← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · friedrich braun

Purgatory for Everyone

Thread ID: 15253 | Posts: 20 | Started: 2004-10-08

Wayback Archive

friedrich braun [OP]

2004-10-08 13:53 | User Profile

Last week I read this fascinating piece in the Catholic magazine “First Things” on the Purgatory. Now, I was very surprised to see that this article written by a Methodist theologian presents a very (and I mean VERY) compelling case for the existence of the Purgatory. I'd be interested in knowing how OD's Protestants feel about the Catholic dogma of the Purgatory.

Purgatory for Everyone

Jerry L. Walls

Copyright (c) 2002 First Things 122 (April 2002): 26-30.

A few years ago, the journalist Philip Nobile wrote an article near the first anniversary of the death of Princess Diana in which he raised what he termed “an indiscreet theological question.” “Where is she now?” he asked. According to Christian theology, the options were heaven, purgatory, or hell. Given Diana’s well–publicized lifestyle, Nobile suggested that the case for heaven was weak. A better case could be made for hell, given the likelihood that Diana was in a state of mortal sin at the moment of her death. Nobile thus found it curious that the Pope gave positive indications about Diana’s salvation when the following message of condolence was sent on his behalf to Queen Elizabeth: “The Holy Father has offered prayers summoning her to our Heavenly Father’s eternal love.” As Nobile observed, this remark implied Diana was in purgatory.

Now Nobile certainly did not intend his article to serve as a defense of orthodoxy. Yet it raises a substantive issue that Christians who take the afterlife seriously cannot evade. Many believers have attended funerals in which the deceased are declared to be enjoying all the glories of heaven, regardless of their somewhat less–than–saintly behavior in life. At best, such occasions are examples of understandable pastoral efforts to comfort grieving loved ones. But at worst, they may be sentimental exercises that trivialize the most central beliefs of the Christian faith.

What I have in mind are the many beliefs shared by Roman Catholics and evangelicals concerning, in particular, the nature of salvation. This growing consensus was expressed most notably in “The Gift of Salvation,” a document signed by a number of leading Roman Catholic and evangelical spokesmen, which reiterates the classical view that there is a close relationship between justification and sanctification. Salvation, in this view, is far more than forgiveness of our sins; it is also a matter of thorough moral and spiritual transformation. The document stresses this point by denying that faith is mere intellectual assent and asserting that it is “an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life.” It then goes on to insist that Christians are bound by their faith and baptism “to live according to the law of love in obedience to Jesus Christ the Lord. Scripture calls this the life of holiness or sanctification.”

It is here that “an indiscreet theological question” must be faced. If salvation essentially involves transformation—and, at that same time, we cannot be united with God unless we are holy—what becomes of those who plead the atonement of Christ for salvation but die before they have been thoroughly transformed? These people will have accepted the truth about God and themselves through repentance and faith, but their character will not have been made perfect. Their sanctification has begun but it remains incomplete. Such people do not seem to be ready for a heaven of perfect love and fellowship with God, but neither should they be consigned to hell.

It is this basic difficulty that led to the formulation of the doctrine of purgatory in the first place. While the doctrine was not fully developed until the Middle Ages, the seeds from which it grew go back at least to the Church Fathers, if not to Scripture itself. Cyprian (c. 200–258), for instance, struggled with the question of what to think about Christians who had weakened under persecution. Likewise, Augustine (354–430), the fountainhead of Western theology, reflected in several passages on the kinds of issues that would eventually be resolved in Roman Catholic theology by the doctrine of purgatory. (Of course, the doctrine also has roots in the popular conviction that the living might in some fashion influence the dead, particularly by prayer.)

While the doctrine is most fully developed in Roman Catholic theology, a version of it is also affirmed by some Eastern Orthodox theologians. The main difference between them is that Roman Catholics have traditionally viewed purgatory as a place of temporal punishment for individuals who have not sufficiently repented before death, whereas Eastern theologians view it as a process of growth and maturation for persons who have not completed the sanctification process.

Despite widespread acceptance of the doctrine of purgatory in some form, Protestants, by and large, have traditionally rejected the notion out of hand. The roots of this rejection go back, of course, to the Reformation, and it is well known that purgatory was deeply connected with the most basic and bitter disputes that split the Western Church. Among these disputes is the Protestant notion of sola scriptura, the view that Scripture alone is the source and authority for doctrine. Many Protestants would summarily dispense with purgatory on the ground that it is not mentioned in Scripture, at least not obviously so, a point that is generally conceded even by the defenders of the doctrine.

The fact that purgatory is not expressly present in Scripture is not enough to settle the issue, however. The deeper issue is whether it is a reasonable inference from important truths that are clearly found there. If theology involves a degree of disciplined speculation and logical inference, then the doctrine of purgatory cannot simply be dismissed on the grounds that Scripture does not explicitly articulate it.

Moreover, the prevailing doctrine of purgatory at the time of the Reformation was related to some of the worst abuses in the Church, particularly the sale of indulgences, a practice that many saw as a denial that we are saved through faith in Christ. It is no wonder, in light of this history, that the doctrine has provoked such strong reactions among Protestants. The larger issues and passions involved in this controversy are reflected in the words of Calvin, who wrote that “we must cry out with the shouting not only of our voices but our throats and lungs that purgatory is a deadly fiction of Satan, which nullifies the cross of Christ, inflicts unbearable contempt upon God’s mercy, and overturns and destroys our faith.” The attitude had not changed much in Reformed theology by the nineteenth century when Charles Hodge, the great Princeton theologian, wrote his classic systematic theology. Hodge noted that Roman Catholics tended to vary their account of purgatory depending on the audience. Protestants were presented with a mild form of the doctrine, while Catholics depicted it for themselves in severe terms. Hodge thus saw purgatory as “a tremendous engine of priestly power. The feet of the tiger withdrawn are as soft as velvet; when those claws are extended, they are fearful instruments of laceration and death.”

In the past few decades, by contrast, purgatory has lost much of its controversial edge. This is no doubt largely due to the decline of interest in the doctrine among Catholics, even among those who continue officially to affirm it. And while Protestants still generally repudiate the notion, the matter incites much less fervor than it did in previous generations.

In my view, it is long past time to reassess purgatory and the theological problems it was originally intended to solve. I write as a member of the Wesleyan tradition, a strand of Protestantism that emphasizes sanctification and moral transformation in its account of salvation. In agreement with the Great Tradition of Christian teaching, Wesleyans reject the notion that salvation is only, or even primarily, a forensic matter of having the righteousness of Christ imputed or attributed to believers. Wesleyans insist that God not only forgives us but also changes us and actually makes us righteous. Only when we are entirely sanctified or fully perfected in this sense are we truly fit to enjoy the beatific vision in heaven.

But what of Protestants who emphasize the forensic aspect of salvation? How have they resolved the problem of sin and moral imperfection that remains in the lives of believers at the time of death? They agree, after all, that nothing impure or unholy can enter heaven and they also typically hold that most, if not all, believers are far from perfection when they die. The typical answer echoes the view eloquently expressed by Jonathan Edwards.

At death the believer not only gains a perfect and eternal deliverance from sin and temptation, but is adorned with a perfect and glorious holiness. The work of sanctification is then completed, and the beautiful image of God has then its finishing strokes by the pencil of God, and begins to shine forth with a heavenly beauty like a seraphim.

In other words, the work that believers in the broader Catholic tradition ascribe to purgatory is, for most Protestants, accomplished immediately, and apparently painlessly, by a unilateral act of God at death.

An important variation on this theme appears in the theology of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. Unlike most Protestant theologians, Wesley believed that complete sanctification is possible in this life. In his model of the order of salvation, such sanctification can be received in a moment of faith analogous to the way justification is accepted by faith. Wesley also stressed the progressive dimension of sanctification and thought that entire sanctification could not normally be received without years of gradual growth and progress in grace and holiness. But what is significant for our purposes is that Wesley believed that, in most cases, complete sanctification takes place at “the instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body.”

Interestingly enough, current Catholic thought seems to be converging with Protestantism on this matter. Many contemporary Catholic theologians argue that purification occurs in the act and experience of dying. This view can also be detected in the attitudes of the many lay Catholics who affirm the existence of purgatory but think it need be endured for but a momentary period—well in time for the funeral eulogy! A consensus thus seems to be forming that our sanctification is completed either during the experience of death or immediately thereafter.

I want to argue, however, that the traditional doctrine of purgatory is far more coherent for Protestants and Catholics alike. The most basic problem for those who hold that sanctification is instantly completed at the moment of death, as Anglican theologian David Brown has pointed out, is that “there is no way of rendering such an abrupt transition in essentially temporal beings conceivable.” One way to avoid this problem is to appeal to the highly controversial doctrine of God’s timelessness and to maintain that after death we share in this condition, thereby rendering temporal considerations irrelevant. The matter of God’s relationship to time is one of the most vexing problems in the philosophy of religion, and it would take us far afield to discuss it. I will simply register the fact that I have doubts about the coherence of the doctrine of timelessness, so I do not think this move solves the problem.

More plausible is the attempt to conceive of sanctification along the lines of abrupt and dramatic conversions in this life. But as Brown also points out, there is good reason to think that such dramatic turnarounds have important antecedent causes that lead up to and prepare their way. Moreover, while outward change of behavior may occur rather dramatically, internal change of character is another matter. Real virtue is achieved over a period of time by numerous choices and decisions, often in the face of adversity. Brown concludes that if man is essentially temporal, “his capacity for moral perfection is likewise. No clear sense attaches to the claim that a human being could become instantaneously virtuous, morally perfect, and so, if God is to respect our nature as essentially temporal beings, He must have allowed for an intermediate state of purgatory to exist.”

It is just this sort of consideration that led Wesley to insist that sanctification must normally be preceded by a significant period of growth and maturation. Without this process, one is not prepared to receive the fullness of grace sanctification represents. If this basic line of thought is correct, there is good reason to think that something like the traditional notion of purgatory is indeed necessary for those who have not experienced significant growth and moral progress.

The classical notion of purgatory also seems necessary to a related issue in the process of sanctification: our free participation in it. Many Christian theologians have held that our necessary cooperation in our transformation constitutes the only satisfactory explanation for the bewildering array of good and evil in the world. God takes our freedom seriously and is patient with it; He recognizes that even those who have made an initial decision to follow His will often make only sporadic or inconsistent progress in carrying out their resolution. In this view, while it is God who enables and elicits our transformation each step of the way, our cooperation with His will is necessary to our sanctification.

Now if God deals with us this way in this life, it is reasonable to think He will continue to do so in the next life until our perfection is achieved. Indeed, the point should be put more strongly than this. If God is willing to dispense with our free cooperation in the next life, it is hard to see why He would not do so now, particularly in view of the high price of freedom in terms of evil and suffering.

In the same vein, Anglican philosopher of religion Eleonore Stump has explicated the sanctification process by employing her fellow philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s notion of a self as hierarchically ordered desires. Of particular interest is the distinction between first– and second–order desires. First–order desires are basic desires such as, for example, Abelard’s desire to seduce Heloise. Second–order desires are desires about first–order desires. So, recognizing the spiritual and moral liabilities in seducing Heloise, not to mention the possibility of inciting her uncle’s wrath, Abelard may wish he did not have such desires for Heloise. That is, he may have a second–order desire that his first–order desires were different.

Now Stump suggests that sanctification occurs with our freedom intact if God changes us at the level of our first–order desires in response to our second–order desires that He do so. Of course, God’s grace also enables us to have the appropriate second–order desires. Stump’s picture, however, raises another question about the nature of the divine–human cooperation in sanctification. Why wouldn’t a person’s sanctification be complete the instant he formed the second–order desire to be sanctified? The answer, Stump replies, is that

the content of this volition is vague. It consists in a general submission to God and an effective desire to let God remake one’s character. But a willingness of this sort is psychologically compatible with stubbornly holding on to any number of sins. . . . Making a sinner righteous, then, will be a process in which a believer’s specific volitions are brought into harmony with the governing second–order volition assenting to God’s bringing her to righteousness, with the consequent gradual alteration in first–order volitions, as well as in intellect and emotions.

Stump goes on to comment that this is a “process extending through this life and culminating in the next.” Although this is not an explicit defense of purgatory, such a doctrine seems to be the natural extension of her line of thought.

The reason that the desire for sanctity may be psychologically compatible with holding on to any number of sins is that one may not clearly recognize them as sins or perceive their destructiveness to the point of truly wishing to be delivered from them. The process of sanctification involves coming to see the truth about not only our overt sinful actions, but also about the more subtle sinful attitudes we may cherish. A broad desire to be sanctified simply may not recognize all that is involved; that’s why it takes time and growth for grace to penetrate the deeper recesses of our sinful characters.

Of course, the process must culminate at some point, and there is no reason why it may not reach its end in an act of faith in this life, just as Wesley believed it could. But the significant point is that considerable growth is required before such a stage can be reached. And if this growth has not occurred in this life, purgatory seems necessary if God is to complete the job with our freedom intact.

These accounts of purgatory underscore the notion that no one can be exempted from the requirement of achieving perfect sanctity in cooperation with God’s grace and initiative. It is also important to reiterate here that, as beings who exist in time, our transformation must be a cooperative venture. It takes time to gain understanding of the various layers of our sinfulness and self–deception, as well as to own the truth about ourselves. Discerning truth and allowing it to transform our character is an essentially mental experience that requires time. The doctrine of purgatory makes clear that there is no shortcut to sanctity.

The doctrine of purgatory also reminds us that the most pervasive and deadly sins are those of the spirit. Spiritual sins are not cured merely by dropping our old bodies and receiving new ones. Consider in this light the words of Edwards: “The saved soul leaves all its sin with the body; when it puts off the body of the man, it puts off the body of sin with it. When the body is buried, all sin is buried forever, and though the soul shall be joined to the body again, yet sin shall never return more.” Implicit in this argument is a sort of gnosticism that locates sin in our physical bodies. It is as if sanctification were largely effected by releasing the soul from the body. Again, this makes sanctification a passive matter that requires no cooperation on our part.

It is at this point of our cooperation that Protestant objections to purgatory become most pointed, even in our ecumenical age. To take our role in sanctification so seriously that purgatory seems to be required inevitably provokes loud protests concerning works righteousness. Contemporary theologian Millard Erickson speaks for many of his fellow evangelicals when he writes, “In both this life and the life to come, the basis of the believer’s relationship with God is grace, not works. There need be no fear, then, that our imperfections will require some type of post–death purging before we can enter the full presence of God.”

Some Protestants go so far as to insist that purgatory amounts to a denial of justification by faith. I would insist, however, that it all depends on what one means by justification and by faith. As Alister McGrath has shown, the traditional view was that justification involves actually making us righteous, and that this is what finally restores us to a loving relationship with God. It was a Protestant innovation to separate justification from sanctification and to construe the former primarily in legal and forensic terms. But since justification so understood does not make us actually righteous, it is simply irrelevant as an objection to purgatory.

Erickson’s objection misses the mark for similar reasons. To insist that we must be fully transformed by freely cooperating with God before we can fully enter His presence is not a denial of the fact that grace is the basis of our relationship with Him. For His grace is precisely what takes the initiative and enables our transformation. Erickson’s objection to purgatory implies that grace is primarily, if not exclusively, a matter of forgiveness. It is this narrowly forensic conception of grace that must be challenged.

Appealing to God’s forgiveness does nothing to address the fact that many Christians are imperfect lovers of God (and others) at the time of their death. This is not to say that the experience of being forgiven does not change us. Indeed, gratitude for God’s free offer of forgiveness is a powerful incentive for the believer to love God in return. But forgiveness alone, especially on a legal model, does not change us in a subjective sense. Consider in this light the words of C. S. Lewis, an author whose views are usually endorsed enthusiastically by evangelical Protestants.

Our souls demand purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, “It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy”? Should we not reply, “With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleansed first”? “It may hurt, you know.”—“Even so, sir.”

Forgiveness alone does not eliminate unpleasant odors, and lack of condemnation does not clean up soiled clothes. Other remedies are necessary, and as Lewis suggests, they may involve pain.

The invocation of pain has also been a major source of resistance to the doctrine of purgatory. At its best, this is an understandable reaction to the rather lurid depictions of purgatory that have appeared in some Roman Catholic writers in the past. At worst, however, it smacks of the sort of cheap grace, pervasive in much popular contemporary piety, which implies that mere mental assent to some basic Christian doctrines is all that is necessary for salvation. On this picture, salvation is a perfectly painless thing that requires nothing of the believer but simple faith.

Lewis insists, by contrast, that the moral transformation necessary for salvation is essentially painful. The pain of moral growth and progress is not an arbitrary punishment that God attaches to it; rather, the pain is intrinsic to it. Lewis makes this point vividly in several memorable images in The Great Divorce. For instance, the fact that the grass in heaven hurts the feet of the ghosts from the gray town (purgatory for those who choose to leave it, hell for those who stay) shows that becoming conformed to the life of heaven is uncomfortable for sinful persons. “Reality is harsh to the feet of shadows.” The promise is given, however, that those who are willing to persevere will eventually become more substantial, and thus more comfortable, in heaven.

Purgatory enables us fully to come to terms with reality. Richard Purtill has suggested that the period between our death and resurrection will be a time of “reading” our lives like a book. The entire book would be present to us and we could reread past sections, skip ahead, and so on. All of this reading would be done in what he calls “Godlight.” That is, it would be a matter of coming to see our lives as God sees them. This would involve, for instance, seeing the full force of how our sins affected others. “The only adequate purgatory might be to suffer what you made others suffer—not just an equivalent pain, but that pain, seeing yourself as the tormentor you were to them. Only then could you adequately reject and repent the evil.” The other side of the coin is that we “would see with love even those who have hurt us, because God saw them with love.”

Indeed, the accent here should fall on grace, for to see things in “Godlight” is to see them illumined by God’s perfect love for all persons and His will to redeem us from our sins and unite us to Himself and to each other. Continuing the reading analogy, Purtill points out that, although the first time we read a book we may hardly appreciate it, a subsequent reading may fully disclose its beauty and richness.

As we may write a commentary on a book that has meant much to us, so part of our afterlife could be an appreciation and correction of our present lives. Even if our present lives have been almost a failure—even if we are barely saved after a life of folly and waste—we could still make these wasted lives the foundation of something glorious—a “commentary” much better than the “book.”

Purgatory so conceived is not only a matter of taking our choices and our freedom seriously, it is more importantly a matter of taking seriously God’s overwhelmingly gracious love to us and His power to redeem our lives, even “wasted” ones.

Construed along these lines, purgatory can rightly be characterized as a time and place of joy. While popular images of purgatory may evoke negative thoughts, we should recall that the New Testament frequently teaches Christians to rejoice in the adversity that purifies our faith. This is not to trivialize the pain of purgatory, but rather to point out that it should not be dreaded any more than the pain of moral transformation that we experience in this life.

Indeed, all believers, regardless of tradition, who have experienced as joy the purging involved in drawing closer to Christ can view the concept of purgatory not only as a natural doctrinal development, but also as a gracious gift of love.

Jerry L. Walls is Professor of Philosophy of Religion at Asbury Theological Seminary. He is the author of Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy (forthcoming from Oxford University Press), from which this essay is adapted.

Print this article Subscribe to the magazine: FIRST THINGS

Walter Yannis

2004-10-10 16:31 | User Profile

Here's a good article on [URL=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm]Purgatory [/URL] that explains the Catholic position succinctly.

The doctrine stems logically from the traditional view of the nature of sin. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The punishments of sin

[QUOTE]1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."85 [/QUOTE]

In terms of Scriputural proofs, we Catholics accept the canonicity of Maccabees, which makes the matter crystal clear.

[QUOTE]The tradition of the Jews is put forth with precision and clearness in II Maccabees. Judas, the commander of the forces of Israel, "making a gathering . . . sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins" (II Mach., xii, 43-46). At the time of the Maccabees the leaders of the people of God had no hesitation in asserting the efficacy of prayers offered for the dead, in order that those who had departed this life might find pardon for their sins and the hope of eternal resurrection. [/QUOTE]

As far as the New Testament is concerned, nothing contradicts belief in Purgatory, and there is strong evidence in its favor.

[QUOTE]Matthew 12 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.[/QUOTE]

Christ Himself believed that sins can be forgiven not only in this world, but in the next.

[QUOTE]Mathew 5 25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.[/QUOTE]

Let out of where? Jesus makes in clear that there is a dual nature of sin here. He saves us from eternal damnation, but we still have to deal with the damage we caused here on Earth.

Also, from the [URL=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm]linked article[/URL]:

[QUOTE]A further argument is supplied by St. Paul in I Cor., iii, 11-1,5: "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." While this passage presents considerable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter transgressions will be burnt away, and the soul thus purified will be saved. This, according to Bellarmine (De Purg., I, 5), is the interpretation commonly given by the Fathers and theologians; and he cites to this eftect:

St. Ambrose (commentary on the text, and Sermo xx in Ps. cxvii), St. Jerome, (Comm. in Amos, c. iv), St. Augustine (Comm. in Ps. xxxvii), St. Gregory (Dial., IV, xxxix), and Origen (Hom. vi in Exod.). See also St. Thomas, "Contra Gentes,", IV, 91. For a discussion of the exegetical problem, see Atzberger, "Die christliche Eschatologie", p. 275. [/QUOTE]

I know that my Protestant brothers reject authoritative Tradition, but for what it's worth the Church Fathers always held this. See the [URL=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm]linked article [/URL] for a brief explication.

I also understand that my Protestant brothers reject ecclesiatstical authority, yet again for what it's worth the Church - both East and West - consistently taught Purgatory.

The [URL=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm]article [/URL] also notes that many respected Protestant theologians conclude that there must be an intermediate state that we pass to after death.

Walter

Texas Dissident

2004-10-11 07:17 | User Profile

"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God." - 1 Peter 3:18

"The death he (Christ) died, he died to sin once for all" - Romans 6:10

"And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." - Hebrews 10:10

"Unlike the other high priests, he (Christ) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself." - Hebrews 7:27

"the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." 1 John 1:7

"One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." - Luke 23:39-43

"Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. - Romans 4:4-5

The unscriptural concept of purgatory is problematic on many levels, but primarily because it diminishes the atoning work of Christ on the cross. Regenerated sinners don't need a place to have their little sins purged because they have already been purged by Christ on the cross and His righteousness is imputed to them.

It really goes to the heart of core doctrines like justification by faith. Purgatory ties directly into Roman Catholic indulgences, semi-Pelagianism and salvation by works doctrine which as you can see in the article Methodist are closely aligned with. It makes one doubt and constantly ask the question, "Have I been good enough?" Well, let me tell you, you'll never be good enough. "There is no one righteous..."

The good news is that Jesus Christ was good enough and He atoned for your sins and His righteousness is fully available to you immediately when you believe in Him. You don't have to continue on with a burdened conscience, struggling with self-doubt and subsequently mired in defeat worried whether or not you are truly saved and will go to heaven as soon as you shed this mortal coil.

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. - Romans 5:8-11

God is good.

Walter Yannis

2004-10-11 16:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE]It really goes to the heart of core doctrines like justification by faith. [/QUOTE]

We are justified by faith, but we part ways on the Protestant idea of "faith alone." Sola Fide is directly contradicted by the Scriptures:

[QUOTE]James 2:24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. [/QUOTE] which puts it squarely in the teeth of Sola Scriptura. But since Sola Scriptura is equally central to Protestants, it would appear to be something of a fundamental dilemma for them.

If memory serves, Luther struggled with James because he thought it flatly contradicted Paul, especially in regard to his Epistle to the Romans.

How can Paul's salvation by faith be reconciled to James's salvation by works plus faith?

Well, through the traditional, orthodox doctrine of the dual consequences of sin: eternal and temporal. "Etermal" I take to mean here as almost synonomous with "Spiritual", and "temporal" as approximately "Earthly." That is, sin, both original sin and our own acts of commission and omission, have consequences both here and in the hereafter. These arise naturally from the nature of sin, and are not to be seen as additional "retribution" of God.

"Salvation by faith" goes to the "eternal" part of it. Original sin - and the serious sins we ourselves commit after baptism - cut us off from God in the spiritual realm. There was no way we could save our own souls after the Fall, and there was also nothing we could do to "deserve" salvation of our souls. Just as a natural consequence of original sin, our natural home was Hell. We were saved from eternal damnation by a free gift of God through Christ that we in no way merit. And to paraphrase the Council of Trent, if anyone says otherwise let him be anathema. In that the Catholic Church is in full and unconditioned agreement with Protestantism, at least as far as my limited understanding of these things go.

But the "eternal" consequences of sin aren't the whole story. There are also Earthly, temporal consequences of sin that must be repaired.

"Salvation by works" goes to the "temporal" (Earthly) consequences of sin. Just because we've gotten an unmerited reprieve from Hell doesn't mean that the damage we wrought in the lives of ourselves and others can be left unrepaired. We must cooperate with God's Grace to make amends for the Earthly harm we've inflicted of our own free wills. We must work with God to set right His Creation that Sin caused. That's all part of the deal. We must do pennance and, within the context of the Eternal free gift of God's Grace through Faith in Christ, we indeed do "merit" temporal atonement.

This means patiently bearing with suffering and works of mercy toward others. The good news is that we don't have to do it alone. First, we have the Sanctifying Grace of God - especially in the Sacraments - to give us the strength. Second, we have the Communion of the Saints - all of those who share in the mystical Body of Christ, both here on Earth and in the next world - who cooperate with God's Grace to form a sort of reserve of merits that God can use to assist us.

We're not alone in any of this.

But we must do it, of our own choosing.

To repeat, there is no contradiction between Paul and James, as Luther apparently believed. The Protestants have the main message of salvation by the unmerited Grace of God in Faith exactly right, but they erroneously think the story ends there. It doesn't. That's the spiritual part of the matter, but the Earthly part remains, and we are the ones who were given dominion over the Earth. We're responsible. Our actions are the thing that counts, in that Earthly, temporal context, just as they are mere filthy rags in the spiritual realm of Eternal Salvation.

IMHO, of course.

Walter

Petr

2004-10-11 18:15 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed] - " To repeat, there is no contradiction between Paul and James, as Luther apparently believed. "[/COLOR]

I must admit that the arbitrary dismissal of the inspired Epistle of James was perhaps the worst theological move Luther did.

Here's some info about it:

[url]http://www.lessonsonline.info/LutherandJames.htm[/url]

Petr

Texas Dissident

2004-10-11 18:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]We are justified by faith, but we part ways on the Protestant idea of "faith alone." Sola Fide is directly contradicted by the Scriptures: (James 2:24 "Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.")

Well, not exactly Brother Walter. From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

*123] From James 2, 24 they cite: Ye see, then, how by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone. Nor is any other passage supposed to be more contrary to our belief. But the reply is easy and plain. If the adversaries do not attach their own opinions concerning the merits of works, the words of James have in them nothing that is of disadvantage. But wherever there is mention of works, the adversaries add falsely their own godless opinions, that by means of good works we merit the remission of sins; that good works are a propitiation and price on account of which God is reconciled to us; that good works overcome the terrors of sin and of death, that good works are accepted in God's sight on account of their goodness; and that they do not need mercy and Christ as Propitiator. None of all these things came into the mind of James, which the adversaries nevertheless, defend under the pretext of this passage of James.

124] In the first place, then, we must ponder, this, namely, that the passage is more against the adversaries than against us. For the adversaries teach that man is justified by love and works. Of faith, by which we apprehend Christ as Propitiator, they say nothing. Yea, they condemn this faith, nor do they condemn it only in sentences and writings, but also by the sword and capital punishments they endeavor to exterminate it in the Church. How much better does James teach, who does not omit faith, or present love in preference to faith, but retains faith, so that in justification Christ may not be excluded as Propitiator! Just as Paul also, when he treats of the sum of the Christian life, includes faith and love, 1 Tim. 1, 5: The end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.

125] Secondly, the subject itself declares that here such works are spoken of as follow faith, and show that faith is not dead, but living and efficacious in the heart. [u]James, therefore, did not believe that by good works we merit the remission of sins and grace. For he speaks of the works of those who have been justified, who have already been reconciled and accepted, and have obtained remission of sins. Wherefore the adversaries err when they infer that James teaches that we merit remission of sins and grace by good works, and that by our works we have access to God, without Christ as Propitiator.[/u]

126] Thirdly, James has spoken shortly before concerning regeneration, namely, that it occurs through the Gospel. For thus he says James 1, 18: Of His own will begat He us with the Word of Truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of His creatures. When he says that we have been born again by the Gospel, he teaches that we have been born again and justified by faith. For the promise concerning Christ is apprehended only by faith, when we set it against the terrors of sin and of death. James does not, therefore, think that we are born again by our works.

127] From these things it is clear that James does not contradict us, who, when censuring idle and secure minds, that imagine that they have faith, although they do not have it, made a distinction between dead and living faith.

128] He says that that is dead which does not bring forth good works [and fruits of the Spirit obedience, patience, chastity, love]; he says that that is living which brings forth good works. Furthermore, we have frequently already shown what we term faith. For we do not speak of idle knowledge [that merely the history concerning Christ should be known], such as devils have, but of faith which resists the terrors of conscience, and cheers and consoles terrified hearts [the new light and power which the Holy Ghost works in the heart, through which we overcome the terrors of death, of sin, etc.].

129] Such faith is neither an easy matter, as the adversaries dream [as they say: Believe, believe, how easy it is to believe! etc.], nor a human power [thought which I can form for myself], but a divine power, by which we are quickened, and by which we overcome the devil and death. Just as Paul says to the Colossians, 2, 12 that faith is efficacious through the power of God, and overcomes death: Wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God. Since this faith is a new life, it necessarily produces new movements and works. [Because it is a new light and life in the heart, whereby we obtain another mind and spirit, it is living, productive, and rich in good works.] Accordingly, James is right in denying that we are justified by such a faith as is

130] without works. But when he says that we are justified by faith and works, he certainly does not say that we are born again by works. Neither does he say this, that partly Christ is our Propitiator, and partly our works are our propitiation. Nor does he describe the mode of justification, but only of what nature the just are, after they have been already justified and regenerated. [For he is speaking of works which should follow faith. There it is well said: He who has faith and good works is righteous, not indeed, on account of the works, but for Christ's sake, through faith. And as a good tree should bring forth good fruit, and yet the fruit does not make the tree good, so good works must follow the new birth, although they do not make man accepted before God; but as the tree must first be good, so also must man be first accepted before God by faith for Christ's sake. The works are too insignificant to render God gracious to us for their sake, if He were not gracious to us for Christ's sake. Therefore James does not contradict St. Paul, and does not say that by our works we merit, etc.]

131] And here to be justified does not mean that a righteous man is made from a wicked man, but to be pronounced righteous in a forensic sense, as also in the passage Rom. 2, 13: The doers of the Law shall be justified. As, therefore, these words: The doers of the Law shall be justified, contain nothing contrary to our doctrine, so, too, we believe concerning the words of James: By works a man is justified, and not by faith alone, because men having faith and good works are certainly pronounced righteous. For, as we have said, the good works of saints are righteous, and please on account of faith. For James commends only such works as faith produces, as he testifies when he says of Abraham, 2, 22: Faith wrought with his works. In this sense it is said: The doers of the Law are justified, i.e., they are pronounced righteous who from the heart believe God, and afterwards have good fruits, which please Him on account of faith, and, accordingly, are the fulfilment of the Law. 132] These things, simply spoken, contain nothing erroneous, but they are distorted by the adversaries, who attach to them godless opinions out of their mind. For it does not follow hence that works merit the remission of sins that works regenerate hearts; that works are a propitiation; that works please without Christ as Propitiator; that works do not need Christ as Propitiator. James says nothing of these things, which, nevertheless, the adversaries shamelessly infer from the words of James.*

..it would appear to be something of a fundamental dilemma for them.

As you see, it is nothing of the sort. Quite unlike Purgatory for Rome.

But the "eternal" consequences of sin aren't the whole story. There are also Earthly, temporal consequences of sin that must be repaired.

Uhh...scriptural support for the rest of these doctrines are where, Brother Walter? No offense, but it seems like a whole lotta extrapolatin' is going on there.

Take a load off, Walter. Unburden your conscience and accept the pure Gospel that all Scripture points toward, that is complete and full justification before God by Faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning work on the cross once and for all time. You don't have to continue on with all that doubt and self-defeat wondering if you've done enough to merit salvation and a place in heaven. All those works are like filthy rags. Christ already paid that bill in full, brother. Experience the true freedom of being in Christ. It's truly awesome.

Petr

2004-10-11 19:08 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed] - "Unburden your conscience and accept the pure Gospel that all Scripture points toward, that is complete and full justification before God by Faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning work on the cross once and for all time. You don't have to continue on with all that doubt and self-defeat wondering if you've done enough to merit salvation and a place in heaven."[/COLOR]

Amen. One Finnish Christian has written, that no soul that had really experienced the all-cleansing power of Jesus Christ's blood could have invented the doctrine of purgatory.

Perhaps the worst part of the Catholic Confession, IMO, is the article where they have a nerve to declare that a man who is sure of his salvation already in this world IS GUILTY OF THE SIN OF PRESUMPTION.

This would look like advocating de facto agnosticism!

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[COLOR=Blue]"There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God's almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit." Pg. 507, #2092 [/COLOR]

Compare: [COLOR=Red] "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that [SIZE=3]ye may know that ye have eternal life[/SIZE], and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." 1 John 5:13 [/COLOR]

Petr

Texas Dissident

2004-10-11 19:17 | User Profile

More illustration of the bonds between Roman Catholicism and Wesleyan Methodists (both are "synergists", believing man must contribute to his own salvation):

[url]http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/synergis.htm[/url]

Synergism is reference to the doctrine of divine and human cooperation in conversion. Synergism seeks to reconcile two paradoxical truths: the sovereignty of God and man's moral responsibility. Nowhere do these two truths so intersect as in the theology of conversion. One tradition within Christianity, the Augustinian, emphasizes the sovereignty of God in conversion (monergism or divine monergism). Calvin and Luther stood within this heritage. In the Small Catechism Martin Luther wrote: "I believe that by my own reason or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, and sanctified and preserved me in true faith.

The other tradition, the Pelagian, emphasizes man's moral responsibility. Modified by such Roman Catholics as Erasmus of Rotterdam and such Protestants as James Arminius and John Wesley, this position stresses the freedom of the will. Erasmus said, "Free will is the power of applying oneself to grace." During the Lutheran Reformation the synergistic controversy occurred. Scholars debate whether or not Philip Melanchthon was a synergist. Certainly he wrote that "man is wholly incapable of doing good" and that in "external things" (secular matters) there is free will, but not in "internal things" (spiritual matters). In the second edition of his Loci, however (published in 1535), Melanchthon wrote that in conversion "Three causes are conjoined: The Word, the Holy Spirit and the Will not wholly inactive, but resisting its own weakness.... God draws, but draws him who is willing. . . and the will is not a statue, and that spiritual emotion is not impressed upon it as though it were a statue."

Texas Dissident

2004-10-11 19:33 | User Profile

[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13389]Pelagianism: The Religion of Natural Man[/url]

[url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13192]A Call for a Second Reformation[/url]

Petr

2004-10-11 20:26 | User Profile

And then there's this nasty question that was already asked at the beginning of the sixteenth century:

If the Roman church really has power to influence the fate of those souls supposedly languishing in the purgatory, through its masses, why doesn't it release ALL those souls, and for free?

Petr

Walter Yannis

2004-10-12 05:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Petr. Amen. One Finnish Christian has written, that no soul that had really experienced the all-cleansing power of Jesus Christ's blood could have invented the doctrine of purgatory.[/QUOTE]

I thought you were Orthodox.

No?

Walter

Petr

2004-10-12 08:09 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed] - "I thought you were Orthodox."[/COLOR]

Oh my. Have I given so misleading image of myself?

(If you had seen my debates on the Phora, you couldn't have mistaken like this)

I'm a simple Bible-believer (who has growing attractions towards Reformed Calvinism).

Petr

Walter Yannis

2004-10-12 08:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=DarkRed] - "I thought you were Orthodox."[/COLOR]

Oh my. Have I given so misleading image of myself?

(If you had seen my debates on the Phora, you couldn't have mistaken like this)

I'm a simple Bible-believer (who has growing attractions towards Reformed Calvinism).

Petr[/QUOTE] I must be confusing you with the Ukrainian nationalist who posted here on occasion.

Sorry.

Walter

Petr

2004-10-12 08:49 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed] - "I must be confusing you with the Ukrainian nationalist who posted here on occasion."[/COLOR]

Oh yeah - you are talking about "Perun."

Incidentally, he nowadays insists that he is Eastern Catholic (Ukrainian Uniate).

Petr

Walter Yannis

2004-10-12 11:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=DarkRed] - "I must be confusing you with the Ukrainian nationalist who posted here on occasion."[/COLOR]

Oh yeah - you are talking about "Perun."

Incidentally, he nowadays insists that he is Eastern Catholic (Ukrainian Uniate).

Petr[/QUOTE]

Yes, exactly. Perun. Where has disappeared to?

Are you Russian (the spelling of the name Petr would so indicate)?

Walter

Petr

2004-10-12 12:19 | User Profile

Perun is still occasionally roaming at the Phora forum.

I am Finnish, and "Petr" is not my real name.

Petr

Walter Yannis

2004-10-12 12:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Perun is still occasionally roaming at the Phora forum.[/QUOTE] There's no accounting for taste.

Texas Dissident

2004-10-12 14:46 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]I'm a simple Bible-believer (who has growing attractions towards Reformed Calvinism).[/QUOTE]

I'm sure you may already know of them Petr, but you may want to check out the [url=http://www.alliancenet.org/]Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals[/url], particularly one scholar there named Michael Horton. I've been thoroughly impressed with his work.

Also, the following:

[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13299[/url]

It's kind of a summary article by Veith for the themes expounded upon in his book, The Spirituality of the Cross. I highly recommend it for a layman. It's not a scholarly work, but in my opinion that is what makes it so effective.

Petr

2004-10-12 15:17 | User Profile

Yeah, last night I read that article of Horton on Pelagianism, and agreed with almost every syllable.

Wasn't do-gooder Pelagianism, propagated by Finney, also the decisive factor in the birth of that self-righteous, perfectionist movement of militant abolitionism?

Petr

Texas Dissident

2004-10-12 15:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Wasn't do-gooder Pelagianism, propagated by Finney, also the decisive factor in the birth of that self-righteous, perfectionist movement of militant abolitionism?[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12751]The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney[/url]

This one had a big impact on my move away from my "decision theology", Baptist roots.