn't "deceived" by Judaizers. He acted hypocritically because he was afraid of them.
I'll just copy and paste another post I made on this topic that demolishes this often used Protestant strawman fallacy:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council of Jerusalem probably occured around 49 AD - before the episode between Peter and Paul at Antioch, and before the writing of Galatians.
In Acts 10, God sent a vision - to whom? Peter. The animals, the whole "what God has made clean, you are not to call unclean" business.
The episode in the house of Cornelius was a sign that Gentiles were to be included in the Christian Church. It was a confirmation of Peter's vision, and it made him realize the importance of his revelation. Peter defended the inclusion of the Gentiles in Chapter 11.
At the later Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15, the Judaizers were debating with Paul and Barnabas over the inclusion of the Jews.
What ended the debate?
Acts 15:7, "After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through MY MOUTH the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe."
Here Peter appeals to his earlier revelation, and the fact that it was through him, through his mouth, that the Gentiles would hear the word of the Gospel and believe.
Acts 15:8-10, "And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?"
So, by this point Peter definitely is not insisting that following the Jewish law is an absolute necessity. It is through PETER that the Church comes to reject that notion.
Acts 15:11, "On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they."
Salvation through grace, for both Jews and Gentiles. Before Acts 10, Peter - and most of the Church! - supported the notion that Gentiles had to become Jews in order to be Christians. It was only the events that happened to Peter than changed things.
Acts 15:12, "The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them."
Debate over. Peter hath spoken.
Protestants often focus on James, who speaks after. Well, notice the DEBATE was over. Everyone fell silent. The rest of the testimony at the council is in agreement with what Peter said.
First, we have Paul and Barnabas give their supporting testimony. And then James,the local head of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, added some disciplinary regulations for Gentile converts, so as not to upset the Jewish Christians in his congregation.
James wasn't in charge of this council. His statement is no more than a "concurring opinion." In the Supreme Court, one justice writes the majority opinion, and other justice can write concurring opinions. Peter is the chief justice, and gives the "majority" opinion - not majority by votes, but rather, supreme by position. James gives a concurring opinion. Any plain reading of the chapter shows that it is through Peter that the debate ends, through whom the issue is resolved. As Peter says, God chose to resolve this debate through Peter from the first place.
When Peter visited Antioch, he kept his usual practice of holding table fellowship with Gentile Christians, but drew back when some Jewish Christians arrived (2:12).
This is definitely hypocritical BEHAVIOR. But it doesn't mean that Peter went and gave a sermon going back against his earlier decision at the Council of Jerusalem - that's a stretch if ever there was one. Hypocrisy is when you SAY one thing and DO another - so most definitely, the TEACHING of Peter at the time of the Antioch episode CAN'T be in agreement with his actions there. Peter's teaching was orthodox, but his behavior was hypocritical.
Likewise, a Pope can go out and give a sermon against this or that sin, and then go and privately commit that sin. Popes are not impeccable, and it is a considerable Protestant strawman fallacy to use the Galatians 2 example to somehow argue against Papal Infallibilty. It's laughable, really.
Galatians 2:11-12, "And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised."
Hypocritical behavior? Definitely. Proof against Papal Infalliblity? Nice try, but no.
Galatians 2:13-14, "And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, "If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Peter's behavior also called scandal, for others acted hypocritically as well. That means they were SAYING that Gentiles don't have to be Jewish in order to be Christian, but ACTING in such a way as if that was not the case.
Consider Paul's words to Peter. They are an EXACT parallel to Peter's argument in Acts 15:10. Peter is appealing to Peter's OWN WORDS that decided the Council of Jerusalem to point out his hypocritical behavior.
Paul saying, "I opposed Peter!" is significant because the others had followed Peter's actions, so Paul needed to address the actions of the "ringleader." And he does so by appealing to Peter's own teaching. Another reason Paul singles Peter out is because of Peter's prominent role in the early Church. Few people are going to notice if I criticize the town secretary. A lot of people are going to notice if I criticize the President. Paul's point is that if it is not right for Peter, the leader of the Apostles, to behave the way that he did, then it is most certainly wrong for the Galatians to behave they way they are.
Paul's rebuke of Peter was most definitely a good thing. People HAVE rebuked Popes in the past, you know. That's what St. Catherine of Sienna did. Did she believe in the authority of the Pope? Yes. Did she reject Papal infallibility? No. So bringing up Galatians 2 is extremely important in understanding what occured in the early Church. But it is of absolutely no value in a debate concerning Papal Infalliblity, since it can only be used against a straw man, instead of the actual belief."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I hope you don't make use of this fallacy again.
Additionally, Ambrosial - do you realize that you provided a definition for papal infalliblity and most of your examples are about Popes SINNING, which wasn't even part of the definition of papal infalliblity that you yourself provided?!? Papal infallibility ISN'T papal impeccability. Popes are not sinless. Sheesh. Peter could be hypocritical, and other popes could do much worse. Totally unrelated to papal infallibility.
"1. Pope John XII, in the "Liber Pontificalis" the Catholic publication discussing the lives of the popes, said that "He spent his entire life in adultery."
If Pope John XII proclaimed as a matter of dogma for the whole Church that, "Adultery is not a sin" THAT would violate papal infallibility. But a Pope committing adultery DOESN'T violate the definition of papal infalliblity.
One down. 7 to go.
"2. Popes Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV all disagreed with papal infallibility."
If you keep trying to define papal infallibility as papal impeccability, then YES, all those men disagreed with it. However, they didn't disagree with papal infallibility, strictly defined. If they did, provide quotes. No one in this topic should read "these men disagreed" and simply believe you even though you have offered no backing. In fact, it appears that you are getting all this from some sort of anticatholic website, and those rarely, if ever, have footnotes and references.
"3. Pope Stephen VI (896) had the dead pope Formosus (891-6) tried, questioned, fingers hacked off, dragged through Rome and thrown in the Tiber river."
Definitely a reprehensible event, at least in my opinion. However, is that your evidence from this event against papal infallibility? That's not evidence, Ambrosial. That's just you taking a tidbit of historical knowledge and using it to back up your strawman fallacy.
"4. Pope Hadrian II (867) declared civil marriage to be valid, but Pope Pius VII (1800-23) declared it to be invalid."
Well, this is a LOT better in terms of an argument. What you pose here is indeed a contradiction.
However, did either of these men pronounce upon the matter as officially binding for the entire church, as a matter of doctrine? Well?
That's what you'd need for evidence. Popes don't always agree on EVERYTHING. But we don't get ex cathedra statements out of them that contradict the ex cathedra statements of other Popes.
Basically, your understanding of papal infallibility is MUCH, MUCH too broad. Why are you giving the Pope so much power?
"5. Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict IV in 1919 declared her to be a saint."
A sin. Not a declaration applicable to the whole church. Strawman fallacy again.
"6. Pope Pius XI in 1929 endorsed Fascism and called Mussolini "a man sent by God." However, before World War II, he warned people against Mussolini."
Q: Which killed more people? The Fascists in Germany and Italy, or the Communists?
A: The Communists. While both systems were deplorable by our standards today, one often still had to "pick" between them. Pius XI was concerning in 1929 with communism, among other things. You act like him calling Mussolini a "man sent by God" is the equivalent of a canonization. It isn't. It's a personal opinion based on that Pope's view of what Mussolini did for the nation of Italy and a strong Italy meant an Italy that wouldn't fall to communism. The Pope came to realize just how bad, however, Mussolini was.
"7. The Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a concordat, where the Catholic church swore allegiance to the Nazi government. Later on Pope Pius XI condemned Hitler."
Okay, I'm a history major...and this is a load of CRAP.
What was a Concordant? A peace treaty of sorts. The Vatican signed it to protect the rights and freedoms of Catholics in Germany. It did NOT involve swearing allegiance to the Nazi state!
As early as 1935, Pius XII, the Papal nuncio to Germany, condemned the Nazis as "miserable plagiarists who draw up old errors with new tinsel." The Catholic Church was not in any way tolerant of Nazi Germany's racial policies. In 1938, Pius XII (then Eugenio Pacelli) wrote Mitt Brennender Sorge, an anti-Hitler encyclical, on behalf of Pope Piux IX, and it was smuggled into Germany/
"How can a supposedly infallible man make so many errors of judgment, and even contradict other so-called infallible popes? Surely this disproves papal infallibility to any honest, open-minded person."
And the strawman fallacies have totally delegitimized your entire argument. Maybe you should TRULY be honest, and admit that you are NOT being open-minded.
Here's the scenarion: you think that God alone can be infallible. You think it highly unlikely that any "man" can be infallible, because men sin. You find it impractical to define papal infallibility the way we Catholics do, so you redefine it in order to make it easier to attack. To you, the idea of being infallible conditionally, in just matters of faith and morals, and only with official declarations to the entire church, is untenable. So, you insist that the Pope must be SINLESS in order to be infallible.
Strawman fallacy. You aren't being open-minded at all. You'd agree that the Apostles were "conditionally infallible" when they wrote the New Testament. They were prevented by God from making errors, EVEN THOUGH they were sinners. So your argument that, since Popes can sin, they cannot be conditionally infallible as the Church teaches, is quite simply erroneous.
If you are going to attack papal infalliblity, please, attack our definition of it, instead of the straw man you choose to create. It will save us a lot of time and aggravation.
Your argument doesn't disprove papal infalliblity, PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD AND DEFINED, at all. And you are saying that any honest, open-minded person would agree - so therefore, since I disagree with this logically flawed argument, you would have to label me as dishonest, and closed-minded. That's not the case. It would be dishonest to attack a misrepresentation of a Catholic belief. Maybe you don't realize you have just done that - I just don't know. But it appears to be the case that you either purposely distorted the Catholic view of papal infallibility, or do not understand it. If the former, you've been caught red-handed. If the latter, I and the other Catholics here would be more than happy to explain it more clearly to you.
- Sean
You replied to Ambrosial's post on Jun 14, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Ambrosial,
Well, well, well. Time for a not-so-little rebuttal.
"Definition: When a pope is speaking in his official position on any issue of faith or morals, he is speaking infallibly, meaning without error."
Eh. A little too broad for my tastes. He has to be defining a matter for the entire Church. Personal opinions don't count, sins don't count. Let's not resort to a strawman fallacy.
"Answer: The apostles never regarded any man to be infallible, only the Word of God is regarded as without error."
Funny how Church Tradition tells you what the Word of God is even composed of.
"If Peter was pope, which the Bible says he was not, then he made mistakes as in Galatians 2:11-14 when he was deceived by Judaizers. "But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
If you'd like, I can go into the biblical typology for Matthew 16:18-19 and Isaiah 22:20-22. Jesus, King of the New Israel, selected Peter as His Prime Minister, just like Eliakim was the "Master of the Palace" under King Hezekiah. Don't just assume that the Bible doesn't make Peter the Pope without backing it up, because people like me know better.
Peter wasn't "deceived" by Judaizers. He acted hypocritically because he was afraid of them.
I'll just copy and paste another post I made on this topic that demolishes this often used Protestant strawman fallacy:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council of Jerusalem probably occured around 49 AD - before the episode between Peter and Paul at Antioch, and before the writing of Galatians.
In Acts 10, God sent a vision - to whom? Peter. The animals, the whole "what God has made clean, you are not to call unclean" business.
The episode in the house of Cornelius was a sign that Gentiles were to be included in the Christian Church. It was a confirmation of Peter's vision, and it made him realize the importance of his revelation. Peter defended the inclusion of the Gentiles in Chapter 11.
At the later Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15, the Judaizers were debating with Paul and Barnabas over the inclusion of the Jews.
What ended the debate?
Acts 15:7, "After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through MY MOUTH the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe."
Here Peter appeals to his earlier revelation, and the fact that it was through him, through his mouth, that the Gentiles would hear the word of the Gospel and believe.
Acts 15:8-10, "And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?"
So, by this point Peter definitely is not insisting that following the Jewish law is an absolute necessity. It is through PETER that the Church comes to reject that notion.
Acts 15:11, "On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they."
Salvation through grace, for both Jews and Gentiles. Before Acts 10, Peter - and most of the Church! - supported the notion that Gentiles had to become Jews in order to be Christians. It was only the events that happened to Peter than changed things.
Acts 15:12, "The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them."
Debate over. Peter hath spoken.
Protestants often focus on James, who speaks after. Well, notice the DEBATE was over. Everyone fell silent. The rest of the testimony at the council is in agreement with what Peter said.
First, we have Paul and Barnabas give their supporting testimony. And then James,the local head of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, added some disciplinary regulations for Gentile converts, so as not to upset the Jewish Christians in his congregation.
James wasn't in charge of this council. His statement is no more than a "concurring opinion." In the Supreme Court, one justice writes the majority opinion, and other justice can write concurring opinions. Peter is the chief justice, and gives the "majority" opinion - not majority by votes, but rather, supreme by position. James gives a concurring opinion. Any plain reading of the chapter shows that it is through Peter that the debate ends, through whom the issue is resolved. As Peter says, God chose to resolve this debate through Peter from the first place.
When Peter visited Antioch, he kept his usual practice of holding table fellowship with Gentile Christians, but drew back when some Jewish Christians arrived (2:12).
This is definitely hypocritical BEHAVIOR. But it doesn't mean that Peter went and gave a sermon going back against his earlier decision at the Council of Jerusalem - that's a stretch if ever there was one. Hypocrisy is when you SAY one thing and DO another - so most definitely, the TEACHING of Peter at the time of the Antioch episode CAN'T be in agreement with his actions there. Peter's teaching was orthodox, but his behavior was hypocritical.
Likewise, a Pope can go out and give a sermon against this or that sin, and then go and privately commit that sin. Popes are not impeccable, and it is a considerable Protestant strawman fallacy to use the Galatians 2 example to somehow argue against Papal Infallibilty. It's laughable, really.
Galatians 2:11-12, "And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised."
Hypocritical behavior? Definitely. Proof against Papal Infalliblity? Nice try, but no.
Galatians 2:13-14, "And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, "If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Peter's behavior also called scandal, for others acted hypocritically as well. That means they were SAYING that Gentiles don't have to be Jewish in order to be Christian, but ACTING in such a way as if that was not the case.
Consider Paul's words to Peter. They are an EXACT parallel to Peter's argument in Acts 15:10. Peter is appealing to Peter's OWN WORDS that decided the Council of Jerusalem to point out his hypocritical behavior.
Paul saying, "I opposed Peter!" is significant because the others had followed Peter's actions, so Paul needed to address the actions of the "ringleader." And he does so by appealing to Peter's own teaching. Another reason Paul singles Peter out is because of Peter's prominent role in the early Church. Few people are going to notice if I criticize the town secretary. A lot of people are going to notice if I criticize the President. Paul's point is that if it is not right for Peter, the leader of the Apostles, to behave the way that he did, then it is most certainly wrong for the Galatians to behave they way they are.
Paul's rebuke of Peter was most definitely a good thing. People HAVE rebuked Popes in the past, you know. That's what St. Catherine of Sienna did. Did she believe in the authority of the Pope? Yes. Did she reject Papal infallibility? No. So bringing up Galatians 2 is extremely important in understanding what occured in the early Church. But it is of absolutely no value in a debate concerning Papal Infalliblity, since it can only be used against a straw man, instead of the actual belief."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I hope you don't make use of this fallacy again.
Additionally, Ambrosial - do you realize that you provided a definition for papal infalliblity and most of your examples are about Popes SINNING, which wasn't even part of the definition of papal infalliblity that you yourself provided?!? Papal infallibility ISN'T papal impeccability. Popes are not sinless. Sheesh. Peter could be hypocritical, and other popes could do much worse. Totally unrelated to papal infallibility.
"1. Pope John XII, in the "Liber Pontificalis" the Catholic publication discussing the lives of the popes, said that "He spent his entire life in adultery."
If Pope John XII proclaimed as a matter of dogma for the whole Church that, "Adultery is not a sin" THAT would violate papal infallibility. But a Pope committing adultery DOESN'T violate the definition of papal infalliblity.
One down. 7 to go.
"2. Popes Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV all disagreed with papal infallibility."
If you keep trying to define papal infallibility as papal impeccability, then YES, all those men disagreed with it. However, they didn't disagree with papal infallibility, strictly defined. If they did, provide quotes. No one in this topic should read "these men disagreed" and simply believe you even though you have offered no backing. In fact, it appears that you are getting all this from some sort of anticatholic website, and those rarely, if ever, have footnotes and references.
"3. Pope Stephen VI (896) had the dead pope Formosus (891-6) tried, questioned, fingers hacked off, dragged through Rome and thrown in the Tiber river."
Definitely a reprehensible event, at least in my opinion. However, is that your evidence from this event against papal infallibility? That's not evidence, Ambrosial. That's just you taking a tidbit of historical knowledge and using it to back up your strawman fallacy.
"4. Pope Hadrian II (867) declared civil marriage to be valid, but Pope Pius VII (1800-23) declared it to be invalid."
Well, this is a LOT better in terms of an argument. What you pose here is indeed a contradiction.
However, did either of these men pronounce upon the matter as officially binding for the entire church, as a matter of doctrine? Well?
That's what you'd need for evidence. Popes don't always agree on EVERYTHING. But we don't get ex cathedra statements out of them that contradict the ex cathedra statements of other Popes.
Basically, your understanding of papal infallibility is MUCH, MUCH too broad. Why are you giving the Pope so much power?
"5. Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict IV in 1919 declared her to be a saint."
A sin. Not a declaration applicable to the whole church. Strawman fallacy again.
"6. Pope Pius XI in 1929 endorsed Fascism and called Mussolini "a man sent by God." However, before World War II, he warned people against Mussolini."
Q: Which killed more people? The Fascists in Germany and Italy, or the Communists?
A: The Communists. While both systems were deplorable by our standards today, one often still had to "pick" between them. Pius XI was concerning in 1929 with communism, among other things. You act like him calling Mussolini a "man sent by God" is the equivalent of a canonization. It isn't. It's a personal opinion based on that Pope's view of what Mussolini did for the nation of Italy and a strong Italy meant an Italy that wouldn't fall to communism. The Pope came to realize just how bad, however, Mussolini was.
"7. The Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a concordat, where the Catholic church swore allegiance to the Nazi government. Later on Pope Pius XI condemned Hitler."
Okay, I'm a history major...and this is a load of CRAP.
What was a Concordant? A peace treaty of sorts. The Vatican signed it to protect the rights and freedoms of Catholics in Germany. It did NOT involve swearing allegiance to the Nazi state!
As early as 1935, Pius XII, the Papal nuncio to Germany, condemned the Nazis as "miserable plagiarists who draw up old errors with new tinsel." The Catholic Church was not in any way tolerant of Nazi Germany's racial policies. In 1938, Pius XII (then Eugenio Pacelli) wrote Mitt Brennender Sorge, an anti-Hitler encyclical, on behalf of Pope Piux IX, and it was smuggled into Germany/
"How can a supposedly infallible man make so many errors of judgment, and even contradict other so-called infallible popes? Surely this disproves papal infallibility to any honest, open-minded person."
And the strawman fallacies have totally delegitimized your entire argument. Maybe you should TRULY be honest, and admit that you are NOT being open-minded.
Here's the scenarion: you think that God alone can be infallible. You think it highly unlikely that any "man" can be infallible, because men sin. You find it impractical to define papal infallibility the way we Catholics do, so you redefine it in order to make it easier to attack. To you, the idea of being infallible conditionally, in just matters of faith and morals, and only with official declarations to the entire church, is untenable. So, you insist that the Pope must be SINLESS in order to be infallible.
Strawman fallacy. You aren't being open-minded at all. You'd agree that the Apostles were "conditionally infallible" when they wrote the New Testament. They were prevented by God from making errors, EVEN THOUGH they were sinners. So your argument that, since Popes can sin, they cannot be conditionally infallible as the Church teaches, is quite simply erroneous.
If you are going to attack papal infalliblity, please, attack our definition of it, instead of the straw man you choose to create. It will save us a lot of time and aggravation.
Your argument doesn't disprove papal infalliblity, PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD AND DEFINED, at all. And you are saying that any honest, open-minded person would agree - so therefore, since I disagree with this logically flawed argument, you would have to label me as dishonest, and closed-minded. That's not the case. It would be dishonest to attack a misrepresentation of a Catholic belief. Maybe you don't realize you have just done that - I just don't know. But it appears to be the case that you either purposely distorted the Catholic view of papal infallibility, or do not understand it. If the former, you've been caught red-handed. If the latter, I and the other Catholics here would be more than happy to explain it more clearly to you.
- Sean
Romans 3:23 and the Immaculate Conception
You wrote on Jul 6, 2007 at 6:46 AM.
You replied to Jaren's post on Jun 17, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Jaren,
Speaking of hyperliterally...
You are taking Paul's words in Romans 6:23 hyperliterally. For one thing, the Greek word used for "all" is "pantes" and it does not always mean absolutely every single one. So focusing on the english word "all" doesn't help your argument.
Additionally, Romans 6:23 is not even TALKING about original sin. It's talking about actual sin. And according to the Bible, all DON'T actually sin. I don't have the reference on me right now, but Scripture says that when Jacob and Esau were in the womb, they had not done any sin. While they would sin later in life, what this means is that fetuses don't sin. The extremely mentally handicapped, they don't sin either. Paul's statement in Romans 6:23 doesn't even have a universal application for ACTUAL sin - to say nothing of original sin.
What you are doing is taking Paul's statement "all have sinned" as if it was a precise statement of systematic theology - something that is not found in NT literature, at least, not very often.
The genre of Scripture is rather hyperbolic. Jesus said, "Call no man father" but He was not speaking literally. Paul went on to refer to himself as a spiritual father many times.
Paul's argument in Romans is that both Jews and Gentiles sin, that Jews ultimately have no benefit over Gentiles since both have original sin, and both sin. So Paul says, "All have sinned" as a hyperbolic statement to indicate there is no true difference between Jews and Gentiles in terms of sin.
Now, we already know there are exceptions to "all have sinned." The real question that you simply bypassed is whether or not Paul can say, "all have sinned" and still ALLOW FOR EXCEPTIONS.
Jesus, He's an obvious exception. What in Paul's statement means that Mary cannot be as well?
Many a Catholic priest or apologist has said this before: "EVERYONE is born with original sin."
Why do we say this, IF we believe in the Immaculate Conception? Because we aren't trying to make a precise formula statement like 2 + 2 = 4. We are stressing the universality of original sin. Do you expect Catholics to include the add-on "except Mary" EVERY time we say, "EVERYONE is born with original sin"??? That gets redundant and it is not necessary.
We aren't saying that Paul was wrong. We are saying that he was a Catholic. He would then have absolutely no problem saying, "All have sinned" without literally meaning all, no problem stressing the NEAR-universality of sin while still believing in an exception such as Mary.
Because of Luke 1:28 and the constant Church Tradition, the Church views Mary as being an exception to the universality of original sin. Your argument presented here against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not stand, because it is based on the very hyperliteralism that you found in Mitchell's interpretation of Romans 5:12. Touche.
If you have any other arguments against the IC, please present them. But I think that your arguments based on Romans 5 depend on hyperliteralism and involve eisegesis rather than exegesis. Thus I do not see how they are admissable in this argument.
Oftentimes, people read too much back into the Scriptures because they WANT THEM to say more than they actually do.
- Sean
You replied to Jaren's post on Jun 17, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Jaren,
Speaking of hyperliterally...
You are taking Paul's words in Romans 6:23 hyperliterally. For one thing, the Greek word used for "all" is "pantes" and it does not always mean absolutely every single one. So focusing on the english word "all" doesn't help your argument.
Additionally, Romans 6:23 is not even TALKING about original sin. It's talking about actual sin. And according to the Bible, all DON'T actually sin. I don't have the reference on me right now, but Scripture says that when Jacob and Esau were in the womb, they had not done any sin. While they would sin later in life, what this means is that fetuses don't sin. The extremely mentally handicapped, they don't sin either. Paul's statement in Romans 6:23 doesn't even have a universal application for ACTUAL sin - to say nothing of original sin.
What you are doing is taking Paul's statement "all have sinned" as if it was a precise statement of systematic theology - something that is not found in NT literature, at least, not very often.
The genre of Scripture is rather hyperbolic. Jesus said, "Call no man father" but He was not speaking literally. Paul went on to refer to himself as a spiritual father many times.
Paul's argument in Romans is that both Jews and Gentiles sin, that Jews ultimately have no benefit over Gentiles since both have original sin, and both sin. So Paul says, "All have sinned" as a hyperbolic statement to indicate there is no true difference between Jews and Gentiles in terms of sin.
Now, we already know there are exceptions to "all have sinned." The real question that you simply bypassed is whether or not Paul can say, "all have sinned" and still ALLOW FOR EXCEPTIONS.
Jesus, He's an obvious exception. What in Paul's statement means that Mary cannot be as well?
Many a Catholic priest or apologist has said this before: "EVERYONE is born with original sin."
Why do we say this, IF we believe in the Immaculate Conception? Because we aren't trying to make a precise formula statement like 2 + 2 = 4. We are stressing the universality of original sin. Do you expect Catholics to include the add-on "except Mary" EVERY time we say, "EVERYONE is born with original sin"??? That gets redundant and it is not necessary.
We aren't saying that Paul was wrong. We are saying that he was a Catholic. He would then have absolutely no problem saying, "All have sinned" without literally meaning all, no problem stressing the NEAR-universality of sin while still believing in an exception such as Mary.
Because of Luke 1:28 and the constant Church Tradition, the Church views Mary as being an exception to the universality of original sin. Your argument presented here against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not stand, because it is based on the very hyperliteralism that you found in Mitchell's interpretation of Romans 5:12. Touche.
If you have any other arguments against the IC, please present them. But I think that your arguments based on Romans 5 depend on hyperliteralism and involve eisegesis rather than exegesis. Thus I do not see how they are admissable in this argument.
Oftentimes, people read too much back into the Scriptures because they WANT THEM to say more than they actually do.
- Sean
Defense of Pauline Authorship of the Pastorals
You wrote on Jul 6, 2007 at 6:19 AM.
You replied to Bradley's post on Jul 4, 2007 at 7:32 AM
Bradley,
By the way, Happy 4th.
I did some research on the Pastorals when I took a New Testament class a few semesters ago.
I found that the "contemporary scholars'" views of these epistles are, quite frankly, ludicrous.
Let's take a look.
You gave some rather common arguments against Pauline authorship of these letters and in favor of late dating. Well, here is a list of my own:
1.) Theological objections
2.) Conflicts with Acts
3.) Method of dealing with false teachers
4.) Church organization
5.) Lack of reference to the Pastorals
6.) Miscellaneous objections
7.) Objections based on writing style and vocabulary
I'd be more than happy to look into all of these with you.
1.)
It's often argued that Paul refers to faith as something personal, and it has "become" a loyalty to a tradition in the Pastorals.
No.
It's of a very "credal" nature in Romans 4:12, 1 Cor 16:13, 2 Cor 13:5, Gal. 1:23, 3:23, etc.
Another objection is that they lack Pauline mysticism - but they are personal letters, so why would Paul do that? Once again, contemporary scholars are turning Paul into a cardboard cutout, a caricature of a person, without any dynamic nature to his personality or expression. They stereotype him, based upon the undisputed letters - why? Because it's always EASIER to go by a stereotype. And that's horrible, absolutely horrible, for a historian to do.
I'll skip #2 for now.
3.)
This objection is that the author of the Pastorals deals with false teachers "differently" - more hierarchically, it would seem - and that Paul in the Pastors wasn't engaging in debate
Paul was speaking to a long-term associate who didn't NEED instruction on fundamentals.
Additionally, there are numerous similarities between the heresy in the Pastorals and that found in 1 Corinthians. I don't see how the Pastorals CAN'T be matched up, in terms of issues, with the undisputed letters.
4.)
This one is the biggie - the argument that the Church organizational structure is "too advanced" in the Pastorals.
Bogus.
This is huge presumption. WHY couldn't the churches have developed so far?
The organizational developments are indeed indicated in other NT works. Philippians speaks of elders/presbyters and deacons. Well, there's TWO-THIRDS of your organization. Acts 14:23 and 20:17 speak of elders/presbyters as well.
It appears to be the case that elders and overseers - presbyters and bishops - were not necessarily specific offices at the very beginning, and that there was more a state of flux.
In every city, you would initially start out with a "house-church." Eventually, you'd have to have more than just ONE house-church, because the number of converts would grow.
A presbyter would be in charge of each house church. Whether they were ORIGINALLY different from bishops is irrelevant, in my opinion. Once a city had gained several house-churches, consolidation and organizational unity would be required, at which point, we'd see the rise of the monarchical bishops for each city as a whole, with presbyters in charge of each house-church.
This "development" could EASILY have taken place in the 20 or so years that Paul preached. He joined the Church BEFORE it accepted Gentiles, and was still rather small. By the time he wrote the Pastorals, probably late in his ministry, it appears, the idea of presbyters being in charge of house-churches and bishops in charge of city-churches could come to fruition.
There is NO need to assume that the Church remained a decentralized MESS for 50 or so more years, except the desire of historians to either affirm the Protestant structure system, or attempt to decentralize early Christianity in order to delegitimize its authenticity as a movement.
We cannot forget good old Ignatius of Antioch, who seemed rather comfortable with his role as an extremely monarchical bishop.
The arguments in favor of an extremely decentralized early Church pass over all institutional references in the Gospels and Paul's undisputed epistles, and therefore, are extremely flimsy.
5.)
It's argued that the Pastorals were simply not referenced early on. Marcion, for example, did not include them. And they are not in our earliest collection - P46, I believe.
However, I would argue that 1 Clement contains evidence of the Pastorals, as well as the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp (which, if substantiated, would push the dates BACK). I am definitely up for looking through their letters with you and seeing just how much validity my claim has.
Additionally, P46 does not contain Philemon, an undisputed epistle. So it is silly to use it as evidence to reject 3 other letters. And the P32 Papyrus, around the same time, contains Titus.
6.)
There are also some other cheesy arguments, such as 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy containing contradictory instructions.
If you are aware of any OTHER arguments I'd like to hear them.
7.)
You touched upon this one - objections based upon writing style, arguments, and vocabulary. Sorry to say, these objections are, ultimately, worthless.
Talk to some literary scholars, and you will realize that samples as large as Ten THOUSAND words are needed to make semi-authoritative determinations of authorship. The Pastorals are quite simply not LONG enough for you to take the writing style and vocabulary and insist Paul could not have written them. The fact that Paul could have used a secretary at times ALONE means that arguments based on vocabulary and grammar and so forth should be thrown out the window.
Luke and Acts share words with the Pastorals - 37 to be exact, I believe - that are not found in the rest of the NT. So why couldn't Luke be Paul's scribe? Didn't Rudolph Hess write down Mein Kampf as Hitler dictated it to him? He had to polish up the language, clear up the errors, and correct things such as run-ons. So for Paul to be standing in the room while someone like Luke wrote down his thoughts - that's NOT a possibility that you are free to exclude, and therefore, arguing on the basis of language, grammar, etc. gets you absolutely nowhere, my friend.
A trusted scribe would shape vocabulary, style, and composition - in proportion, direct proportion, to the extent of the trust the author had in them. Luke certainly would fit the bill. And if you argue that that is just vain speculation, well, I'm sure Paul was close with SOME people that he could have used as scribes.
Plato's later works show a much broader vocabulary. Hamlet is Shakespeare's most unique play. Are you going to argue that either man COULDN'T be the author?
Ironically, to argue that the Pastorals could not have been written by Paul on the basis that you are giving me would similarly mean that Shakespeare DEFINITELY did not write Hamlet. I suggest you abandon such reasoning, unless you provide good reason for continuing with it.
I'd also like to point out that while the Pastorals are a higher type of Koine greek, who are they written to? SMARTER PEOPLE. Timothy and Titus were well-educated bishops, and not the laity.
Another argument is that 211 out of 306 words in the Pastorals are part of the vocabulary of second century writers, and that 20 of those words were unknown before 90 AD.
I think that foolishly thinks that we are justified in deciding when words were first used based on our amazingly SMALL sample of ancient literature.
The hapax legomena, words found in only the Pastorals out of the NT, 153 out of 175 ARE found in other Greek documents - notably, documents written before 50 AD.
Additionally, there are many stylistic similarities between the Undisputed and Duetero-Pauline and the Pastorals.
Some examples:
1 Tim 4:2 - Phil 3:2, 2 Cor 11:13
1 Tim 1:9-10 - 1 Cor 5:10-11, Rom 1:29-30
1 Tim 1:5-16 - 2 Cor 11:12
There's only 306 words in the Pastorals, Bradley - not enough to make the assertion that you have made.
That takes care of argument 1. And I didn't extensively address your second point, but I'd like to see a more extensive argument from you about the issues that COULDN'T have existed during Paul's lifetime.
And as for your argument for a rather unestablished, decentralized Church, I believe I have explained how it doesn't really pass muster. Feel free to explain why it still does, given the argument I presented.
As for me, I date the Pastorals to between the end of Paul's first Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:16) and his execution under Nero in about 63-67 AD.
- Sean
You replied to Bradley's post on Jul 4, 2007 at 7:32 AM
Bradley,
By the way, Happy 4th.
I did some research on the Pastorals when I took a New Testament class a few semesters ago.
I found that the "contemporary scholars'" views of these epistles are, quite frankly, ludicrous.
Let's take a look.
You gave some rather common arguments against Pauline authorship of these letters and in favor of late dating. Well, here is a list of my own:
1.) Theological objections
2.) Conflicts with Acts
3.) Method of dealing with false teachers
4.) Church organization
5.) Lack of reference to the Pastorals
6.) Miscellaneous objections
7.) Objections based on writing style and vocabulary
I'd be more than happy to look into all of these with you.
1.)
It's often argued that Paul refers to faith as something personal, and it has "become" a loyalty to a tradition in the Pastorals.
No.
It's of a very "credal" nature in Romans 4:12, 1 Cor 16:13, 2 Cor 13:5, Gal. 1:23, 3:23, etc.
Another objection is that they lack Pauline mysticism - but they are personal letters, so why would Paul do that? Once again, contemporary scholars are turning Paul into a cardboard cutout, a caricature of a person, without any dynamic nature to his personality or expression. They stereotype him, based upon the undisputed letters - why? Because it's always EASIER to go by a stereotype. And that's horrible, absolutely horrible, for a historian to do.
I'll skip #2 for now.
3.)
This objection is that the author of the Pastorals deals with false teachers "differently" - more hierarchically, it would seem - and that Paul in the Pastors wasn't engaging in debate
Paul was speaking to a long-term associate who didn't NEED instruction on fundamentals.
Additionally, there are numerous similarities between the heresy in the Pastorals and that found in 1 Corinthians. I don't see how the Pastorals CAN'T be matched up, in terms of issues, with the undisputed letters.
4.)
This one is the biggie - the argument that the Church organizational structure is "too advanced" in the Pastorals.
Bogus.
This is huge presumption. WHY couldn't the churches have developed so far?
The organizational developments are indeed indicated in other NT works. Philippians speaks of elders/presbyters and deacons. Well, there's TWO-THIRDS of your organization. Acts 14:23 and 20:17 speak of elders/presbyters as well.
It appears to be the case that elders and overseers - presbyters and bishops - were not necessarily specific offices at the very beginning, and that there was more a state of flux.
In every city, you would initially start out with a "house-church." Eventually, you'd have to have more than just ONE house-church, because the number of converts would grow.
A presbyter would be in charge of each house church. Whether they were ORIGINALLY different from bishops is irrelevant, in my opinion. Once a city had gained several house-churches, consolidation and organizational unity would be required, at which point, we'd see the rise of the monarchical bishops for each city as a whole, with presbyters in charge of each house-church.
This "development" could EASILY have taken place in the 20 or so years that Paul preached. He joined the Church BEFORE it accepted Gentiles, and was still rather small. By the time he wrote the Pastorals, probably late in his ministry, it appears, the idea of presbyters being in charge of house-churches and bishops in charge of city-churches could come to fruition.
There is NO need to assume that the Church remained a decentralized MESS for 50 or so more years, except the desire of historians to either affirm the Protestant structure system, or attempt to decentralize early Christianity in order to delegitimize its authenticity as a movement.
We cannot forget good old Ignatius of Antioch, who seemed rather comfortable with his role as an extremely monarchical bishop.
The arguments in favor of an extremely decentralized early Church pass over all institutional references in the Gospels and Paul's undisputed epistles, and therefore, are extremely flimsy.
5.)
It's argued that the Pastorals were simply not referenced early on. Marcion, for example, did not include them. And they are not in our earliest collection - P46, I believe.
However, I would argue that 1 Clement contains evidence of the Pastorals, as well as the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp (which, if substantiated, would push the dates BACK). I am definitely up for looking through their letters with you and seeing just how much validity my claim has.
Additionally, P46 does not contain Philemon, an undisputed epistle. So it is silly to use it as evidence to reject 3 other letters. And the P32 Papyrus, around the same time, contains Titus.
6.)
There are also some other cheesy arguments, such as 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy containing contradictory instructions.
If you are aware of any OTHER arguments I'd like to hear them.
7.)
You touched upon this one - objections based upon writing style, arguments, and vocabulary. Sorry to say, these objections are, ultimately, worthless.
Talk to some literary scholars, and you will realize that samples as large as Ten THOUSAND words are needed to make semi-authoritative determinations of authorship. The Pastorals are quite simply not LONG enough for you to take the writing style and vocabulary and insist Paul could not have written them. The fact that Paul could have used a secretary at times ALONE means that arguments based on vocabulary and grammar and so forth should be thrown out the window.
Luke and Acts share words with the Pastorals - 37 to be exact, I believe - that are not found in the rest of the NT. So why couldn't Luke be Paul's scribe? Didn't Rudolph Hess write down Mein Kampf as Hitler dictated it to him? He had to polish up the language, clear up the errors, and correct things such as run-ons. So for Paul to be standing in the room while someone like Luke wrote down his thoughts - that's NOT a possibility that you are free to exclude, and therefore, arguing on the basis of language, grammar, etc. gets you absolutely nowhere, my friend.
A trusted scribe would shape vocabulary, style, and composition - in proportion, direct proportion, to the extent of the trust the author had in them. Luke certainly would fit the bill. And if you argue that that is just vain speculation, well, I'm sure Paul was close with SOME people that he could have used as scribes.
Plato's later works show a much broader vocabulary. Hamlet is Shakespeare's most unique play. Are you going to argue that either man COULDN'T be the author?
Ironically, to argue that the Pastorals could not have been written by Paul on the basis that you are giving me would similarly mean that Shakespeare DEFINITELY did not write Hamlet. I suggest you abandon such reasoning, unless you provide good reason for continuing with it.
I'd also like to point out that while the Pastorals are a higher type of Koine greek, who are they written to? SMARTER PEOPLE. Timothy and Titus were well-educated bishops, and not the laity.
Another argument is that 211 out of 306 words in the Pastorals are part of the vocabulary of second century writers, and that 20 of those words were unknown before 90 AD.
I think that foolishly thinks that we are justified in deciding when words were first used based on our amazingly SMALL sample of ancient literature.
The hapax legomena, words found in only the Pastorals out of the NT, 153 out of 175 ARE found in other Greek documents - notably, documents written before 50 AD.
Additionally, there are many stylistic similarities between the Undisputed and Duetero-Pauline and the Pastorals.
Some examples:
1 Tim 4:2 - Phil 3:2, 2 Cor 11:13
1 Tim 1:9-10 - 1 Cor 5:10-11, Rom 1:29-30
1 Tim 1:5-16 - 2 Cor 11:12
There's only 306 words in the Pastorals, Bradley - not enough to make the assertion that you have made.
That takes care of argument 1. And I didn't extensively address your second point, but I'd like to see a more extensive argument from you about the issues that COULDN'T have existed during Paul's lifetime.
And as for your argument for a rather unestablished, decentralized Church, I believe I have explained how it doesn't really pass muster. Feel free to explain why it still does, given the argument I presented.
As for me, I date the Pastorals to between the end of Paul's first Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:16) and his execution under Nero in about 63-67 AD.
- Sean
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
