Catholic view of Purgatory ... Is it real?

PastorDaveSallee's picture

Back to ya, J

Jroberts wrote -
Well, yeah, that's how it starts. But suppose the one who bought the slave wanted to make him or her an heir? We can, in fact, look at the actual history of freed slaves, who were only freed, and not made heirs. The result is going on 140 years of free poverty and alienation from the rest of Southern culture (I'm from South Carolina, I know). Yankees freed the slaves, but they didn't adopt them. Yankees declared the slaves free, but they only declared it, they didn't actually free them from poverty and alienation. You can drive through pretty much any town in South Carolina and see this for yourself.

What point are you trying to make here? Are you refuting the analogy? Can’t tell.

Jroberts wrote -
And you definitely can pay too much attention to redemption if it's at the expense of talking about the rest of salvation.

Sure, if that’s the ONLY thing you talk about. I don’t think my comments were “too much” as that was the post at hand. It seems the Catholic dogma ignores, or at the very least, pays little attention to the doctrine of redemption, for it is a part of Christ’s complete work on the cross.

Jroberts wrote -
Your first 1 John reference does you in. He gave us the right to become children of God. The second one is last clear, as the Bible is not always particularly clear about when it's talking in the already-but-not-yet sense.

How exactly does it do “me” in? Or are you referring to the Protestant doctrine I’m attempting to apologetically teach?

Don’t cap off the quote … John 1:13 says that we have been “born by the will of God.” So add the two together (the reason they are both there) and you get that believers have been “given the right to be called children of God who were born according to His will.” If I’m born according to His will, aren’t I His child? Does my son have the right to call me his father? Sure, because I am. Look at the meaning again in context with all of John 1.

Jroberts wrote -
As for what Scripture says specifically. First, look at creation. God creates us in His image. And how's he do that, through His Word. (it's through His Word by virtue of Him saying it). What happened in the fall? That image is tarnished. Rather than reflecting the Image of God, man now seeks to hide from God. Man no longer walks with him, man is expelled from the paradise God created for him. That is, after Adam, we stop being/becoming what it is God created us to be.

We are in agreement.

Jroberts wrote -
(I don't like prooftexting, and I'm assuming you're familiar enough with it that I don't need to cite every verse).

I’m fine with that. But, your ideas should be born from Scripture, not doctrine. Add something once in a while to show us you own a Bible. (Or at least can get to www.biblegateway.com)

Jroberts wrote -
Now, to connect that to the issue at hand. The idea behind satisfaction theory is that we owed God something that only Christ could pay. What did we owe? Look again at the account of creation - God created us in His Image, we owe Him reflecting His Image. That's what scripture says God created us for, that's what we owe Him.

Are you trying to say (because of deification) that we started out as the sons of God, but are no longer? So then we must work towards sonship? If so, I don’t see how this example teaches that Purgatory is necessary for that restored sonship. Especially, when we have been redeemed and have been “born of the will of the Father.” What did Jesus mean when He coined the phrase “born again?” If I’m born, aren’t I my father’s son? So if I’m born again of the spirit, aren’t I no longer “dead in my trespasses and sins” and “alive in Christ?” What more “sonship” is required?

Let's look at Christ's parables. First, the one about the prodigal son. Do I even need to explain that? The son came back looking for mere redemption and forgiveness and was instead restored to sonship. The parable of the mustard seed? In ancient philosophy, a seed contains in it the thing it is to become; in a sense, it really is the thing that it is to become. The kingdom of God is like a seed. It starts out small, and really becomes a big tree/shrub. Look at the sermon on the Mount or on the Plain. What sort of person will be produced by following that sermon? Someone who happens to be a lot like Jesus, a lot like the very Word of God through whom we were created.

Jroberts wrote -
As for muddying-up. Emphasizing scripture is hardly muddying up. Falling into certain interpretive traps does, for instance, seeing only satisfaction and imputed justification without seeing deification.

Deification is not taught in Scripture, only illustrations of adoptions and such that are used by the RCC to create a doctrine that doesn’t exist. Justification, sanctification, and redemption, not to mention propitiation, are all Biblical words with actual definitions and many references.

Jroberts wrote -
Your next two sections are really about imputed justification, so I'll deal with them together. If all God wanted to do was to call us righteous, though we are sinner, then why even bother with Christ? Why the crucifixion? Why the parables and the transfiguration and the Eucharist and the annointing by the (maybe) prostitute and the baptism and the star at the nativity, etc.? God is omnipotent, if God doesn't want our participation in Grace, then nothing stops Him from just zapping us with it anyway. I don't mean to say that it isn't grace that does it, but only that we have to actively participate in it. I understand the connection between Christ's Incarnation, Life, Crucifixion, and Resurrection and Deification, but I don't see how they relate to God just willy-nilly calling us righteous. Why do that to His Son if He's just going to declare us as righteous?

You appear to know nothing, or very little, of the Old Testament when you say this. What did Israel do to gain God’s favor? God went to Abraham and made a covenant with him … why? To ultimately create the nation of Israel. What were they created for? To receive the special revelations of God, namely the Law.

Why did God choose Adam and Eve? Why didn’t he make Adam and Steve! (sorry) What about Paul? Was he on his way to the sacraments when God declared him righteous? No! Saul was on his way to gather and persecute more Christians. If there’s ever a person who received grace for no reason, it’s Paul.

What of Matthew? He was a tax collector. Peter was just fishing by the bay and some Guy came up and said, “follow me.” Where was Peter’s involvement?

Rom3:10 “as it is written,
"(A)THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;”

John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

Compare these two verses and I’m sure you’ll see my point.

Jroberts wrote -
Mere imputation of righteousness? Again, what do you think Christ was doing with the sermon on the Mount? Why did he say "Be perfect as your Father is perfect"? Why did Paul beat his body and make it a slave to himself, or exhort us to pray for the gifts/fruits of the spirit, etc., if nothing we do or participate in contributes to what God is doing to us?

I am not arguing that we don’t need to grow in Christ, or need to perform some forms of penance. Of course we do. I’m arguing that that growth is earthly only - with heavenly benefits.

Jroberts wrote –
Perhaps we really just need a soteriology thread.

I’m game.

-------------------------------------
Grace and peace to all,
Dave

-------------------------------------
Grace and peace to all,
Dave




Advertisements